Maritime Logistics reports that the South African Veterinary Association’s (SAVA) has released a formal position statement opposing the export of live animals by sea for slaughter at destination.

The statement reads "SAVA does not support live export of animals by sea for the purpose of slaughter upon arrival when humane alternatives are available". SAVA joins many other international veterinary associations, including VALE and the British Veterinary Association (but notably not the Australian Veterinary Association) in opposing this practice.

SAVA’s statement cites peer-reviewed scientific research to conclude that the welfare of animals transported by sea is unavoidably compromised and involves a range of inherent harms. It makes a distinction that these are not incidental risks capable of being regulated away, but rather structural features of every shipment. It is noteworthy that virtually every Australian Independent Observer report contains the Department (DAFF) line "no systemic issues" ignoring these inherent (and systemic) risks that are so well documented in the literature.

See also: https://nspca.co.za/nspca-commends-veterinary-bodys-stand-against-live-export-by-sea-trade/

The Dept released its revised Independent Observer Deployment policy today.
Whilst it is commendable the every exporter will now have to carry an IO at least once a year, very few voyages will actually have an IO and the IO summaries are still Department-sanitised whitewash:
1) adequate temperature and humidity data for the voyages is lacking thus independent assessment cannot be made 
2) heat stress is not being detected or reported by the IOs in conditions that simply have to be causing heat stress in livestock (by any research ever published and by current MLA/farmer heat stress guidelines)
3) health and welfare details now seem to be being supplied by the AAV or stockperson and not the IO with the standard IO summary line being "no systemic problems" - respiratory disease, shy feeding and lameness/musculoskeletal injuries are systemic problems in the trade and well reported to be so, so this comment is inaccurate and misleading
4) health and welfare assessments are flawed - eg cattle subjected to >30 WBT (consistent with heat stress in dairy cattle) then subjected to minus zero temperatures on a voyage to China is a major welfare concern. IOs certainly cant measure the parameters that would be required to demonstrate this objectively but this would not even pass a pub test for acceptable animal welfare. If Australia were allowed to monitor their cattle once unloaded in China, the impact of this serious temperature variation stress would most likely be evident (ie downstream health problems due to severe physiologic stress). Until such time as this follow-up data is available it should be assumed that animals exposed to such extreme conditions are experiencing adverse animal welfare conditions and likely will experience consequent health problems once unloaded.
So....bottom line is...its business as usual with the animals being the losers.. as usual. 

Maritime Executive reports that the ship, Haji Ali was attacked, blown up and sank whilst carrying livestock from Somalia to UAE. The seafarers all survived but the animals on board went down with the vessel.
Not Australian livestock, but this episode shows that livestock ships are not exempt from risk in Middle East waters.
 
https://maritime-executive.com/article/india-condemns-attack-on-small-merchant-ship-sunk-off-oman