If Australians truly want livestock to receive humane treatment in our export destinations, we must forego threats to ban the trade and be willing to partner with foreign slaughter industries to initiate long-term reform.

Since the ABC’s Four Corners program exposed the mistreatment of Australian cattle in Indonesian abattoirs in May 2011, the live export industry and animal welfare groups have both mounted PR campaigns to assist their lobbying efforts. The RSPCA and Animals Australia have sought to expose ongoing cruelty and have advocated for outright bans and tougher compliance measures. The Australian Livestock Exporters’ Council (ALEC) and other industry groups have meanwhile acknowledged the mistreatment and have taken some steps to improve conditions in export destinations including Indonesia and Vietnam, two of the largest importers of Australian livestock. As the recent coverage of cattle being killed with sledgehammers in Vietnam indicates, progress towards better practices has been slow and inconsistent.

Those who argue that live export should be abandoned in favour of frozen meat products ignore why demand exists for Australian livestock. Refrigeration remains inaccessible for poor and remote communities in Indonesia and other South-East Asian destinations. Moreover, cultural practices in many Muslim countries and festivals like Eid al-Adha demand that animals be slaughtered close to consumption. Temporary bans are also a bad option, compromising food security in destination markets, creating uncertainty for the Australian industry, and adding unnecessary tension to Australia’s already strained relationship with Indonesia.

Animal welfare is, however, the greatest reason why Australia must continue to be the main source of livestock for many parts of Asia and the Middle East. Even if Australia stopped the trade, demand for freshly slaughtered meat will remain with cattle and sheep sourced locally or from other exporters less concerned with animal welfare. We would be doing nothing more than turning a blind eye to ongoing mistreatment living with the moral satisfaction that at least Australian livestock are only be slaughtered locally. If we really care about animal welfare, then surely we should want all livestock, regardless of whether they are bred in Australia, to be treated humanely.

Faced with all these competing factors, we should not pretend there is a quick or simple solution. What is clear though is that the cycle of ‘gotcha’ moments in the Australian media showing mistreatment followed by the inevitable calls for an outright ban is counterproductive to meaningful progress on animal welfare.

Instead, all interested parties need to accept that the live export trade will continue and be ready to work with local stakeholders in trouble spots in Indonesia, Vietnam, and other export markets. The greatest ongoing problem is improving practices in smaller local abattoirs where a lack of oversight, scale, and professionalism pose significant barriers. In certain parts of Indonesia and the Middle East, cultural beliefs about slaughtering animals add an extra layer of complexity. The actual solutions to these problems are not hard to identify. Training for workers, better infrastructure, tracking of livestock, and the stunning of animals before slaughter are all obvious measures that are already in place. The difficult step is making these solutions accessible to small-scale operators while also gradually changing beliefs entrenched by hundreds of years of tradition.

Industry and Government have already made some significant advances in Indonesia. According to industry figures from May 2016, 93 per cent of cattle are now slaughtered in approved containment boxes after being stunned. The Department of Agriculture has also established the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) which aims to reduce mistreatment by controlling the supply chain and tracing livestock from the farm to the abattoir. More broadly, most slaughterhouse have moved away from old slaughter techniques using a pole and rope and have now adopted the more humane containment box technique. Even with such improvements, there is a long way to go until all export markets can slaughter livestock according to Australian standards.

While it’s important to strongly encourage higher standards of animal welfare overseas, Australians should balance their expectations with cultural sensitivity and a realistic understanding of living standards in South-East Asia and the Middle East. We must remember that high animal welfare standards are a luxury by-product of living in a developed country and that at least some of our outrage is due to the fact that most Australians never see their meat before the supermarket.

Our shock at slaughter practices and demands for change are nothing but confected outrage unless we are willing to invest in training and infrastructure for abattoirs in less developed parts of the world. All stakeholders—from animal welfare groups to the live export industry—have an important role in driving the reform and providing the resources needed to make this happen. But above all else, it will take patience and mutual respect from Australians and our export partners to improve the industry in the long term.

Hugh Piper is in the penultimate year of a Bachelor of Laws at Sydney Law School. In 2015, he was awarded First Class Honours in his Bachelor of Arts, completing a thesis that examined the role of New Deal liberalism on the post-WWII occupations of Germany and Japan to draw implications for the role of ideology in the reconstructions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Hugh currently works in strategic public relations, focusing on NGO and government strategy and research. He previously worked at Flatmates.com.au conducting policy research and advocacy for share accommodation in Australia. With an interest in progressive, independent local politics, Hugh has held leadership positions in Alex Greenwich MP and Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore’s campaigns. He plans to study in the Netherlands next year to pursue an interest in EU and international law.