WORLD BANK STUDY - CONTRACT 7146842 GLOBAL STUDY ON

RECONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC LIVE MARKETS, SLAUGHTERHOUSES AND MEAT PROCESSING FACILITIES

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
November 2009
Volume 1: Main Report

in association with

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

GLOBAL STUDY ON RECONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC LIVE MARKET, SLAUGHTER AND MEAT PROCESSING FACILITIES, INCLUDING COST RELATED COST RECOVERY AND ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Prevailing conditions at municipal livestock markets and meat plants in the developing world are substandard and current prospects for their amelioration are poor. Characterised by dilapidated and decaying buildings, damaged infrastructure and chronically bad hygiene and operational issues, facilities of this type pose a significant hazard to the health and welfare of workers, livestock, consumers and the wider environment. For a variety of reasons, capital investment to replace these facilities has not been forthcoming from the private sector in many developing countries; for example, where opportunity for meat exports to other markets exists, the private sector has built separate plants, leaving municipal facilities to continue processing for the growing number of low-income consumers in heavily-populated cities. For their own part, municipal authorities cannot increase the fees for livestock marketing and slaughter in order to rectify conditions: the illegal or informal markets already undercut them. As a consequence, municipal facilities struggle on as hygiene, welfare and food safety conditions deteriorate. Where relocation of the facilities is an option, there may be resistance or boycotts from major users of the market who fear what the move will do to their businesses: as a result, inaction is widespread and the old facilities remain in use and continue to deteriorate. Major urban centres throughout the developing world are now reliant on marketplaces and slaughterhouses which operate in sub-standard conditions and which entail a number of human, animal and environmental hazards. This study used the data gathered during a previous World Bank project1 to assess the available options for the cost-effective reconstruction and rehabilitation of livestock market and slaughter facilities in the developing world. Using the rich array of resource material which the previous study gathered in five of the Bank’s lending regions2, this report provides information on the characteristics of these facilities. It assesses available technologies, processes and materials for reconstruction and makes recommendations on the appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of these measures under a variety of conditions. Despite the very serious state of disrepair and poor operating standards, there is much than can feasibly be done to improve outcomes in the near term and bring about better welfare, safety and hygiene conditions for all parties concerned. Conducting visits to approximately 240 facilities worldwide, the LSWM study found that: • Livestock market facilities are mostly unplanned in their growth and chaotic in their operation. Animal welfare abuses are ongoing and strongly linked to the total lack of decent facilities including ramps, good road access, proper drainage, shade and access to water. Conditions are marginally better for workers and site users. The sub-standard conditions make these marketing places very susceptible to disease outbreaks. Meat plants (mainly slaughterhouses) are often adjacent to the live market centres and suffer the same crippling lack of resources. Besides deteriorating and ill-fitted buildings which compromise hygiene and worker safety on a daily basis, they are characterised by inadequate waste and wastewater disposal arrangements; absence of basic equipment for hygienic slaughter; and poor or nil access to crucial items such as hot water, lighting and knife sterilisers. These conditions are exacerbated by chronic failures in the day-to-day operations of the plants whereby product hygiene is routinely compromised; public health matters are prone to subversion by users’

1 The report is titled Global Study of Livestock Markets, Slaughterhouses and Related Waste Management Systems. February 2009. In this report its title is abbreviated to LSWM study. 2

The terms of both NKUK studies prevent the five cities from being identified but they serve to represent other cities worldwide where public sector facilities have been severely stretched over a number of years and human, animal and environmental suffering are much in evidence.

November 2009

Page i

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

commercial interests; basic ante-mortem and carcass inspection procedures are routinely ignored or performed poorly; pests and vermin proliferate; and workers receive no training in basic hygiene. Rebuilding these facilities at a new location, with more space and improved access to roads and services is certainly preferred: but in many circumstances this is not feasible due to budgetary and commercial restraints. The existing sites therefore remain in operation and the problems continue. Worse, there are observed cases where new facilities have been constructed that are wholly unsuited for the structure of the local market and its main stakeholders. As a consequence of this, and often in conjunction with higher fees being charged at the new site, the illegal market thrives and a significant investment can become redundant. In these circumstances, there are few options open to the municipal authorities. If they raise fees to pay for new building, services or equipment, business is likely to decline and the illegal market will continue to thrive. Private finance is rarely available to these municipalities and the payback periods are not feasible. Refurbishment and rehabilitation may offer the only prospect for breaking out of this cycle of disrepair and neglect. It is true that some of the infrastructural remedies – such as connection to mains sewerage, installation of facultative ponds, and plant refrigeration – are not feasible in many of the slaughter facilities visited. To install these improvements would mean virtually demolishing the plant that they are intended to improve, and in any case capital and operation costs would often prove to be prohibitive. However it is vital that this fact not be used as an excuse to do nothing but rather to act as a stimulus to identify the many other measures and technologies that can be adopted, and which are wholly suited to the physical, cultural and commercial environments in which the various plants operate in the developing world. The study team, for example, identified in Chapter 4 no fewer than 50 infrastructure-related steps capable of bringing positive changes for workers, livestock and the environment, using the “lowest cost and greatest benefit” criteria. Moreover these options are entirely appropriate and cost-efficient for the broad range of countries under discussion. One of the principal ways in which these improvements can be made to work is in not disturbing the existing labour arrangements in these facilities. Unlike in developed countries, where labour costs are high and abattoir managers try to ‘save a man’ wherever possible, labour costs in the types of facilities found in the developing world are so low that the loss of up to half a dozen workers in the slaughter and follow-on areas will make virtually no difference to the facility’s total costs. Instead of trying to eliminate labour, more benefit can be found in introducing the principles of process control which are equally as important as proper infrastructure to the successful rehabilitation of live markets and meat plants. The range of abuses of animal welfare, environmental management, product hygiene and worker safety is well-documented in the LSWM and other studies: the proper way to address this is through the introduction of adequate process controls alongside infrastructure improvements, supported by worker training and an improved understanding of why livestock, carcasses and subsequent waste products must be handled carefully. This report provides guidance on the types of technologies which are best suited to low-income and middle-income countries. It also provides evaluation tools, costings and outline designs for improvement to specific slaughter configurations by species, as well as the basic fabric of the buildings so that municipal authorities and other parties can assess the order of expenditure which is required for refurbishment. It is evident in the field notes, reports and photographic & video records which this report responds to, that working and living conditions in the locations visited are very poor indeed. There exists an enormous gulf between the conditions in these countries and those in the developed world. But rather than consign all these to the category of being fit only for demolition, it is feasible to use the tools and other criteria developed in this report to determine where and how practical and cost-effective interventions can be made in the near term and medium term. These steps – selected infrastructure upgrades combined with the introduction of basic and affordable process controls – will substantially improve the conditions under which millions of livestock ultimately die, as well as the conditions under which many thousands of labourers and citizens continue to live and work.

November 2009

Page ii

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

GLOBAL STUDY ON RECONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC LIVE MARKET, SLAUGHTER AND MEAT PROCESSING FACILITIES, INCLUDING COST RELATED COST RECOVERY AND ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 The Study and its Objectives ............................................................................................ 1 Background to the Study .................................................................................................. 1 Methodology................................................................................................................... 5

Review of Available Literature and Data ............................................................................ 8 2.1 2.2 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8 Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................................. 8

3

Finances, Regulations and Economics: Background ......................................................... 10 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Existing Regulations .......................................................................................................10 Financial Arrangements...................................................................................................13 Financial and Economic Issues .........................................................................................21 Summary ......................................................................................................................34

4

Review of Available Technologies ..................................................................................... 36 4.1 4.2 4.3 Examination of Available Technologies and Techniques ......................................................36 Identification of Appropriate Technologies and Techniques .................................................37 Summary ......................................................................................................................49

5

Conditions at Existing Facilities ........................................................................................ 51 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Introduction ..................................................................................................................51 Livestock Markets ...........................................................................................................51 Slaughter & Processing Facilities ......................................................................................55 Assessment of Capacity ..................................................................................................74

6

Comparison with Conditions in High-Income Countries ................................................... 79 6.1 6.2 6.3 Introduction ..................................................................................................................79 Comparison and Analysis ................................................................................................80 Summary ......................................................................................................................82

7

Technical Options for Improvement of Existing Facilities ................................................ 84 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 Introduction ..................................................................................................................84 Prevailing Guidelines and Regulations ...............................................................................85 Approach to Improving Existing Facilities ..........................................................................86 Identification of Technical & Infrastructure Weaknesses and Deficiencies .............................87 Buildings & Infrastructure ...............................................................................................91 Wider Environmental Issues ............................................................................................92 Page iii

November 2009

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12 8

Action Plan to Address Deficiencies ..................................................................................93 Proposed Rehabilitation Options.......................................................................................94 Smallstock Options ....................................................................................................... 101 Cattle Options .............................................................................................................. 103 Pig Options.................................................................................................................. 104 Summary .................................................................................................................... 105

Tools for the Evaluation of Existing Facilities ................................................................. 107 8.1 8.2 8.3 Need and Methodology ................................................................................................. 107 Tool for Evaluation of Livestock Markets (TEMA) .............................................................. 108 Tool for Evaluation of Meat Plants (TEMP)....................................................................... 108

9

Animal Welfare Improvements ....................................................................................... 110 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 Overview..................................................................................................................... 110 Recommendations for Specific Facilities Supported by the World Bank or Other Donors........ 110 Development and Animal Welfare for New or Refurbished Facilities.................................... 111 Management of Facilities ............................................................................................... 111 General Recommendations and Institutional Strengthening ............................................... 112 Summary .................................................................................................................... 115

10 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 116 11 References ...................................................................................................................... 119

ANNEXES (Volume 2)
Annex A: Summary of Relevant Literature Resources Annex B: Observations and Recommendations Resulting from the LSWM Study Annex C: Technical Ratings for Technologies and Techniques Annex D: Survey Instruments for Livestock Markets from LSWM Study (Confidential) Annex E: Survey Instruments for Slaughterhouses from LSWM Study (Confidential) Annex F: Comparison of Developing Countries and High-Income Countries – Livestock Markets Annex G: Comparison of Developing Countries and High-Income Countries – Meat Plants Annex H: Basic Layouts and Minimum Sizing for Slaughterhouses Annex I: Tool for Evaluation of Livestock Markets Annex J: Tool for Evaluation of Meat Plants Annex K: Additional In-Country Survey Results (Confidential) Annex L: Excerpts from Annex I of EU Council Directive 64/433/EEC Annex M: Example of Detailed Infrastructure & Capacity Assessment Annex N: Summary and Analysis of Existing Regulations

November 2009

Page iv

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 – Summary of Legislative Coverage for Country 1 ............................................................. 10 Table 3.2 – Summary of Legislative Coverage for Country 2 ............................................................. 11 Table 3.3 – Summary of Legislative Coverage for Country 3 ............................................................. 11 Table 3.4 – Summary of Legislative Coverage for Country 4 ............................................................. 12 Table 3.5 – Summary of Legislative Coverage for Country 5 ............................................................. 12 Table 3.6 – Slaughter Fee Structures in Country 1........................................................................... 14 Table 3.7 – Indicators in Developing Countries vs. a High-Income Country ........................................ 22 Table 3.8 – Livestock Numbers (‘000) in Country 1 ......................................................................... 23 Table 3.9 – Livestock Production (‘000 Tonnes) in Country 1 ............................................................ 23 Table 3.11 – Livestock Numbers (millions) in Country 2 ................................................................... 24 Table 3.12 – National Commodity Prices (US$ Equivalent) in Country 2 ............................................. 24 Table 3.13 – Comparison of Revenue and Cost in the Meat Supply Chain – Country 2 ......................... 25 Table 3.14 – Comparison of Revenue and Cost in the Meat Supply Chain – Country 3 ......................... 26 Table 3.15 – Various Fee Data for Four Cities in Country 4 ............................................................... 28 Table 3.16 – National Livestock Numbers for Country 5 ................................................................... 29 Table 3.17 – National Livestock Production for Country 5 ................................................................. 29 Table 3.18 – Stakeholders and Potential Project Initiatives ............................................................... 32 Table 4.1 – Resource Gap Analysis ................................................................................................ 36 Table 4.2 – Evaluation Categories ................................................................................................. 38 Table 4.3 – Scoring System for Each Category ................................................................................ 39 Table 4.4 – Option Rankings for Livestock Markets .......................................................................... 40 Table 4.5 – Option Rankings for Slaughterhouses and Meat Processing Facilities ................................ 41 Table 4.6 - Option Rankings for Slaughterhouses and Meat Processing Facilities (continued) ................ 42 Table 4.7 – Categorisation and Independence of Technical Options for Livestock Markets.................... 44 Table 4.8 – Categorisation and Independence of Technical Options for Slaughterhouses and Meat Processing Facilities ................................................................................................... 46 Table 5.1 – Summary of Some Building Types Encountered During the LSWM Study ........................... 66 Table 5.1 – Approximate Floor Area Required Per Carcass................................................................ 74 Table 5.2 – Estimated Chiller Area Requirements ............................................................................ 74 Table 5.3 – Estimated Number of Traffic Movements ....................................................................... 75 Table 5.4 – Floor Area for Livestock Holding Yards .......................................................................... 76 Table 5.5 – Estimated Area Requirements for Holding Yards ............................................................ 76 Table 5.6 – Minimum Water Requirements ..................................................................................... 76 Table 5.7 – Estimated Minimum Water Availability Requirement ....................................................... 77 Table 5.8 – Estimated Minimum Energy Availability Requirement ...................................................... 77 Table 5.7 – Estimated Minimum Water Availability Requirement ....................................................... 83 Table 7.1 – Examples of Primary Deficiencies by Department ........................................................... 91 Table 7.2 - General Areas for Infrastructure Assessment and Investment .......................................... 92

November 2009

Page v

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 7.3 - Environmental Issues .................................................................................................. 93 Table 7.4 – Example of Physical Infrastructure Tasks Resulting From Defects List ............................... 93 Table 7.5 - Example of Proposed Capital Works Program ................................................................. 93 Table 7.6 – Proposed Slaughter Improvements and Capacity by Species ........................................... 100 Table 7.7 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Small-Stock Basic ...................................... 102 Table 7.8 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Small-Stock 20-30 head / hour .................... 102 Table 7.9 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Small-Stock 40-60 head / hour .................... 102 Table 7.10 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Bovine Basic ............................................ 103 Table 7.11 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Bovine 10-15 head / hour ......................... 104 Table 7.12 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Bovine 15-20 head / hour ......................... 104 Table 7.13 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Pigs Basic ............................................... 105 Table 7.14 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Pigs 12+ head / hr ................................... 105 Table 7.15 – Objectives for Slaughterhouse Rehabilitation / Upgrading ............................................. 106 Table 8.1 – Criteria for Evaluation of Meat Plants ........................................................................... 109

November 2009

Page vi

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 – Severe Lack of Infrastructure, Planning & Maintenance at Livestock Markets in 2 of the Target Countries ...................................................................................................... 16 Figure 3.2 – Severe Lack of Infrastructure, Planning & Maintenance at Slaughterhouses in 2 of the Target Countries ................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 4.1 – Summary of Objective Assessments for Upgrading Works .............................................. 50 Figure 5.1 – Poor Market Location, Access and Security Arrangements are Common ........................... 52 Figure 5.2 – One of the Better-Designed and Equipped Ruminant Markets Encountered ...................... 53 Figure 5.3 – Standard Ad Hoc Market Layout .................................................................................. 54 Figure 5.4 – Where Present, Market Sanitation and Drainage were Very Basic .................................... 55 Figure 5.5 – Slaughterhouse Access Example 1 ............................................................................... 56 Figure 5.6 – Slaughterhouse Access Example 2 (The best municipal access and security arrangements encountered by a considerable margin) ...................................................................... 57 Figure 5.7 – Slaughterhouse Access Example 3 ............................................................................... 57 Figure 5.8 – Slaughterhouse Access Example 4 ............................................................................... 58 Figure 5.9 – Hall with Yard Workspace Configuration ...................................................................... 59 Figure 5.10 – Floor-Based Batch Slaughterhouse Example 1 ............................................................ 60 Figure 5.11 – Floor-Based Batch Slaughterhouse Example 2 ............................................................ 60 Figure 5.12 – Layout Plan of one of the Line Facilities Encountered, Showing Zoning ......................... 61 Figure 5.13 – Exterior Layouts of Line Facilities .............................................................................. 62 Figure 5.14 – Example of a Market Poultry Butcher/Slaughterer ....................................................... 63 Figure 5.15 – Examples of Small Private Poultry Slaughterhouse layouts; the Most Common Type Encountered ............................................................................................................ 64 Figure 5.16 – Examples of Slaughterhouse Building Exteriors .......................................................... 68 Figure 5.17 – Examples of Slaughterhouse Building Interiors ........................................................... 69 Figure 5.18 – Examples of Basic Slaughterhouse Fittings & Equipment ............................................. 70 Figure 5.18 – Manual Line Slaughterhall with no Additional Fittings & Equipment ............................... 71 Figure 5.19 – Ancillary Fittings and Equipment............................................................................... 72 Figure 5.20 – Poor Utility, Drainage and Sanitation Arrangements .................................................... 73 Figure 7.1 – Two-Stage Process for Planning Rehabilitation Options .................................................. 87 Figure 7.2 - Proposed Delivery, Holding and Processing Schedule for Livestock .................................. 97 Figure 7.1 –Booth Slaughter System .............................................................................................. 99 Figure 7.2 –Line Slaughter System ................................................................................................ 99 Figure 9.1 – Overview of a Suitable Structure to Create Animal Welfare Improvements ...................... 113

November 2009

Page vii

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

ACRONYMS
AFTA APF AWA BOOT BSE DEFRA EU FAO FSANZ GDP GMP HACCP IDPs JCTF kWhr LGU LSWM MPP OHS OIE OVI SIs SRM TB TEMA TEMP TOR USEPA USDA WTO ASEAN Free Trade Area Animal Protein Food Animal Welfare Authority Build, Own Operate, Transfer Bovine spongiform encephalopathy United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs European Union Food and Agriculture Organisation Food Standards Australia & New Zealand Gross Domestic Product Good Manufacturing Practices Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Internally Displaced Persons Japan Country-Tied Fund Kilowatt hour Local Government Unit Livestock and Slaughter Waste Management Project Meat and Poultry Products Occupational Health & Safety World Organisation for Animal Health Overall Viability Indicator Survey Instruments Specified Risk Materials Tubercle bacillus or Tuberculosis Tool for Evaluating Market Activities Tool for Evaluating Meat Production Terms of Reference United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Department of Agriculture World Trade Organisation

November 2009

Page viii

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

1
1.1

INTRODUCTION
THE STUDY AND ITS OBJECTIVES

In April 2008, Nippon Koei Co. Ltd. was contracted to undertake a study for the World Bank entitled “Global Study on Reconstruction of Public Live Market, Slaughterhouse, and Meat Processing Facilities, including Related Cost Recovery and Economic Instruments”, under a Japan Country-Tied Fund (JCTF) grant, hereinafter referred to as “the Reconstruction Study”. The Reconstruction Study was contracted via single-source selection due to its very close ties with the earlier “Livestock and Slaughter Waste Management Study”, hereinafter referred to as the “LSWM Study”, also undertaken by Nippon Koei for the World Bank. The Study commenced in May 2008. The purpose of the LSWM Study was to investigate the prevailing conditions with respect to livestock and slaughter wastes in developing countries (both low and middle-income countries). Five member countries were selected for the Study; one in each of the Bank’s official lending regions, excepting Europe and Central Asia. The purpose of the Reconstruction Study is to use the data gathered during the LSWM Study (the LSWM study team was briefed to collect additional data for the Reconstruction Study where possible) to assess the available options for the cost-effective reconstruction, refurbishment, and rehabilitation of livestock markets and slaughter and meat processing facilities in the developing world. The present Reconstruction Study draws heavily on the information and experience gathered during the LSWM Study and, as such, minimal additional fieldwork was needed for meeting the objectives. As with the LSWM Study, and to provide additional expertise in the livestock and meat processing sector, ProAnd Associates Australia Pty Ltd. (PAA) was engaged as a sub-consultant in accordance with the terms of the JCTF grant. Based on the Terms of Reference (TOR) the primary objectives of the Reconstruction Study are to: • Review the data, photos, videos, etc., collected by the LSWM Study Team on livestock, slaughter, live market and meat processing waste management. The review is to consider all aspects of design and operation of these facilities, including costs and revenues, and also addressing discharges, environmental control, and food safety aspects of these facilities. Assess the alternative technologies, techniques, and materials for animal receiving/handling/conveyance, cleaning, slaughtering, pollution control, and other key processes, discussing pros and cons for worker health and safety, animal welfare, food security, product yield and productivity, disease control (biosecurity), environmental impacts, and costs. Develop recommended construction and operation actions for the reconstruction of these facilities to address sanitation, food safety, animal welfare, and environmental control.

The Study focussed on the assessment of options for municipal facilities only3. As the LSWM Study’s main focus was the management, recycling, disposal or otherwise of waste originating from livestock markets, slaughterhouses and meat processing facilities, the Reconstruction Study does not consider off-site systems for waste disposal or recycling. 1.2 1.2.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY Overview of Wider Issues and Project Need

In developing countries, facilities for the public sale, slaughter and meat processing activities that serve local and regional markets are predominantly old, overcrowded, and unsanitary. During the late 1980’s,

3 Private sector facilities were generally in considerably better condition than the municipal facilities. Furthermore, privately run process facilities are not able to benefit from World Bank assistance (though they could potentially be considered for IFC funding). The informal sector, whilst an important problem that affects the municipal sector, cannot be examined under a reconstruction-focussed report, and is therefore also omitted from the present study. Further information on this issue is provided in the LSWM report (Nippon Koei 2009).

November 2009

Page 1

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

it was presumed that these facilities would be rebuilt via private sector investment, if private sector participation were encouraged and public capacity for procurement was developed. Unfortunately, over the past two decades widespread private sector investment has not materialized with only minimal investment occurring; predominantly in facilities that are designed to meet the import standards of higher income countries or to deliver meat products to domestic niche markets, such as hotels, restaurants, and supermarkets. New, modern, humane, and sanitary facilities are needed to address all animal marketing and processing needs; however the competition for funding, and the problems of operating costs and high tech equipment means that this ideal is unlikely to be realized. In the short term, where financing or land for new facilities is not available, the affordable and appropriate strategy is to reconstruct or refurbish existing old facilities to address some of the most critical weaknesses whilst putting higher priority on the implementation of new facilities to address the shortfall in capacity. The Reconstruction Study is therefore focused on identifying information and data on publicly owned live markets, slaughter facilities, and meat processing plants, and on developing guidance and costs for reconstruction of these facilities. Particular attention is given to issues of animal handling, holding, feeding, conveyance, and slaughter, relative to the issues of food safety, animal stress and welfare, and pollution control during the steps of transport, marketing, and meat processing. Available data that shows the animal welfare, biosecurity, food safety, and pollution control issues related to existing facilities and systems were collected and examined, both through literature search and direct field reconnaissance. Economic instruments that address the public good aspects of facilities and their health and environmental externalities are also briefly examined for potential economic/financial support to improve marketing, slaughtering and meat processing facilities. This investigation is limited, as availability of sufficient, reliable economic data has been a bugbear of the project. 1.2.2 Summary of Conclusions of the LSWM Study

The LSWM Study comprised exhaustive field survey work and considerable subsequent analysis. Whilst the subject matters are broad and the issues arising were numerous and complex (with the result that reporting was extensive), the main issues and conclusions provided by that study are briefly outlined below4:

(a)

Observations

It is clear that there are many problems associated with livestock markets, slaughterhouses, and related facilities in developing countries and that these potentially have a significant impact on both human and animal health, and the local and wider environments. The technical and financial capacity (and in some cases political will) of developing country governments to make the necessary changes is limited and there is often confusion between “competing” government departments, creating critical gaps in responsibility affecting disease control and food safety in particular. As a result, the capacity of national and regional veterinary services to ensure that meat products are safe and disease free, and to control and prevent the spread of livestock disease, is severely limited. Livestock markets are generally unplanned (with traditional ad hoc layouts), poorly managed, and severely lacking in the infrastructure, staff, and facilities necessary to ensure responsible, safe, and low risk operations. Increasing pressure on the livestock and slaughter industry to meet the demands of a growing population is particularly acute at municipal slaughterhouses where facilities and practices were often found to have remained unchanged for more than 50 years in some instances; current throughput is well beyond the original design capacity. Lack of investment and appropriate planning, and the encroachment of urbanisation, has often left facilities in the “wrong” location and with no possibilities for expansion or effective improvement. Slaughter facilities are old, manually operated, totally unhygienic, and grossly over capacity for the current mode of operation. These old facilities were often located near to watercourses or drainage channels for easy disposal of wastewater. Such disposal is unacceptable and often illegal; however, there are currently no alternatives for most of these facilities.
4

See NK 2009 for further detail

November 2009

Page 2

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Waste management has become a serious problem, and together with other environmental factors such as noise, odour, atmospheric pollution, and traffic congestion, the negative impacts of the municipal facilities on the human, physical, biological and chemical environments are usually considerable. The informal sector has clearly prospered, due to the total lack of regulation and lower costs, and is often aided by corruption. In most of the LSWM Study countries, informally slaughtered meat has become a very serious issue (and big business for those involved), particularly in urban settings, and the informal sector can sometimes be significantly larger than the formal sector. Lack of public awareness and training of workers, together with apathy within politicians and the workforce, is affecting working practices, customer preferences, and expected standards. Waste management facilities and practices at almost all sites are poor, although there are a few exceptions.

(b)

Recommendations

Waste Management
• Processing standards are generally poor and need to be addressed, but this will need a significant investment in appropriate infrastructure and training. There is an opportunity to improve current conditions, as many slaughter operations are likely to relocate outside of the urban areas over the next five years or so. It is important, therefore, that new facilities are located and constructed appropriately and not simply be a minor improvement at a larger scale in a different location. With respect to slaughter facilities, substantial upgrading or reconstruction is urgently needed at all but the best private facilities. Radical overhaul is required of existing laxity in waste storage and collection, and cleaning of sites where animal waste is created. Authorities should be penalised where they are neglecting their responsibilities for ensuring cleaning, waste collection, and disposal services are carried out to a required level; Removal of all domestic livestock from waste disposal sites and erection of stock-proof fences. Increasing the responsibilities of private operators with respect to waste-pickers / scavengers by encouraging them to bring them into the formal sector and requiring them to provide sanitary facilities and protective clothing as a minimum. Investigation into the possibility of formalising the recycling industry. Formation of knackery services to recycle animal waste into fertiliser. Creation of public awareness campaigns to motivate farmers and others to sell sick/diseased stock to knackers. Prevent illegal dumping of slaughter wastes through education and/or giving a value to the wastes. Improvement to site selection techniques and strategic planning within the waste management sector so as to avoid problems with respect to efficient operation and disposal of special wastes. Increase emphasis on control of vermin by monitoring mandatory rodent control. Improvement of slaughter waste handling techniques, particularly with respect to veterinary inspection failures (pathogenic waste). Introduction of a system of health monitoring to ensure that diseases in general and certain zoonoses in particular are actually reduced.

• • • • •

• • • • • • • •

November 2009

Page 3

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Disease Control and Animal Health
• • Restructuring of the government agencies responsible for animal health, public health and the environment, or at least the implementation of cooperation programmes. Provision at all markets and slaughterhouses of basic and easily understood information on the major diseases that can be transmitted as part of the livestock sale and slaughtering processes, such as hydatidosis and cystercicosis, as well as easily understood instructions for prevention and identification. Instigation of a method of animal tracking that is effective and allows full traceability, this could initially be based upon a tail-tagging system for animals being moved with the regulator being the controller and issuer of the tags. An initial basis for a system such as this already exists in some countries through livestock movement certificates. Review of certification practices for vaccination, identification, transport, and post mortem so as to ensure the desired results are obtained; only to be attempted once a functional tracking system is in place, however. Stronger political will to deal with the illegal livestock production industry in all its stages. This cannot be achieved with legislation alone, and will also require that greater efficiencies of production and cost reductions be achieved within the formal aspects of livestock production. Increasing the number of agricultural extension staff in rural areas that have an impact on the meat production cycle in the city. Obvious areas would include feedlots, animal nutrition, home slaughtering and butchering, and animal handling. It is apparent that a good infrastructure and knowledge base often exists in these fields, but it is equally apparent that the knowledge is not being disseminated effectively.

Miscellaneous
• Change is certainly possible, and in some areas, such as waste management practices, it is already underway at some locations. With focus on the following key areas, minimal work could have a considerable beneficial effect on the improvement of conditions within the industry, with the resulting improvement in public health that these improvements would bring: Investment in the basic upgrading (and in some cases replacement) of municipal slaughterhouse and live market facilities. Obligation of municipalities to spend fees collected at live markets and slaughterhouses on the provision, upgrading, and maintenance of the same facilities. Attempt to eradicate the corruption that encourages the informal slaughter and meat sector. Implementation of national education campaigns. Implementation of food safety and hygiene training for municipal staff, as well as private operators and butchers. Acceptance of / education on the rendering of slaughter wastes (including blood) as an environmental, financial, and sanitary benefit. However, the market for such products must be established and encouraged. For further information on the various issues outlined above (in addition to many other peripheral observations and recommendations), as well as a full record of all field survey work, please refer to the LSWM Study Final Report.

• • • • • •

Overall it is clear that the LSWM Study found little in the way of positive findings to report on, and in general the situation on the ground in the countries visited was nothing short of appalling. Preliminary reactions to the LSWM report have been of considerable surprise at the extent of the problems.

November 2009

Page 4

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

1.3 1.3.1

METHODOLOGY Rationale

The Reconstruction Study was a separate contract to the preceding LSWM Study; however the two projects were designed very much in parallel by the World Bank. It was originally the Bank’s intention for the Reconstruction Study to be undertaken simultaneously with the LSWM Study. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the original funding for the Reconstruction Study was delayed, and as such the planned coordination between teams / studies was not possible. At the time of the LSWM field studies, it was not known how the follow-on Reconstruction Study would be implemented, but the LSWM Study Team was requested to collect as much data as possible on the infrastructure encountered, with a view to eventually using that information for the Reconstruction Study. The Bank subsequently secured funding from the Japanese government for the Reconstruction Study and it was decided that Nippon Koei, as consultants for the LSWM Study, would be the most suitable consultants for implementation of this further contract. Whilst the Reconstruction Study has distinct TOR, due to its heavy reliance on the data and field experience gathered by the LSWM Study it is appropriate to provide a brief overview of both methodologies, as the LSWM field methodologies are an important input to the Reconstruction Study. 1.3.2 Summary of LSWM Methodologies

One country was selected from each of the Bank’s five lending regions and one target city was selected from each country5. The selected countries and cities were determined and agreed with the Bank and included three low-income countries (in East Asia, South Asia, and Africa) and two middle-income countries (in North Africa and South America). Following country and city selection, the next task was to design and develop appropriate Survey Instruments (SIs) for use during the country reconnaissance visits. These were essential to ensure quality and consistency during the data collection exercise, as the information contained within them would ultimately determine the technical options developed and the outputs of the Final Report. The survey instruments / reconnaissance checklists covered the following main areas: • • • • • • Government and municipal officials; Livestock markets; Public markets; Slaughterhouses; Meat processing facilities; and Waste storage, collection and disposal.

Whilst in the field, the following additional facility types were also visited where possible: • • • • • Farms and rearing/production facilities (e.g. feedlots and feed mills); Solid waste management facilities and transport companies; Wastewater treatment facilities; Retail butchers; and Supermarkets.

The country reconnaissance visits focussed on the collection of primary data and followed the same general plan, with variations according to local conditions: (i) (ii) Pre-visit planning and initial coordination with the local World Bank offices. Where possible, an initial meeting was held with local World Bank officers, to obtain relevant information and necessary correspondence to ensure adherence to local protocols for meetings, visits to facilities, and photography / filming. Meetings with city government officials to introduce the objectives and gain their support and

(iii)
5

With the exception of Middle Income Country 2, which had two target cities due to the differing situations and close proximities

November 2009

Page 5

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

assistance; to collect data on facilities and their locations, local practices; and to obtain any necessary permission for facility visits and professional photography / filming. (iv) (v) (vi) Surveys to collect primary data on existing facilities. Identification of links for animal-to-human diseases relating to livestock handling and slaughter wastes. Collection of relevant data (primary and secondary) on chemical residuals used in animal feeds and anti-microbial substances in meat products that could be detrimental to human consumption. Identification and collection of other related and available secondary data, including economic and financial data where available. Collection of basic data on the condition of facilities and related infrastructure, including drawings (if readily available) and photographic / video footage, where possible. This task was specifically designed with the Reconstruction Study in mind. Engagement and management of a local media / film company to capture professional footage of stakeholder interviews and facilities for a proposed Bank video production.

(vii) (viii)

(ix)

During the course of the country visits, the team took large numbers of photographs and recorded many hours of video footage of physical infrastructure and activities at the facilities visited in the selected cities; to provide the Bank with some context for the collected data and the analyses undertaken. To facilitate ease of location of facilities in each city, handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) devices were used. The coordinates collected were used to locate the facilities in satellite imagery using Google Earth software; thus enabling facility layouts, dimensions, and environs to be examined during the Reconstruction Study. 1.3.3 Methodology for the Reconstruction Study

The Reconstruction Study was essentially a desk-based study to assess the existing conditions at livestock markets and slaughterhouses in developing countries and to examine available technologies that could be employed to provide appropriate and low-cost upgrades to such facilities. The aim of any upgrades should be to provide improvements to basic infrastructure and operating conditions to acceptable national and / or international standards, without the need to introduce expensive and often inappropriate technologies. In addition to the desk-based study, additional in-country surveys were included with the aim of gathering additional data on socio-economic issues and a summary of any changes since the previous surveys were undertaken under the LSWM Study. The results of these further surveys are provided in Chapter 3 and Annex K. In accordance with the agreed Terms of Reference, the Reconstruction Study was divided into four study phases, each broken down in to a number of tasks as follows: • Phase 1 – Review of Data and Available Technologies: o o o • Coordinate with the LSWM Study Team. Examine data on livestock markets, slaughterhouses, and meat processing facilities. Examine various technologies, techniques, materials, and supplies available.

o Identify appropriate technologies, techniques, materials, and supplies. Phase 2 – Assessment of Existing Conditions: o o o o o Examine key municipal regulations and financial arrangements. Examine the existence and potential for economic instruments. Examine sanitary conditions, facility layout, and construction details. Assess the key issues observed versus methods in high-income countries. Assess existing facility space and maximum capacity. Examine proposals for refurbishment or reconstruction of facilities. Develop budgetary cost estimates for technical options. Page 6

Phase 3 – Examination of Technical Options: o o

November 2009

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

o •

Examine potential scenarios for disease outbreaks and environmental damage. Draft Final Report. Presentation for World Bank staff. Final Report.

Phase 4 – Final Reporting: o o o

To facilitate the future assessment of facilities, which all have distinct designs, operation and shortcomings, in a logical and consistent manner, draft frameworks (or tools) have been developed that aim to provide a consistent approach to: • • Assessing an individual facility; and Identifying and prioritising areas for improvement.

These tools provide a standardised approach and grading system which can be applied to developing countries and high-income countries alike. Whilst the report is concerned primarily with livestock markets and slaughterhouses, the findings can also be applied to meat processing facilities; however, since most traditional meat processing facilities (such as sausage factories or the like) are privately-owned and, in developing countries, generally cater to niche high-end markets they tend to fall outside the scope of this study. In some locations, slaughterhouses and facilities for the processing of offal / fifth-quarter materials or boning of meat may take place separately; in this case, the non-slaughter operations are considered to be meat processing facilities. For the purposes of the evaluation tools, discussed in Chapter 9, meat plants include both slaughterhouses and meat processing facilities as described here.

November 2009

Page 7

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

2
2.1

REVIEW OF AVAILABLE LITERATURE AND DATA
INTRODUCTION

A large compendium of information resources was gathered during the LSWM Study. This was reviewed alongside additional literature gathered for this study, in order to: • • Identify the key issues encountered in the field; and Identify potential reconstruction options, including techniques, technologies, materials, systems, etc.

The main types of information that have direct relevance to the Reconstruction Study are: • • Field data, consisting of survey instruments (SIs), photographs, video footage, plans, notes, and minutes of meetings; Suggestions and ideas contained in the Study Teams’ field notes, and as discussed between the two study teams, including recommendations and suggestions contained within the reports for the LSWM Study; and Published literature, codes, and standards.

It is very difficult to transcribe in a succinct and effective manner a record of the review of the above items, due to: • • • The considerable variation in media types, and the problems associated with displaying a review of imagery media; The vast amount of data collected; and The fact that a considerable amount of experience and comparison of direct relevance exists amongst team members who are involved in both studies (see note 1 below) but which cannot efficiently transcribed for review.

Notwithstanding the above, and to maximize the value of the material gathered under the LSWM Study, it was necessary to develop some methodologies to allow for systematic assessment and selection of technologies to bolster the more subjective areas of the study. Three matrices were therefore developed which present the myriad of data as simply as possible. 2.2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Prior to beginning the initial LSWM and literature review tasks described above, the team discussed the key reconstruction-related issues encountered in the field, as well as the potential opportunities and constraints with respect to the reconstruction of facilities. Key points of note resulting from the initial discussions are as follows: • • Due to the generally very poor quality infrastructure observed during the LSWM Study, there is considerable scope for reconstruction options; In many countries, facilities were often lacking in even the most basic infrastructure and utilities; as a result of this, minimal investment is expected to have considerable beneficial impact on local environment, animal and human health, animal welfare, occupational health and safety, and meat quality (sustainability, however, is a critical issue); Despite the above, it is critical that the options to be examined in detail should be appropriate to a developing country context, and should not be overly complex or high-tech; Whilst the present study is by definition looking at physical infrastructure, this alone will not provide sustainable change to the sector in most developing country settings; Certain differences in needs were noted from region to region and country to country, however, the reconstruction options forming the output of the study should be broad and widely applicable so as to overcome the need for detailed study on a country by country basis; and Due to the complex nature of the meat processing industry and its interaction with local conditions it is very difficult to meet the above requirement with regard to provision of broadly applicable technical options for reconstruction.

• • •

November 2009

Page 8

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

In addition to the discussions on issues and the preparations for the literature review, the teams exchanged reports, literature, notes and photos, forming a compendium of relevant information to be drawn upon throughout the Reconstruction Study. Whilst some of this material was sourced during the conduct of the LSWM Study it was further supplemented at the start of the current study through searches for reports, projects, guidelines, and policies specifically concentrating on measures, equipment, practices and technologies for addressing the main challenges of animal welfare, worker safety, environmental management and food safety. This compendium of literature was then reviewed and those documents that were not relevant to the scope of the Reconstruction Study were removed. Those that were relevant were entered into a matrix (by title and filename), with a summary of the content entered alongside. The results of the literature review are summarised in Annex A – Summary of Relevant Literature Resources. Of note from the literature search is the relative paucity of work on the livestock market sector compared to the slaughter and processing stages. The gap analysis was further developed in the subsequent tasks and is described in Chapter 3 below. The material presently available is generally restricted to narrow areas of operation, such as outbreak control and management or identification of specific animal welfare issues6; there is little published material on construction or modification of livestock markets or market centres; worker safety in this environment; or management of the environmental impact of livestock holding areas in built-up urban locations. Also of relevance is the fact that much of the published material on the slaughter and processing stages comes from a few main sources: again, FAO, OIE and to a lesser extent USDA. In the past ten to fifteen years, a large contribution to the information in the area has also been published by instruments of the European Union (EU), including the European Commission, and the United Kingdom’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The literature from these latter sources consists of inter-related guidelines and protocols aimed at standardising and improving waste handling and disposal issues; raising awareness of animal welfare and worker safety concerns; and recommending best practice techniques for environmental management and for food safety. However, much of the literature is more relevant to high-income countries where building, environmental, and food inspection standards are constantly evolving and have become enmeshed into day-to-day business practices regardless of changes in national government or economic crises. A common characteristic of much of the literature is, firstly, that the measures and codes can be introduced and maintained within a larger regulatory framework by an efficient public sector and, secondly, that there is a sound level of education and competence already in existence among workers, health officials, inspectors and planners, with low levels of corruption. These assumptions are simply not realistic in most developing country settings, and as such the literature loses a lot of its value. Furthermore, in developing countries, access to the types of reports and guidelines which are referenced in Annex A is often difficult and problematic; application of the material contained therein also brings with it many challenges of resources, competence, and authority. The literature search did identify numerous practical and useful studies and reports completed over the past two decades that examine specific aspects of a problem or challenge and present equally practical solutions, or steps for improved management. Examples include elementary dressing techniques and basic equipment requirements to minimise carcass contamination and simple measures to prevent blood contamination of waterways. The identification of these guides and reports also served to emphasise the ongoing need for this type of support for operators in the developing market settings as they wait for the opportunity to build or install better infrastructure and equipment and adopt improved working practices.

6

E.g. through OIE and FAO publications

November 2009

Page 9

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

3

FINANCES, REGULATIONS AND ECONOMICS: BACKGROUND

During the LSWM study visits it soon became clear that whilst infrastructure issues encountered represent the tangible side of the overall problems, these are strongly affected by existing political, financial and legislative arrangements. An attempt was therefore made to gather as much data as possible on these less tangible issues, and an overview and analysis of the existing situation and potential solutions is provided below. 3.1 3.1.1 EXISTING REGULATIONS Introduction

In developing countries, legislation governing the management of livestock markets, slaughterhouses, and meat processing facilities varies considerably from country to country; some have practically no legislation, others have regulations that are basic and outdated, and others have a large body of legislation, frequently adopted or “borrowed” with little adaptation from other countries. The lack of financial and institutional capacity and political will often results in any legislation that does exist being widely ignored, even in those developing countries where legislation is found to be in abundance. Despite the above, recent worldwide events, in particular those relating to BSE, Avian Influenza (H5N1), and most recently Swine Flu (H1N1), have helped to draw attention to the holes in legislation and institutional capacity in many countries, and some are beginning to introduce certain new measures and regulations, with various degrees of success. The current general legislative situation, including key regulations (as were available) for the countries visited, are provided and assessed in Annex N. A brief overall summary and is provided below. 3.1.2 Country 1

Examination of the relevant acts and legislation reveals a relatively comprehensive and effective legal framework for the management of animal and human health in Country 1. However, it is concluded that whilst Country 1 has many legal instruments in place to control the slaughtering and meat processing sector, in practice there is very little implementation or compliance. On the positive side, a system of livestock movement permits that flow through with the animals carcass to retail has been implemented in the sector, in particular to monitor and control poultry movement resulting from the Country’s recent difficulties with avian influenza. As with all countries visited, it is difficult to obtain all relevant decrees and laws, however a tentative summary of the likely situation with regards to legislation is provided in Table 3.1. It is recommended that subsequent study is directed towards a full legal review of the sector. The legal review should also attempt to assess the degree of implementation and monitoring of compliance that occurs. Table 3.1 – Summary of Legislative Coverage for Country 1 Perceived Level of Legislation Area of Concern Municipal livestock markets Municipal slaughterhouses Meat processing facilities Animal epidemiology Animal Welfare Human Health / Hygiene Animal feeds and the use of antimicrobials and metals Waste management Good Acceptable Weak None exist None Found

November 2009

Page 10

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

3.1.3

Country 2

A basic assessment of the perceived level of legislation for Country 2 is included in Table 4.2. This shows that whilst legislation is generally rather weak, it does have some provisions regarding slaughterhouse management and good environmental laws.

Table 3.2 – Summary of Legislative Coverage for Country 2 Perceived Level of Legislation Area of Concern Municipal livestock markets Municipal slaughterhouses Meat processing facilities Animal epidemiology Animal Welfare Human Health /hygiene Animal feeds and the use of antimicrobials and metals Waste management Good Acceptable Weak None exist None Found

3.1.4

Country 3

A basic assessment of the perceived level of legislation for Country 3 is included in Table 4.3. It can be seen from the table that the overall situation is very weak and significant work is required to improve the situation. However, this situation could be more beneficial than if a large volume of complex legislation existed; since it may be easier to introduce new ‘appropriate’ legislation rather than trying to amend existing laws. Table 3.3 – Summary of Legislative Coverage for Country 3 Perceived Level of Legislation Area of Concern Municipal livestock markets Municipal slaughterhouses Meat processing facilities Animal epidemiology Animal Welfare Human Health /hygiene Animal feeds and the use of antimicrobials and metals Waste management Good Acceptable Weak None exist None Found

3.1.5

Country 4

A basic assessment of the perceived level of legislation for Country 3 is included in Table 3.4. There is very little in the way of good ‘appropriate’ legislation and inspection and enforcement. Food safety is the responsibility of veterinarians within the Ministry for Agriculture instead of a being a dedicated food safety unit staffed by food technologists and healthcare professionals.

November 2009

Page 11

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 3.4 – Summary of Legislative Coverage for Country 4 Perceived Level of Legislation Area of Concern Municipal livestock markets Municipal slaughterhouses Meat processing facilities Animal epidemiology Animal Welfare Human Health /hygiene Animal feeds and the use of antimicrobials and metals Waste management Other relevant laws Good Acceptable Weak None exist None Found

3.1.6

Country 5

Table 3.5 shows that the legislation already in place for Country 5 is generally of a high standard, with the exception of that for animal welfare and livestock markets. As with many developing countries, although the legislation can be comprehensive the real problem is that of allocation of responsibilities, implementation, funding, and policing.

Table 3.5 – Summary of Legislative Coverage for Country 5 Perceived Level of Legislation Area of Concern Municipal livestock markets Municipal slaughterhouses Meat processing facilities Animal epidemiology Animal Welfare Human Health / Hygiene Animal feeds and the use of antimicrobials and metals Waste management Other relevant laws Good Acceptable Weak None exist None Found

November 2009

Page 12

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

3.2 3.2.1

FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS Introduction

Details of municipal financial management and operation of livestock markets and slaughter facilities were very difficult to obtain; however the LSWM Study Team was able to acquire a reasonable understanding of the fees, costs, transactions and arrangements that occurred in the marketplace and the shop floor, and these are documented in the Survey Instruments and reports produced for the LSWM Study7. Where information was obtained, it was generally only verbal, through meetings and discussions with municipal officers; little in the way of hard data, calculations or official records was provided. Whilst detailed information on the budgets, fees, accounting, funding sources, expenditure, and planning was not generally available, the LSWM Study Team gained insight into the probable realities of the commercial operations. In most cases the facilities were under-maintained and under-staffed, with poor facilities, due to one (or a combination) of three main problems: • • • Lack of funding from central or local government; Lack of reinvestment of user charges/fees; and Corruption and other malpractice.

General descriptions by country are provided below for available information on: • • • • • 3.2.2 Municipal budgets for markets and processing; User charges; Account segregation – coverage of current costs/expenditures; Investment outlays over past 5 years; and Political will and corruption. Country 1

General Description:
Public slaughterhouses are generally operated by local cooperatives that have been given a concession to provide a slaughterhouse for the area or region. The infrastructure of the slaughterhouse is owned by the cooperative and is made available to meat traders on a fee basis. The meat traders generally provide or source the livestock and also provide the labour required for the slaughtering process. This model is mainly for pigs and poultry; the much smaller cattle sector is handled almost entirely by small private slaughterhouses, most often family businesses. This mechanism has provided an incentive for traders to set up privately operated slaughterhouses and these were observed to be operating for poultry, pigs and cattle. There does not appear to be facilities where anyone can deliver livestock and have it slaughtered for a fee (unless they have an arrangement with an existing trader). Most traders pay a monthly fee to the local government unit (LGU) for access to the stall position and to pay for market maintenance. Fees are typically in the range US$ 65-195 per month, which is used by the cooperative to maintain facilities (including cleaning).

Available municipal budgets for markets and processing
No budgets or accounts exist, or were available, at the municipal level for the operation of the markets or slaughterhouses as they are either run through the cooperative or LGU structure or are privately operated.

User charges
Basic descriptions of the slaughter fees in Country 1 are provided in Table 3.6

7

Nippon Koei (2009)

November 2009

Page 13

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 3.6 – Slaughter Fee Structures in Country 1 Animal Poultry Description In the formal processing sector there are fees charged as each business is structured to buy live birds and sell finished products whilst covering the costs of operation within the sale price. In the markets it is not uncommon for the slaughter fee to be very small and often the stall trader will conduct the process for free in order to obtain the sale of the live bird. The pork retail buyer essentially pays for the slaughter fee in his purchase transaction. The buyer selects his pig and then the supply/slaughter business processes the animal, sells the fifth quarter on to fifth quarter operators, and then sells the pig carcass to the retail buyer. The fifth quarter revenue significantly exceeds the slaughter cost and the overall transaction is conducted without any imposition of a dedicated slaughter fee. The cattle slaughter business processes the beef animal in its own right and sells the meat, bones, and other edible and inedible items directly to customers. The cost of slaughter is encompassed in the overall transaction without identification of a separate slaughter fee.

Pork

Cattle

Account segregation – coverage of recurrent costs/expenditures
Observation of the cooperative/LGU facilities and a top level review of income and expenditure indicate that the accounts are run in a manner whereby daily operating costs are covered but there is insufficient income to cover the costs of adequate maintenance, or investment in any improvements to the infrastructure.

Investment outlays over past 5 years
There has been almost no investment by the cooperatives / LGUs that currently provide slaughtering infrastructure except for poultry, where some efforts have been made following problems with avian influenza. Poultry is easily slaughtered in market locations and there has been a concerted effort to reduce the amount of market slaughter through the provision of improved poultry slaughtering facilities. The principal reason for the lack of investment in non-poultry facilities is the ongoing discussion and planning regarding relocation of slaughter facilities to outside the city limits. The private sector has invested in both poultry and pork processing in the last 5-10 years; however, due to the increased unit costs associated with these more mechanised operations, they have not been able to capture any significant proportion of the slaughter numbers for either species.

Political Will and Corruption
There appears to be extensive political will to improve the sector, as indicated by the recent legislation in the meat sector. However, the legislation leads implementation and enforcement. Currently the drive is to relocate slaughtering and meat processing into specific peri-urban areas. The drivers for this change, however, appear to be largely economic and environmental (recover more valuable land and move noise, odour, and waste-water into peri-urban locations) rather than any drive to improve hygiene and food safety. There does not appear to be any endemic corruption in either the currently operating industry or in the planning processes for relocation of the sector. 3.2.3 Country 2

General Description:
The ownership and maintenance of individual slaughterhouses is under the control of District Councils but most slaughterhouses are managed at the Municipal Authority level. Municipal Authorities normally call for private tenders to collect market and slaughterhouse entry fees. These contracts require the payment to the MA of a fixed fee per annum with the operator keeping excess fees generated as profit.

November 2009

Page 14

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Available municipal budgets for markets and processing
In Country 2 the livestock markets are established by municipal and local authorities but the right to manage the market is generally let by tender to a contractor who collects the market fees. Under this system the collection of fees takes priority over the provision of services and amenities to market users. Similarly, in the formal slaughter sector facilities are generally owned by local authorities who charge fees on a per head basis, again often collected by a contractor. The animals entering the slaughter facility are owned by the wholesale meat trader or retailer who pay the entry fee and also pay a fee to the flayers who provide the slaughtering and dressing services. The flayers collect fees from the wholesaler and retailers and do not make any payment to the local authority owner of the slaughter facility. Based upon the system described above, the local authorities budget for provision of basic maintenance and inspection staff, but indications are that very few staff actually visit the site. Due mainly to the negligent operation methods outlined rather than good business practice, processing facilities in Country 2 usually generate income. Local authorities should be concerned that the operations contracts awarded are not being honoured in terms of upkeep and provision of amenities, however this was not generally observed to be of concern. Another worrying issue is the present lack of any responsibility or mechanisms for investment in new facilities.

User charges
As mentioned above, livestock market traders pay a fee per head to bring animals into the sale. The poultry association charges traders a monthly fee for provision of services and for payment of council charges; there is no transaction fee per head payable. There are essentially only two fees charged in the entire slaughtering and fifth quarter sector: • • A company contracted to the Municipality collects a per head fee at the gate. This allows use of the facility (and thereby access to the flayers) and also provides for compliance stamps. The flayer charges the butcher a fee to conduct the slaughter and dressing of the animal. The flayers pay a token registration fee to the MA to allow them to operate in the slaughter house.

It was reported that in some instances the flayer retained the neck meat, mesenteric fat, and fat trim as an in-kind portion of the payment. This is expected to be due to these products being more easily accumulated by the flayer for selling on to the fat recovery businesses. There are many other transactions taking place particularly around the sale of skins, hides, heads, feet/hooves, and other fifth quarter products; however, all of these generate revenue for the butcher albeit that the buyer takes into account his own costs and trading margin.

Account segregation – coverage of recurrent costs/expenditures
The accounting situation is unclear, but considering the operating contractor is responsible for recurring costs and expenditures, as well as maintenance, it is assumed that account segregation is not undertaken. As previously noted, it is suspected that the contractors do not fulfil their obligations with respect to this aspect of their obligations.

Investment outlays over past 5 years
It is unclear whether or not investments in market and slaughterhouse infrastructure is the responsibility of the contractor or the local authorities, however one suspects that it lies with the local authorities, who should be duly setting at least a portion of the contract fees aside for that purpose. It would be difficult to except contractors to invest in infrastructure if the danger of losing the contract to competitive tender was present.

Political Will and Corruption
No evidence of overt corruption was observed in any of the facilities inspected in Country 2; however, it would appear that stamping of carcasses has little or nothing to do with health or hygiene status. Whilst no details were made available of actual expenditure incurred by the local authorities responsible for these facilities, it seems that the actual staffing was well below the numbers indicated in the budgets. Indicative budgets for all the facilities inspected indicate that a considerable annual surplus is generated in each case, but very little, if any of these funds are being reinvested in maintenance and improvement of the facilities.
November 2009

Page 15

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Figure 3.1 – Severe Lack of Infrastructure, Planning & Maintenance at Livestock Markets in 2 of the Target Countries

November 2009

Page 16

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

3.2.4

Country 3

General Description:
Small-stock livestock markets tend to operate out of the cattle markets as well as being scattered throughout urban areas. The informal slaughter sector for small-stock is very strong in Country 3. There is no official estimate on the size of the informal market although estimates exist of around 200,000 cattle and 2.5 million smallstock being slaughtered each year outside the formal system. There is no reliable check on the Urban Agriculture Department’s estimates but there are known to be at least 35 informal markets spread throughout the city. They can be found in recreation areas, on highway roundabouts, near the butcher shop areas where small-stock are easily processed, on vacant land, or beside creeks. This is clearly a problematic situation on a number of levels, not least due to the inadequate facilities and lack of control over animal health, food hygiene, and waste disposal. Slaughter facilities are operated by the Country 3 Enterprise (LIC3E) which is a self-funding division of the City Government. Its main income is derived from the service fees charged for the slaughter of cattle, calves, goats, sheep, and pigs.

Available municipal budgets for markets and processing
In Country 3, local cattle markets have been established by municipal authorities, who also provide operational staff and basic support utilities including water, electricity, and telephone. The fees collected are well in excess of budgeted operating costs. Some small-stock are sold in these markets, but the majority change hands at small suburban markets located on vacant land or street corners throughout the city. The main slaughter facility in Country 3 is operated as a government-owned corporation. Financial information provided to the LSWM Study Team indicated that the corporation was operating profitably and from time to time investing in new equipment and repairs and maintenance to existing buildings and equipment; but profits are small and these improvements are minimal in the overall scheme of things. Smaller slaughterhouses operated by the municipality are basic facilities which have only minimal budgets to cover a small slaughter staff.

User charges
All traders utilising the municipal livestock markets are required to pay a fee per head to bring animals into the facility. Most cattle are sold through such facilities, while almost all sheep and goats are sold through informal suburban markets. All animals brought to the small municipal slaughterhouse are charged for via a single fee which includes entry to the facility, slaughtering, and dressing. The facility is basic, the service is basic, and the fee is basic. Animals brought to the main slaughterhouse incur a larger fee which pays for slaughter, government tax, municipal tax, inspection, and association fees. It is unknown how these fees compared to fees operating in the informal sector. Clearly the municipal slaughterhouse was attempting to keep fees as low as possible in order to hold on to the business and discourage the informal market. It also provided a subsidised service for processing older sheep with the aim of making meat from the slaughterhouse more affordable, discouraging the informal market and helping stock owners to dispose economically of older animals. In all cases at the municipal slaughterhouses, the butcher retains ownership of the entire animal, only leaving that material which is not readily saleable for disposal by the slaughterhouse.

Account segregation – coverage of recurrent costs/expenditures
The main slaughterhouse maintains a full set of accounts which details all the various revenue items, but is less informative about costs, where the bulk of expenditure is tied up in materials, labour, overheads, or administration.

November 2009

Page 17

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Figure 3.2 – Severe Lack of Infrastructure, Planning & Maintenance at Slaughterhouses in 2 of the Target Countries

November 2009

Page 18

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Investment outlays over past 5 years
No significant investment for the slaughterhouses has been made in the past 5 years other than two small investments in the rendering facilities: • • Re-commissioning of existing rendering batch cookers to efficiently handle putrescible waste; and Installation of bagging machinery for meat and bone meal products.

The main slaughterhouse was also involved in another financial initiative; participation in a joint venture for sale of fertiliser products. The next investment project under planning is the provision of cooled into delivery vehicles, although the timing of this scheme was not confirmed. There are plans for significant investment to construct five new modern slaughterhouses around the periphery of the city, but the realisation and timing of these is not known.

Political Will and Corruption
The authorities are aware of the shortcomings of the current facilities, particularly in respect of informal slaughtering, however due principally to poverty there are currently limited opportunities for change. is evident in the general policing of current legislation, particularly with respect to informal slaughter by butcher shops. 3.2.5 Country 4

General Description:
The facilities for livestock marketing and slaughtering in Country 4 are all controlled by municipalities. The Study team found that it was widely reported that these facilities generated large amounts of income for the municipalities, and previous attempts by ministries other than the Ministry of Interior (under which the municipalities fall) to gain some form of control have been vehemently resisted. Whilst the Ministry for Agriculture (who provide veterinary support to the municipal facilities) acknowledge the considerable lack of support, finance, and investment on behalf of the Ministry of Interior and municipalities, they are presently powerless to improve on the status quo, with the municipalities continuing to cling on to power. User charges are clearly not used to improve market operation, nor in the provision or improvement of infrastructure, of which very little exists.

Available municipal budgets for markets and processing
The municipal budgets for the management and operation of slaughterhouses and livestock markets are allocated centrally and are not based on income generated from the previous year’s activities in the field, nor any particular development strategy. The Team suspects that the majority of the fees collected are directed to other sources, and are not reinvested in the sector as part of the budget for maintenance and infrastructure replacement. Whether or not all of the fees collected even reach the municipal coffers is another wholly valid question.

User charges
For livestock markets in Country 4, vendors all reputedly pay a fee to the municipality for access to the market. In theory, this payment should be at least partially re-invested in the market but in practice it enters consolidated revenue. Whilst one might expect vendors to demand better services in return for their fees, it appears that they simply accept the lack of standards as normal, and view the fee paid as a necessary requirement in order to access buyers. Payments are made per head upon entry. Unlike the ruminant vendors, poultry dealers do not pay for access to the market on a per head basis, but pay a flat rate (not disclosed) for the privilege of having a stall in the market (often situated not in the live market area but in amongst the red meat and vegetable stalls). Municipal slaughterhouses in Country 4 charge fees to the owner on either a per head basis or a per kilo (dressed) basis, depending on location.

Account segregation – coverage of current costs/expenditures
Due to lack of cooperation on behalf of the municipalities, the situation with regard to account segregation for markets and slaughterhouses cannot be confirmed, but it is thought not to occur, namely

November 2009

Page 19

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

due to the large sums of cash reputed to be collected, compared to the almost non-existent investment occurring on the ground.

Investment outlays over past 5 years
As noted above, investment in municipal markets is nil. Investment in municipal slaughterhouses is very low, consisting of the bare minimum repairs and maintenance to prevent total failure, which would prevent collection of fees. With the small amount of investment that does occur taking place at the larger facilities, the lack of investment is blamed on forthcoming public-private partnerships which continue to fail to come to fruition.

Political Will and Corruption
The political will on behalf of municipalities appears to be principally directed at maintaining control of the markets and slaughterhouses so as to continue to collect the considerable fees, whilst totally neglecting to carry out any maintenance, cleaning, provision of facilities, or investment in infrastructure. Other ministries and institutions are presently aware of the undesirable situation and are pushing for change, however progress is extremely slow. A major impediment to progress is the difference in comparative lobbying powers between ministries, with those presently seeking reform being relatively weak. Political will is therefore simultaneously present and absent, but unfortunately absent where it matters. In addition to the malpractice or corruption with respect to fees and their reinvestment mentioned above, corruption in this country is generally rife, from government officials down to security guards. It is therefore an extremely challenging environment for the introduction of transparent decision making, further legislation and even enforcement.

3.2.6

Country 5

General Description:
In Country 5, the municipalities are in a totally contrasting position to those in Country 4; the municipalities are weaker, and in general very poorly funded. Livestock markets operate without any user charges, and slaughterhouse facilities are provided for free. This is due to the private sector being the major player within the meat processing sector, and so the municipalities assume the role of providing facilities for those too poor, disorganised, or uncompetitive to use the commercial slaughterhouses. An issue greatly affecting management of facilities and governance is the earlier devolution of power to municipalities and regional government. This has caused two main issues that affect both funding and legislation of market and slaughter facilities at the municipal level: • Municipalities are poorly funded by central government, and rely on collecting fees from residents in order to fund their “public good” activities such as provision of slaughterhouses and solid waste management. The more affluent areas therefore have richer municipalities that are able to pay for decent services, whereas the poor areas are simply unable to cope, and with no funding find themselves in a downward spiral. Both municipalities and ministry local offices have a great deal of autonomy, poorly overseen from central government. This has created gaps in responsibilities as well as considerable differences in performance between regions.

Available municipal budgets for markets and processing
The municipalities were not willing to divulge their budgets or supposed obligations with respect to municipal market and slaughter facilities; however, considering that neither appears to charge any fees, some form of budget, however inadequate, is clearly assigned to the running of these facilities.

User charges
The municipal markets are all sited on municipally owned land. No market manager or municipal officials are present. No fees are paid by traders for use of the land, however the municipality maintain the few amenities (e.g. dirt unloading ramps, latrine blocks etc) – presumably at a loss.

November 2009

Page 20

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Most of the municipal slaughter facilities visited do not charge for the use of facilities; indeed the owners are generally required to perform the slaughter themselves. The municipal facilities are provided as a means to offer some degree of controlled environment in which to perform the slaughter and processing, and are therefore not conducted as either a business or a self-sustaining proposition, and are clearly a technical and financial burden on municipalities. The above is in direct contrast to the private slaughterhouses present in the country, which operate successfully and profitably on the basis of either a dressed weight charge or confiscation of fifth-quarter as payment.

Account segregation – coverage of recurrent costs/expenditures
As the municipalities do not appear to be making any charges for use of the market and slaughter facilities, there are presumably no accounts to segregate, with simple allocations of funds towards those items coming from annual budgets.

Investment outlays over past 5 years
Municipal livestock markets have seen little to no investment in the past 5 years, and remain essentially open areas. The only infrastructure provided is the occasional shack and latrine, plus the provision of occasional waste containers. As far as the Study Team could discern from its meetings and visits, there has been little or no investment in municipal slaughter facilities in the past 5-years. The municipal facilities are small, and basic, and are far overshadowed by the privately run facilities. Those slaughter facilities are presently all upgrading their processes, equipment and capacity, at considerable expense; however they fall outside the scope of the present study.

Political Will and Corruption
Corruption was not overly evident in Country 5 other than one isolated incident whereby a private operator had taken on a BOOT-style contract with a municipality, which was then attempting to get users to boycott the facility. Political will to improve the situation was evident; however, the system was heavily burdened due to its extremely cumbersome set up, and the power-sharing between a number of different agencies.

3.3 3.3.1

FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES Background

The countries selected for the study are typical of most developing economies in that they exhibit low GDP per capita, low median age, and a typically larger than average contribution from agriculture to overall GDP. Most have suffered to a large extent as a result of internal political disputes, low levels of foreign investment, and declining exports of raw and manufactured products; but the economic distinction is clear between the three low-income countries and the two middle-incomes countries (see Table 3.7 below). These differences are further highlighted by the inclusion in the table of indicators of a high-income country for comparison in this regard. Livestock marketing and processing in the LSWM Study countries are characterised by an almost complete lack of regulatory control, haphazard fee collection processes, scant regard for hygiene or environmental issues, and decaying infrastructure. It would be unrealistic to assume that these countries are unique in this regard; and in fact they are typical of most developing countries, where increasing rates of urbanisation are putting excessive pressure on facilities, prices, incomes and local council budgets; which has in turn resulted in access to formal meat supplies becoming more constrained, and meat becoming more expensive, which further encourages informal or “home” slaughter and other cost minimisation strategies. The situation is often further exacerbated by religious and cultural traditions which in many cases encourage home slaughter. As already noted elsewhere in this report, political corruption and mismanagement also worsen the situation with regards to financial management of the sector.

November 2009

Page 21

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 3.7 – Indicators in Developing Countries vs. a High-Income Country Low Income Countries Indicator Country 1 Population (millions) Population growth (%) Median age (years) Urbanisation (%) Population below poverty line (%) GDP ($US billion) Per capita GDP ($US) Agriculture share of GDP (%) Inflation Labour force (millions) Cattle population (millions) Sheep & goat population (millions) Red meat production (‘000 tonnes) Red meat consumption per capita ( kg) White meat production (‘000 tonnes) White meat consumption per capita (kg) Total meat production (‘000 tonnes) Total meat consumption per capita (kg) Beef price ($US/kg) Mutton price ($US/kg) Pork price($US/kg) Chicken price ($US/kg) 3.48 2.81 86.968 1 27.4 28 14.8 90.88 1,010 19 24.5 47.41 8.2 1.2 310 1.3 3,188 25 3,498 26.3 5.34 Country 2 176.243 1.9 20.8 36 24 160.9 913 20.4 20.8 50.58 53.9 87.4 1,956 11.10 463 2.63 2,419 13.73 2.48 4.72 NA 2.0 2.66 3.55 Country 3 83.237 3.2 16.9 17 38.7 25.08 301 45.9 41 27.2 28 7.15 495 5.9 5 0.06 500 5.96 3.55 Country 4 34.859 1.5 25 56 15 125.3 3594 14.5 4.6 11.5 2.5 20.8 300 14 340 11 510 19 8 8 7 4 1.7 1.3 4.50 Middle Income Countries High Income Country

Country Australia 5 29.547 1.23 26.1 71 44.5 131.4 4447 8.5 6.7 10.2 5.223 16.724 209.31 7.4 909.13 31.9 715 42 2.33 21.263 1.2 37.3 89 0 1,069 50,277 2.5 4.7 11.21 26.7 120 2,120 24 1,237 60 4,365 84 18 12

As noted elsewhere in this report, these economies are generally not lacking in legislation to address most aspects of livestock marketing and slaughter, but governments at all levels seem incapable of providing the necessary authority to enforce the legislation, nor the funds to maintain the infrastructure. Corruption is presumably an important factor limiting the effectiveness of the legislation and diverting receipts, but economic reality cannot be ignored. Governments often do not have the revenue base to maintain facilities at the required level of hygiene and efficiency, which leads ultimately to equipment ceasing to function and the facility providing little more than a common location for butchers and a secure hard surface in which to work. The butchers, slaughtermen, fifth-quarter dealers, and hide and skin traders are part of the process wherever it happens and price sensitivity within the poor communities dictate that the job be done for the least price. 3.3.2 Existing Situation

Country 1
Country 1 is a densely-populated developing country that in the past 30 years has had to recover from the ravages of war, the loss of financial support from the old Soviet Bloc, and the rigidities of a centrallyplanned economy. Since 2001, the government has reaffirmed its commitment to economic liberalization and international integration. They have moved to implement the structural reforms needed to modernize the economy and to produce more competitive export-driven industries.

November 2009

Page 22

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

The country’s membership in the regional Free Trade Area and entry into force of a Bilateral Trade Agreement with the United States in December 2001 have led to even more rapid changes in the country’s trade and economic regime. Exports to the US increased 900% from 2001 to 2007 and the country joined the WTO in January 2007, following a decade-long negotiation process. WTO membership has provided the country with an anchor to the global market and reinforced the domestic economic reform process. Agriculture's share of economic output has continued to shrink from about 25% in 2000 to less than 20% in 2008. Deep poverty has declined significantly and is now smaller than that of China, India, and the Philippines. The country is working to create jobs to meet the challenge of a labour force that is growing by more than one-and-a-half million people every year. The global financial crisis, however, will constrain the country’s ability to create jobs and further reduce poverty. As global growth sharply drops in 2009, the export-oriented economy (exports were 68% of GDP in 2007) will suffer from lower exports, higher unemployment, corporate bankruptcies, and decreased foreign investment. Real GDP growth for 2009 could fall between 4% and 5%. Inflation, which reached nearly 25% in 2008, should moderate to single digits in 2009. The current decade has seen a significant increase in the national livestock resource, particularly sheep and goats (100%) and pigs (50%), which were reflected in a similar increase in the output of overall meat production (78%), particularly pork (96%), beef (61%), and mutton (100%). While red meat production is in line with most other countries in the survey, white meat production (mainly pork) is extremely large making it the largest producer of meat within the group. Information collected during the survey indicates that whilst waste disposal procedures are less than adequate, most wastes / byproducts have a real value and there is little wastage in the slaughter system for pigs, poultry, or cattle and buffaloes. Table 3.8 – Livestock Numbers (‘000) in Country 1 Species 2000 Cattle & Buffalo Sheep and Goats Pigs Poultry 7,025 544 20,094 196,100 Year 2002 6,877 622 23,170 233,000 2008 8,200 1,200 29,150 240,000

Table 3.9 – Livestock Production (‘000 Tonnes) in Country 1 Species 2000 Beef Mutton Pork Poultry Total 185 5 1,409 365 1,964 Year 2002 201 5 1,654 420 2,280 2008 299 11 2,771 417 3,498

Livestock markets are limited to poultry and all are located outside of the city limits; as such no fees are applicable to the marketing stage of the supply chain.

Country 2
Country 2 has suffered from decades of internal political disputes, low levels of foreign investment, and declining exports of manufactured goods. Faced with untenable budgetary deficits, high inflation, and haemorrhaging foreign exchange reserves, the government agreed to an International Monetary Fund Standby Arrangement in November 2008. The situation in the country has deteriorated rapidly since then, with civil war and an unprecedented level of IDPs requiring an enormous level of international support to the country.

November 2009

Page 23

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Between 2004 and 2007, GDP growth was spurred by gains in the industrial and service sectors. Poverty levels decreased and the government steadily increased development spending. In 2008, the fiscal deficit exceeded 4% of GDP. Inflation remains the top concern among the public, jumping from 7.7% in 2007 to 24.4% in 2008; primarily because of rising world fuel and commodity prices. In addition, the national currency has depreciated significantly as a result of the political and economic instability. The period 1993 to 2005 saw a significant increase in the national livestock resource, particularly buffalo (52%) and cattle (43%), which was reflected in a similar increase in the output of beef (53%) and an even greater increase in the quantity of milk produced (81%). While goat numbers have increased in line with cattle and buffalos (54%), sheep numbers have actually declined over this period (-8%). The sheep population appears to have halved during the decade 1990 – 2000. Table 3.11 – Livestock Numbers (millions) in Country 2 Species 1993 Cattle Buffalo Sheep Goat 17,800 18,700 27,700 40,200 1997 20,800 20,800 23,700 42,700 Year 2001 22,400 23,300 24,200 49,100 2005 25,500 28,400 25,500 61,900

Prices for these commodities have continued to rise over the same period, with beef prices increasing by some 58%, mutton by 85% and poultry by 35%. The pressure on commodity prices is undoubtedly a function of increasing demand within the domestic economy, a combination of increasing population and the increased spending power of that population. Table 3.12 – National Commodity Prices (US$ Equivalent) in Country 2 Commodity 1995 Beef Mutton Chicken Wheat Lentils Sugar Clarified Butter 0.47 0.95 0.50 1.36 0.26 0.17 0.48 Year 2004 0.91 1.97 0.72 2.62 0.29 0.24 0.76 Change (%) 92 108 45 92 11 40 59

The contribution of the livestock sector to the overall nutrition of the community is calculated on the basis of its contribution to animal protein food (APF) requirements of the population. The livestock sector currently only meets approximately 50% of estimated APF requirements of 27.4g of animal protein per head per day. Any increase in livestock production aimed at reducing the perceived deficit will only increase the importance of the livestock sector, the number and size of animals processed, and the pressure on the existing feed, market place, and slaughterhouse infrastructure and associated services. All cattle, sheep, and goats destined for sale in one major city are trucked from surrounding districts and cities, often involving a journey of nine hours or more in trucks not specifically designed for this purpose. Cattle, sheep, and goats are assembled at the central market where they are bought by butchers for direct slaughter (35%), bought by butchers for slaughter later in the week (35%), or by traders from elsewhere in the province, across the country, or even its northern neighbour (30%). Of those destined for slaughter later in the week, it is estimated that only 10% enter the formal slaughter system. Poultry are principally marketed through a central market and retail complex operated by the local Poultry Traders’ Association. Some 50% of the birds traded at the market are slaughtered on site, while the balance is slaughtered at other smaller locations throughout the city.
November 2009

Page 24

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Analysis of cost and revenue data collected for marketing and processing indicates that local government receives an annual surplus of US$416,250 over budgeted expenditure for provision of the livestock market and major processing facility; the major slaughterhouse contractor receives and annual surplus of US$68,750 for operating the major slaughterhouse; and a butcher could be expected to receive an annual surplus of US$25,000 based on a throughput of 5 cattle/buffalo and 30 sheep/goats per week (Table 3.13). The poultry market is largely a private sector operation with little local government involvement and a general lack of cost/revenue data available. Table 3.13 – Comparison of Revenue and Cost in the Meat Supply Chain – Country 2 Item No. of sheep & goat No. of cattle & buffalo Annual revenue (US$) Annual costs (US$) Annual margin (US$) Market 355,446 2,402,127 331,250 68,750 262,500 Major Processor 322,400 2,178,000 250,000 96,250 153,750 Slaughterhouse Operator 322,400 2,178,000 352,500 283,750 68,750 Butcher 260 1,560 212,500 187,500 25,000

The major impact of inadequate slaughter and waste disposal is ultimately public health. However, the extent of illegal slaughter in one major city also represents a direct cost to the community in terms of public revenue lost. The study estimates that some 40% of cattle and buffalos and some 25% of sheep and goats are slaughtered illegally, amounting to a total loss in revenue to the government of US$800,000 per annum.

Country 3
The economy of Country 3 is based on agriculture, accounting for almost half of GDP, 60% of exports, and 80% of total employment. The agricultural sector suffers from frequent drought and poor cultivation practices. An ongoing war with its neighbour, and recurrent droughts continue to buffet the economy. Levels of malnutrition are consequently high and the FAO estimates that about 51% of the population is under nourished and over 2 million people are considered to be chronically food insecure (FAO, 2001). Meat consumption is estimated to be 7 kg/head of beef, 6 kg/head of sheep & goat meat, and 2 kg/head of poultry. The livestock sector accounts for about 40% of the agricultural sector GDP and 18% of the national GDP. Moreover, it generates an estimated 31% of the total agricultural employment and a substantial amount of hides and skins, live animals, and meat products are exported. Recent livestock population estimates indicate that the country has about 40.2 million cattle, 20.7 million sheep, 16.2 million goats, 0.5 million camels, and 32 million poultry. The cattle herd produces a total of 236,000 tonnes of beef annually; more than 90% of the land used for food crop production is cultivated with the aid of about 7 - 8 million oxen; and livestock also fulfil important social functions in ceremonies and exchanges, which are numerous. Cattle, sheep, and goats are slaughtered as a matter of course at the Christian festivals of Christmas, Easter, New Year, and at the Muslim Eid festivals. In addition, animals are slaughtered at births, deaths, weddings (several cattle if possible) and to celebrate moving into a new house. The poultry population of the country is estimated to be almost 35.7 million, of which only 0.6% is estimated to be improved modern breeds. Almost every household keeps some poultry for consumption and for cash sale, but the formal poultry market is almost non-existent. Prices for commodities have continued to rise throughout the decade, due to increasing prosperity within the urban population and competition within the export sector. The pressure on commodity prices is undoubtedly a function of increasing demand within the domestic economy, a combination of increasing population and the increased spending power of that population. Cattle, sheep, and goats destined for the capital market are trucked from surrounding districts and cities, often involving a journey of several hours and often in trucks not designed for this purpose. Cattle are assembled at one or more of four official tertiary markets where they are generally bought by butchers for direct slaughter. Of those destined for slaughter, approximately 80% enter the formal slaughter
November 2009

Page 25

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

system. These markets only account for a small number of sheep and goats, which are marketed through a large number of informal market places, located on vacant lots throughout the city. There are no controls or regulations applicable to these areas and as such no fees are collected and no expenditure incurred. Sheep and goats purchased at these markets are destined for illegal domestic slaughter, which account for in excess of 95% of sheep and goat slaughter in the capital. Cattle and a small number of sheep are slaughtered at one of four official slaughterhouses located within the capital, one of which is privately owned. There are a number of well established export slaughterhouses located outside the capital, but these are not involved in the local trade in any way. Analysis of cost and revenue data collected for marketing and processing indicates that local government receives an annual surplus of US$91,000 over budgeted expenditure for provision of the livestock market; a government-owned corporation receives an annual surplus of US$273,000 for operating the main city slaughterhouse; the municipality receives a surplus of US$9,100 for operating a small suburban slaughterhouse; and a butcher could be expected to receive an annual surplus of US$9,100 based on a throughput of 5 cattle per week. The poultry market is largely a private sector operation with no local government involvement. Table 3.14 – Comparison of Revenue and Cost in the Meat Supply Chain – Country 3 Item No. of sheep & goat No. of cattle & buffalo Annual revenue (US$) Annual costs (US$) Annual margin (US$) Market 0 127,970 118,000 27,300 90,900 Major Processor 75,015 151,977 2,509,100 2,236,400 272,700 Small Processor 1,220 16,800 15,500 6,400 9,100 Butcher 260 136,400 127,300 9,100

Apart from the obvious public health implications of inadequate livestock slaughter and handling conditions, there is considerable loss in revenue through avoidance of the official slaughter system as well as the economic loss incurred by the fact that animal wastes / by-products are not utilised to the same extent as elsewhere. These underutilised products enter the environment or waste management system of the capital every year and as such are a cash cost to the slaughterhouses and administration (for disposal) and a cost in terms of quality of life and pollution of the environment. Were these products to be collected, they would have a positive value. Estimated loss of government revenue through inspection fees and taxes through illegal slaughter is US$709,100, while it is estimated that some 1,000 tonnes of dry blood, worth approximately US$363,600 at world prices is also wasted. It is estimated that approximately 1,000 tonnes of waste (other than blood) is also produced through illegal slaughter.

Country 4
The domestic economy of Country 4 is relatively diversified. The agricultural sector plays an important role, accounting for 15 to 20 percent of the GDP, depending on weather conditions. In 1999, the sector accounted for 15 percent of the GDP and employed some 50 percent of the labour force. The sector's output, however, varies from one year to another, due to its dependence on rain-water for irrigation. The largest contributor to the GDP is the services sector. The well-developed tourism and services sectors accounted for 52 percent of the GDP and employed 35 percent of the labour force in 1999. The expanding industrial sector has also become a major contributor to the GDP in recent years, accounting for 33 percent of the GDP in 1999. The country is primarily a free-market country with some state control. The government has significantly reduced its role in the economy since the 1990s, removing trade barriers and selling several state-owned enterprises. Despite occasional political violence, it has a fairly stable, multiparty political system headed by the King, and it enjoys the strong political and economic support of the United States and the European Union. Economic growth has been sluggish since the 1990s, partly as a result of dependence on agriculture, which has been affected by recurring droughts. The GDP real growth rate was estimated to be 0.8 percent in 2000. Manufacturing, retail trade, and services are located in urban centres, mostly the capital and closest major city. Neither the agricultural sector nor the emerging industrial sector is capable of providing enough jobs to counteract the country’s long-standing high unemployment rate. The problem of unemployment, especially high among university graduates, is exacerbated by the rapid population growth.
November 2009

Page 26

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Unemployment reached 19 percent in 1998; by contrast the unemployment rate in the United States in 1999 was 4.2 percent. Unemployment in urban areas is estimated to be higher than 22 percent. Although the government has made it a priority issue, unemployment will present a serious challenge for some time to come. In 2005, the Government launched a national initiative for human development; a $2 billion social development plan to address poverty and unemployment and to improve the living conditions of the country's urban slums. The authorities are implementing reform efforts to open the economy to international investors. Despite structural adjustment programs supported by the IMF, the World Bank, and the Paris Club, the currency is only fully convertible for current account transactions. In 2000, the country entered an Association Agreement with the EU and, in 2006, entered a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States. There are estimated to be approximately 2 .5 million cattle, 16 million sheep, and 5 million goats in the country, producing some 300,000 tonnes of meat. There are no municipal markets to be considered in this study, as stock are generally obtained by butcher-wholesalers directly from producers or at regional markets in the rural areas and transported to local facilities for slaughter.

November 2009

Page 27

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 3.15 – Various Fee Data for Four Cities in Country 4 Fee Species Capital City Rate ($US) Processing fee (kg) Cattle Sheep & goats Equine Camel Pigs Municipal tax (kg) Cattle Sheep & goats Equine Camel Pigs Special tax (Head) Cattle Sheep & goats Equine Camel Pigs 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 N/A 4.819 0.843 3.614 4.217 N/A 29,000 144,200 840 125 N/A 29,000 144,200 840 125 N/A N/A 808,434 1,169,398 260,479 942,169 214,149 13,301 3,325 N/A 139,759 142,759 434 527 14.458 1.566 Unknown 14.458 N/A 6.024 1.205 N/A 6.024 N/A 2,600 17,680 Unknown 520 N/A 2,600 17,680 N/A 520 N/A 37,590 27,691 Unknown 7,518 N/A 15,663 21,301 N/A 3,133 N/A 75,596 72,800 40,096 0.072 0.096 0.072 0.072 No. 29,000 144,200 840 125 Total ($US) 614,458 186,237 8,675 2,169 Rate ($US) 0.060 0.084 Unknown 0.072 City 1 No. 2,600 17,680 Unknown 520 Total ($US) 45,908 20,667 Unknown 9,022 Rate ($US) 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.160 0.160 0.160 0.160 0.160 6.024 1.205 3.614 4.819 6.024 Slaughterhouse Major City No. 80,000 320,000 4,000 500 2,500 80,000 320,000 4,000 500 2,500 80,000 320,000 4,000 500 2,500 Total ($US) 2,716,707 636,525 107,583 21,711 24,405 3,088,223 723,572 122,295 24,680 27,742 481,928 385,542 21.712 2,410 15,060 3,482,527 3,958,770 884,337 56,704 50,371 20,863 4.819 0.809 2,496 10,920 12,029 8,833 9.639 2.410 2,496 10,920 24,058 26,313 Rate ($US) 0.060 0.084 City 2 No. 2,496 10,920 Total ($US) 44,071 12,629

Total wages for employees Total local government fees Total Ministry of Agriculture fees

November 2009

Page 28

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Country 5
The economy of Country 5 reflects its varied geography - an arid coastal region, a mountainous region further inland, and tropical lands bordering neighbouring countries. Abundant mineral resources are found in the mountainous areas, and coastal waters provide excellent fishing grounds. The economy grew by more than 4% per year during the period 2002-06, with a stable exchange rate and low inflation. Growth jumped to 9% per year in 2007 and 2008, driven by higher world prices for minerals and metals and the government's aggressive trade liberalization strategies. The country’s rapid expansion has helped to reduce the national poverty rate by about 15% since 2002, though underemployment and inflation remain high. Despite strong macroeconomic performance, overdependence on minerals and metals subjects the economy to fluctuations in world prices, and poor infrastructure precludes the spread of growth to noncoastal areas. Therefore, not all of the population has shared in the benefits of growth. The United States and Country 5 completed negotiations on the implementation of the complementary Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA), and the agreement entered into force February 1, 2009, opening the way to greater trade and investment between the two economies. Whilst the livestock sector accounts for some 34% of agricultural GDP or 3% of total GDP, livestock production is not able to meet domestic demand in terms of meat or milk. Imports of livestock products in 2002 (US$78.3 million) exceeded exports (US$21.8 million) by a factor of three, with the deficit principally milk and to a lesser extent beef, poultry, and pig meat, in that order. The most current livestock numbers and production statistics are provided in Table 3.16. Table 3.16 – National Livestock Numbers for Country 5 Year 1990 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 National Livestock Numbers (‘000) Cattle 4,102 5,056 5,085 5,132 5,181 5,241 5,223 Sheep 12,256 14,723 14,701 14,752 14,785 14,822 14,781 Goats 1,721 2,024 1,971 1,984 1,959 1,957 1,943 Pigs 2,400 2,810 2,971 2,992 3,004 3,005 3,034 Chickens Unknown 85,621 91,074 92,846 98,165 99,255 118,352 Alpacas 2,750 3,182 3,336 3,433 3,420 3,598 3,597 Llamas 1,262 1,179 1,206 1,232 1,230 1,269 1,249

The period 2001 to 2006 has seen a steady increase in the national livestock resource of about 25%, but productivity seems to have focused more on poultry and pork than on red meat, see Table 3.17. Table 3.17 – National Livestock Production for Country 5 Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Change (%) National Livestock Production (‘000 kg) Cattle 137,800 141,500 144,900 151,900 152,000 162,569 18 Sheep & Goats 31,800 31,800 32,300 33,500 33,600 33,893 7 Pigs 72,000 85,000 Unknown Unknown Unknown 107,930 50 Chickens 543,000 609,000 Unknown Unknown Unknown 801,200 48 Alpacas & Llamas 11,500 12,300 12,200 13,200 13,300 12,850 12

November 2009

Page 29

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Cattle production largely takes place outside the capital, with breeding and growing centred in the rural areas in the mountains and further east in the tropical lowlands. Grown stock is brought for sale in rural markets, before being trucked to coastal feedlots to the north and south of the capital for finishing. Poultry are also raised in rural areas and trucked to the capital for sale. As local people have a particular preference for freshly slaughtered chickens as distinct from frozen chickens, a general lack of refrigeration in the community means that some 80 percent of chicken consumed is slaughtered on or about the day of consumption and are therefore most likely drawn from large live markets located within the capital. Pigs are raised principally in the rural area inland from the capital, though a large number of pigs are kept by squatters on illegal dump sites throughout the city and its environs. The livestock markets visited in rural areas were formal to the extent that they were acknowledged by the municipality and the MoAH, but the sites represented only opportunistic use of otherwise vacant land. The fact that livestock congregated in these areas provided AHS and the various municipalities the opportunity to issue movement certificates, spray trucks bound for the capital city and carry out any other movement based activities deemed necessary. The slaughter of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs is undertaken by a combination of municipal and private slaughterhouses which operate purely as service institutions. In the capital itself, three private slaughterhouses account for most of the official slaughter. These facilities operate at a high standard of hygiene and management generally, competing with one another for the supermarket trade on the basis of the quality of their processes. No fees are charged, but the facilities retain the skin, the viscera, and some bones. The viscera and bones are rendered for manufacture of meat and bone meal. The blood is not collected. Municipal slaughterhouses exist, but throughput is small and generally not to the standard of the private facilities. One commercial slaughterhouse advised that it was their policy to slaughter pigs and cattle from “unregistered” owners, but extra fees were charged to cover the cost of extra processing and condemnations involved. There are no formal municipal markets as such and fees are not generally charged. One private market visited charged a fee of US$ 0.93 per kg, but this was presumably a small sophisticated final market (with a weighbridge) selling only animals destined directly for slaughter. The private slaughterhouses in the capital are large industrial operations that have been family owned for 30 or more years. There is little doubt that they are profitable, but their continued viability depends upon their ability to maintain acceptable hygiene and efficiency standards. Hygiene standards appear to be better than the minimum set by legislation, and as a result the private facilities far outstrip municipal plants in terms of slaughter numbers and quality of both infrastructure and processes. One small regional municipal slaughterhouse visited normally kills 180 cattle and 100 sheep per week. A butcher using that facility indicated that she slaughtered about 20 cattle per week, which yielded her a margin of some US$1,000 after purchase cost, slaughter fees, and transport. Live poultry was observed at two markets, both of which incorporated slaughter to some extent. One market in the suburbs of the capital is a primary market where birds are brought from outside for sale to a wide range of customers, who then slaughter on site, or carry away live or any combination of the two. The Central Market was more of a retail market, with birds slaughtered in the basement on site for sale as dressed birds in the retail markets above. The major impact of inadequate slaughter and waste disposal is ultimately public health. In the rural areas this aspect would be exacerbated by the prevalence of illegal slaughter, but indications are that this is less so in the capital, particularly in the case of cattle, sheep/goats, and pigs. No suitable data was made available to the team from which an estimate of illegal slaughter could be made, but it is estimated that the value of blood wasted could be as high as US$ 3 million annually.

Additional Financial / Economic Survey Data from In-Country Follow-Up Surveys
During the course of the study, brief follow-up surveys where undertaken to update some of the data collected in 2007 and to attempt to collect additional financial / economic data. Due to the limited budget available it was not possible for any of the team members to re-visit the facilities in each of the five countries so the surveys were carried out remotely by the same national consultants used during the
November 2009

Page 30

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

LSWM Study. It was not possible to contact the local consultant used in Country 5, therefore follow-up surveys were only undertaken in countries 1 to 4. To ensure the most up-to-date data was obtained the follow-up surveys were left until the latter part of the study period and all surveys were undertaken in May 2009. Annex K.1 contains the blank survey instrument used for the follow-up surveys, which included the following: Section A – Changes at facilities since the in-country surveys in 2007 • • • Livestock markets Slaughterhouses / abattoirs Government actions and laws concerning livestock markets and slaughterhouses

Section B – Questions for local slaughterhouses / abattoirs • • • • • • • • • What are the current slaughter fees per animal? Who pays the slaughter fees and who receives them? What is the slaughterer’s income versus the amount of animals slaughtered or the weight of meat produced? What are the current prices for meat from the slaughterhouse? What are the current prices for the various offal products (edible and inedible)? What is the potential for improved income if the slaughter facilities are upgraded to provide better meat quality through improved animal handling, sanitation, and inspection? What improvements would you recommend at your slaughterhouse to produce more hygienic and wholesome meat? If these improvements are made to your slaughterhouse would you be able to increase the prices of your products? If sanitation facilities and improved animal handling were introduced at the slaughterhouse, would you expect to benefit from an increase in meat prices for the better quality meat?

Section C – Questions for local meat retailers • • • • • What are the current retail prices for meat at public markets? What are the current retail prices for meat at butcher shops and supermarkets? If there are different prices for specific cuts of meat, what are the current prices for each cut? What are the current prices for the various offal products (edible and inedible)? If better quality meat was available from another slaughterhouse would you be prepared to pay a higher price for this and would your customers be prepared to pay a higher price for the meat?

To avoid errors and to ensure clarity for both the Study Team and the local consultants it was necessary to use the location names for each facility, hence in their current format they will need to remain confidential in keeping with the protocol used for the LSWM Study data. It is therefore not possible to summarise the follow up surveys without compromising confidentiality; readers may learn about the follow up surveys if they have been provided with the confidential Annexes K.2 to K.5. 3.3.3 Stakeholders and their interest in project activities/outcomes

It is obvious from a close analysis of the meat marketing and processing chain that there are many more societal groups with a vested interest in the outcome of sector reconstruction than the Government, processors, and butchers. Whilst it is clear that legislation is an important factor in the remedial process, fieldwork undertaken during the LSWM Study indicates that legislation on its own is simply not sufficient to bring about change. Legislation needs enforcement and awareness raising, and enforcement needs budget; two items largely missing in all of the countries visited as part of the LSWM study, and believed to be symptomatic of the situation in all developing countries. In fact, the two groups most interested in the outcome are the consumers and residents in close proximity to processing facilities, waste dumps, and polluted water courses; who, in the absence of strong government, are at the mercy of the current dysfunctional system. For this reason, it is suggested that alongside the obvious remedies of investment, operational funds, enforcement, and training, public awareness education should be considered as an essential component. Such programmes should be designed to make such groups acutely aware of the risks they are taking in terms of consumption of products that have not been properly processed, handled and stored; disease from polluted air and water; and what the results of increased meat prices will bring. Table 3.18 summarises potential project initiatives for various stakeholders.
November 2009

Page 31

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 3.18 – Stakeholders and Potential Project Initiatives Potential Project Initiatives Stakeholder Government and councils Livestock owners (dairy/meat/poultry) Residents in surrounding areas Issue Public health Income Health issues Smell Noise Disease Traffic Butchers Fees Wastage Distance from outlet By-products processors waste retrieval distance staff availability Consumers Price Meat quality Health issues
Exporters Access to markets

Investment X

Operating Funds X X X

Enforcement X X

Legislation X X

Training X X

Awareness Education X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X

X

X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X

November 2009

Page 32

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

3.3.4

Existence of and Potential for Economic Instruments

In all of the countries visited, it was clear that financial constraints are preventing the development of the livestock and slaughter businesses, particularly at municipal facilities where little money is seen to be expended on facilities and related infrastructure, some of which are more than 50 years old. The LSWM study confirmed that contrary to past expectations, there has been little formal private interest in the slaughter and processing sector in most developing countries, with few modern plants having been installed in recent years. Existing facilities are therefore in general a mixture of small private concerns (formal and informal) and larger but decrepit municipal facilities. Another obvious trend thought to be driven by economic policy or lack thereof is that in the few instances where modern private facilities have been installed, these are generally concerned with the poultry industry. In general, the private slaughterhouses are more successfully operated and have significantly better facilities than those owned by the municipalities; due mainly to better management, more financial independence, and the ability to choose their own market place, such as high end or niche markets. Municipal facilities, on the other hand, are allowed little financial independence but are responsible for supplying safe and wholesome meat to the general population, often at prices influenced by political considerations rather than market forces. Financial leakage is widespread at municipal facilities; a phenomenon that does not normally occur at private facilities, where profits are usually re-invested. A sustainable solution to the continuing issue of unhygienic slaughterhouse operations and high levels of informal slaughter can only be solved by one or more of a combination of interventions including infrastructure development, training, increased enforcement and in some cases legislation. Whilst the sums involved are likely to be large, almost certainly donor funding could be found for this purpose. However, such development will almost certainly lead to increases in operating costs to staff the facilities, meet increased utilities, consumable and maintenance requirements as well as to properly enforce regulations. In some cases, fees collected for this purpose are currently being diverted for other purposes, but almost certainly a new source of funding will be required to meet these operational costs and so avoid substantial increases in the cost of meat to the average consumer. For the meat processing and waste management initiatives discussed above to be sustainable, it will be beneficial to establish a source, or sources, of funding that is some way linked to the activities taking place, thereby invoking an element of ownership by stakeholders in the process and at the same time developing the concept of user pays. The major risk in this form of funding is that by definition increasing the cost of the current process, which if not effectively policed, can encourage an increase in the informal trade. It is likely that a number of instruments would need to be used concurrently to achieve the outcomes desired for the meat marketing processing issues discussed in the report; and understanding the interrelationships between instruments will be of crucial importance in designing effective policies. One group of instruments that could be invoked revolve around manipulation of prices of key inputs and outputs. Properly tuned, these instruments can achieve some major successes, but experience has shown that this is not always the case. Some such instruments and the role they may play in such a programme are discussed below. Controlled or administered producer prices are used by governments in some countries to implement purchase price policies for basic food and exportable commodities. A complementary instrument, in the form of a marketing board, is usually employed in conjunction with price controls. Despite the great difference in the countries' situations, the basic approach would be to establish fixed or minimum producer prices for meat, with a parastatal purchasing part of the total output. In determining the level at which to fix producer prices, various considerations including technical, economic and political factors need to be taken in to account, but by controlling the extent of producer price rises, the Government will be in a position to attract consumers into the formal market. At the other end of the spectrum, consumer prices set by official decree are also prevalent in many developing situations. This instrument is normally intended to check price rises in order to hold down increases in the cost of living and to make livestock products available to low-income consumers at affordable prices. The consumer prices set in this manner are, therefore, ceiling prices and frequently, a subsidy is involved. Input subsidies provide incentives to producers, not by raising the price of their products, but, rather, by lowering their costs of production. Measures, which may include subsidies for credit, concentrate
November 2009

Page 33

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

feeding, veterinary services, transportation, and reduced import duties are frequently designed to bring about increased livestock production by encouraging producers to use modern technical packages In contrast to input subsidies intended primarily for producers, consumer price subsidies represent a real effort to keep down the prices of food, including livestock products consumed by most of the populace. The cost of this policy is borne either by agricultural producers in the form of low purchase prices or, more often, by the government. Once implemented, consumer subsidies are difficult to withdraw or to reduce substantially; however, because governments naturally attempt to limit this cost in one way or another, there are a number of differing subsidy instruments. In Zimbabwe for instance, the Government has established a number of special retail outlets in high population density areas to provide consumers with low-quality beef at affordable (i.e. effectively subsidised) prices. Import tariffs are one of the traditional and most widely used instruments for raising funds for development of local industries and discouraging consumption of certain products. They can also be manipulated to give local producers whatever degree of protection is desired by insulating domestic prices from international price fluctuations and from the effects of imports subsidised at their source. Moreover, quantitative import restrictions, effected through import licences, foreign exchange allocations, physical quota limits on imports, and outright bans constitute another quick-acting and powerful livestock policy instrument that is widely used. Export-restricting instruments can also be used in livestock exporting countries to lower domestic prices and frequently to prevent local prices from rising to international levels. They are also used to generate income for domestic development purposes. While variable taxes and levies, as temporary measures, can improve domestic price stability, a long-term sustained use of these price control instruments inevitably negates the incentive to producers and carries the danger of introducing significant price distortions to the disadvantage of the livestock subsector in the long-run. A second group of instruments are those that recognise the institutional relationships within the process under investigation and seek to build relationships between stakeholders to more effectively share the cost of making the system work. Examples of such instruments include: • Inter-municipal agreements designed to share resources as much as possible so as to more effectively utilise those resources and benefit from economies of scale. Opportunities exist in all countries visited for the concentration of market and slaughter facilities in such a way. “Taker pay agreements” is a system where anyone removing waste must pay for proper waste disposal at the point of departure, even if they do not dump at agreed sites. This instrument could eliminate illicit dumping if a portion of this fee could be refunded after dumping at the prescribed site. Segregation of user charges is a form of institutional transparency designed to deliver a double benefit. Not only does it ensure that funds collected actually benefit the facilities and users themselves, but the process also gives the stakeholders confidence that they can trust one another, paving the way for a more healthy relationship for doing business. Presumptive taxes, based on presumed levels of liquid and solid waste production; proof that a facility is recycling or segregating more of its wastes earns it a reduction from the standard rates. SUMMARY

3.4

Even the most basic infrastructure upgrades, whilst offering immediate improvements to the present situation, will not provide sustainable long term improvements until the technical, economic and financial conditions in which a given facility operates are improved. The clear evidence from the LSWM livestock market visits, and the information on financial management collected at these locations, shows that in the vast majority of cases there appears to be no correlation between fees collected and services or infrastructure provided nor between levels of legislation and levels of adherence/enforcement. None of the 5 countries visited had acceptable livestock market infrastructure, and some of the worst offenders in this regard were the higher income countries, both of which had fee collection systems in place. The market places, where officially provided, allow an opportunity for buyers and sellers to do business, but even in the best case the facilities offered are minimal and buyers and sellers participate with some

November 2009

Page 34

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

degree of risk to themselves and their animals8, even though the level of fees collected are generally sufficient to maintain an acceptable level of basic infrastructure, staffing and maintenance. Budgets for any significant investment for the improvement of livestock market infrastructure and services have not been identified and such improvements are unlikely to happen without external interventions. The presence of infrastructure to facilitate the overall marketing process so as to reduce contamination, pollution, spread of disease, accidents, and poor animal welfare does not appear to be directly related to income level or presence of legislation. This strongly suggests that, although low incomes and lack of government funds are clearly problematic, corruption and mismanagement play an important role in the failure of these facilities to improve their standards. Another disturbing observation with respect to the livestock market facilities is that the least well equipped were those in Muslim countries, where the Halal and Zabihah guidelines should in fact ensure that conditions with regards to animal welfare are acceptable9. The infrastructure and condition of slaughter facilities10 are also of real concern and whilst governments are generally aware of the situation and would like to see it improved, the financial limitations are significant. In common with livestock markets, but to a lesser degree, misdirection of funds and fees often occurs, aggravating the situation. In all but a few cases, investment in new facilities has not taken place in recent years, even though data collected during the study indicates that the margin of fees collected over budgeted expenditure can be considerable. Unless the cycle of poor management and corruption is broken, any improvement in slaughter/processing facilities will result in either increased operating costs being passed on to consumers. While the informal sector continues to provide a low-cost option for meat and meat products, any proposal that might lead to increased consumer cost needs to be thought out very carefully. As already mentioned, the present study is focussed on infrastructure upgrades, and hence the informal sector problems are not dealt with, however it is clear that the sector is significant, and often cripples the formal facilities, both private and municipal. Governments tend to pay fees into consolidated revenue (at best) rather than reinvest in the facility generating the fees. A more transparent approach to fee collection and facility improvement will have to be adopted before a sound financial planning approach can be made to improvement of these facilities. Lack of political will, internal power struggles, and short-sightedness or lack of awareness of politicians also appears to be to blame for the poor provision of market and slaughter facilities.

8 9

With risks also passed on to the consumer and the general population More information on Islamic and other religious practices is provided in the LSWM report (Nippon Koei 2009) See Chapter 5 below and the LSWM report (Nippon Koei 2009) for further information

10

November 2009

Page 35

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

4
4.1

REVIEW OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES
EXAMINATION OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNIQUES

Following completion of the literature review, the source materials identified in Annex A were crossreferenced to the main issues identified in the Study’s TOR: • • • • • • Occupational Health and Safety; Animal Welfare; Food Safety & Public Health; Costs, Product Yield and Productivity; Disease Control (Biosecurity); and Environmental Impacts.

The cross-referencing task also served to identify the many knowledge ‘gaps’ in the literature and suggested to the Study Team numerous areas for further work which would directly assist consideration of the reconstruction task. For the purpose of summarising the team’s experiences in the LSWM Study countries and the compendium of literature resources in Annex A, a matrix was established which includes brief summaries of observations and recommendations resulting from the LSWM Study. For ease of presentation this matrix (Annex B) has been divided into a number of tables covering the main issues identified: • • Livestock Markets – Annex B.1, Tables B.1a to B1.f; and Slaughterhouses and Meat Processing Facilities – Annex B.2, Tables B.2a to B.2g.

Whilst the literature search cannot claim to be totally exhaustive, clear conclusions can be made on the areas where there are knowledge gaps simply by examining the number of sources identified against each issue, as shown in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 – Resource Gap Analysis Number of Resources Identified Issue Occupational Health and Safety Animal Welfare Food Safety & Public Health Costs, Product Yield and Productivity Disease Control (Biosecurity) Environmental Impacts
TOTAL

Livestock Markets 0 4 0 0 5 14 23

Slaughter / Process Facilities 15 16 7 20 7 29 94

The results shown in Table 4.1 show very clearly where the data and knowledge gaps presently exist; with less than a third of the volume of resources found that are relevant to livestock markets in comparison to slaughter and processing facilities. Many areas within the livemarket setting (such as Health and Safety and Public Health) have received no study at all, and as the LSWM Study revealed by examining the situation on the ground, they are long overdue.

November 2009

Page 36

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

4.2

IDENTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNIQUES

To enable a systematic evaluation of suitability for application in developing country scenarios, a review of the many reconstruction issues was undertaken and a matrix prepared of all the technologies, techniques, systems, materials, and equipment resulting from the findings of the LSWM Study and the literature review conducted as described in the previous sections. A system was developed for assigning a score to each technology based on a number of well-defined parameters such as operability, trainability, environmental risk, etc. The evaluation categories used to assess the options are defined in Table 4.2, whilst the scoring in each category is carried out according to the system defined in Figure 4.3. The total score for each technology or system provides the Overall Viability Indicator (OVI). Following development of the scoring system, each technology / reconstruction technique was reviewed against the pre-defined parameters, to provide an overall score for each technology. The technologies were then ranked in score order, permitting a short-listing of technologies to be made based on individual facility needs. The results of this exercise were then compared alongside the more subjective conclusions made during the field visits. The parameters were not assigned weightings, due to the large number of categories, and the subjective nature of ranking the importance of different categories. Countries, governments and institutions all perceive different problems and assign different importance. By applying equal weighting to all categories, a broad-brush ranking is obtained, and while the resultant ranking may not necessarily apply to all locations for the given technology, this approach eliminates the possibility for distortion of results at the broad-brush level. This first stage of technology review streamlines the available technical options based on what is most necessary, feasible, suitable, cost effective, and sustainable for developing country situations. A total of 175 measures, technologies or improvements was assessed and ranked, 55 for livestock markets and 120 for the slaughterhouse and meat processing facilities. The resulting technical ratings provide a very detailed indication of the overall likelihood of success, or feasibility, of the intervention. Based on the OVI of each of the options, the ranking assessment results from highest to lowest are shown in Table 4.4 for livestock markets and Table 4.5 for slaughterhouses and meat processing facilities. The detailed results of the exercise are shown in Annex C; in Table C.1 for livestock markets and in Table C.2 for slaughterhouses and meat processing facilities. The major issues which the reconstruction task needs to address are broken down in the two tables and result in a concise profile of the overall feasibility of the technology or measure in the view of the project team.

November 2009

Page 37

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 4.2 – Evaluation Categories Category Definition How well developed and tested the given technology is at present. How available the given technology is, in terms of expertise, patents, location etc. The extent to which the technology or system demands specialist skills or knowledge. The degree of ease or difficulty in training laymen to install or operate the given technology or system. How expensive the given technology or system is to install. How expensive the given technology or system is to implement or operate. How easy or difficult continued operation of the technology or system is. How easy or difficult maintenance operations are (e.g. maintenance frequencies, availability/expense of parts and consumables, etc.). The extent to which the system or technology is reliable. The extent to which the system or technology is suitable for developing country contexts (e.g. local economics, social structure, religious and cultural preferences etc.). The degree of risk (public and occupational) associated with the technology or system. The degree of benefit offered by the technology or system by replacing or correcting existing dangerous or high-risk practices. The degree of risk to the environment associated with the technology or system. The degree of benefit offered by the technology or system by replacing existing environmentally damaging practices. The degree of benefit offered by the technology or system in terms of animal welfare and meat yield or quality. The degree of benefit offered by the technology or system in terms of preventing disease spread or risk. The degree to which the technology or system provides employment or economic benefits to the local population.

Development Availability Skills Trainability Capital Cost Operation Cost Operability Maintenance Reliability Suitability

Health & Safety Risk Health & Safety Benefit Environmental Risk Environmental Benefit Welfare / Yield Benefit Epidemiological Benefit Livelihoods Benefit

November 2009

Page 38

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 4.3 – Scoring System for Each Category Category / Definition Score
Development Availability With difficulty Skills Specialist Trainability With difficulty Capital Cost Expensive Operation Cost Expensive Operability Difficult Maintenance Difficult or frequent Reliability Un- reliable Suitability Rarely suitable

1 2 3 4 5

Emerging

Proven

Available

Basic

Possible

Reasonable

Reasonable

Average

Routine

Average

Sometimes suitable

Well established

Easily

None

Easily

Inexpensive

Inexpensive

Simple

Simple / not needed

Reliable

Always Suitable

Category / Definition Score
Health & Safety Risk High risk Health & Safety Benefit No benefit Environment al Risk High risk Environmental Benefit No benefit Welfare / Yield Benefit No benefit Epidemiologic al Risk High risk Epidemiological Benefit No benefit Livelihoods Benefit No benefit

1 2 3 4 5

Some risk

Some benefit

Some risk

Some benefit

Some benefit

Some risk

Some benefit

Some benefit

No risk

Considerable benefit

Low risk

Considerable benefit

Considerable benefit

Low risk

Considerable benefit

Considerable benefit

November 2009

Page 39

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 4.4 – Option Rankings for Livestock Markets Technical Option Provision of feed & water Segregation of food stalls and livestock areas Segregation of market and slaughter facilities Concrete unloading ramps Worker health checkups Lairage Yards/ Tethering rails Feed & water troughs Permanent steel/iron shade Concreted / non slip surfaces Market welfare inspectors Vehicle-borne unloading ramps Market H&S inspectors Vehicle upgrades Steel unloading ramps Species segregation (pens) Central Skip / Dumpster Composting Canvas strung shade Installation of fencing Piped water Screening/ sedimentation Baited vermin traps Vehicle cleaning facilities Sewered latrine facilities Rainwater capture Waste Collection drums around market Market rankings/political incentives OVI Score 88 87 86 85 83 83 83 82 82 82 81 80 80 80 80 79 79 79 79 78 77 77 77 77 76 76 76 Technical Option Water tanks & Bowsers Contracting of market cleaning Incineration Open / Pit Burning Drainage channels Anaerobic Facultative ponds Cesspit latrine facilities Free disease checks Scales onsite Personnel ID check on arrivals and departures Reed beds Biogas production Aeration tanks Biogas production and use for lighting or power Duckboards Market prices history Grid electricity Latrines to Biogas Well and treatment Biogas derived electricity Chemical / biological latrine facilities River water with treatment Central Cage Burial Diesel / biodiesel Generators Solar power Disease compensation OVI Score 75 74 73 72 72 71 70 69 68 68 67 67 66 66 66 65 64 63 62 62 62 61 59 59 58 56 52

November 2009

Page 40

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 4.5 – Option Rankings for Slaughterhouses and Meat Processing Facilities Technical Option Segregation of food stalls and livestock /slaughter areas Inspection Stamping/ Roller Branding Segregation of market and slaughter facilities Tap installation General Fluorescent lighting Intense lighting for inspectors Ante and post mortem inspection Slaughterhouse benchmarking and performance incentives Permanent steel/iron shade Concrete / non slip flooring Dressing Cradles Rainwater capture Baited vermin traps Viscera Buggy Systems Dyeing of Pathological waste Composting Sewered latrine facilities Canvas strung shade Water troughs Scales onsite Tables for 5th quarter processing Procedures for handling animals dead on arrival H&S inspectors Signage Installation of manual rail system for carcass transport Working platforms (bovine / equine) Provision of suitable identifiable protective clothing & equipment Laboratory / on site swabbing to private lab OVI Score 85 85 84 83 82 82 82 81 81 80 80 79 79 79 78 77 77 77 77 76 76 76 76 76 75 75 75 75 Technical Option Concrete unloading ramps Welfare Inspector Well designed roof ventilation Manually operated restraint boxpen Vehicle cleaning facilities Drainage channels Steel unloading ramps Internal Rotating fans Lighting to reduce need for goads Electric Hoists for hide removal evisceration Carcass chilling River water with treatment Species segregation (pens) Sealing of interior walls and floors Footbaths at processing entry Anaerobic Facultative ponds (poss. with biogas recovery) Vehicle-borne unloading ramps Simple race Additional walls Single race to restraint box Water tanks & Bowsers Contracting out of slaughterhouse cleaning Blood collection Temporary modification of existing vehicles Piped water Well and treatment Market prices history Process improvements OVI Score 75 75 75 75 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 72 72 72 72 71 71 71 71

November 2009

Page 41

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 4.6 - Option Rankings for Slaughterhouses and Meat Processing Facilities (continued) Technical Option Chilled despatch vehicles only Training programmes, reviews etc Installation of skid roller / gambrel system for dressing Laundry service for operator clothing Cesspit latrine facilities Central Skip / Dumpster Worker health checkups Knife sterilisers Worker changing rooms and facilities Personnel ID check on arrival Traceability system for live animals to carcasses Complex with forcing yards Air Conditioning Steriliser Handwash Units Chemical / biological latrine facilities Installation of fencing Installation of netting Central Cage Incineration Incineration with energy recovery Biogas production and use for power or rendering Percussion Stun bolt Grid electricity Tighter controls on access Splitting Saw Reed beds Static screens Rotating restraint box Refrigerated carcass chillers Open / Pit Burning OVI Score 71 71 69 Rotating screens 69 Biogas production 69 68 68 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 66 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 64 64 64 63 63 63 62 62 Latrines to Biogas Dedicated Single species transport Electronic Scales with ticketing Sedimentation & Flotation tanks Rendering Pathological solid waste Boning waste rendering Water sprays Electric Stun Rail transport conveyor Captive bolt Regular maintenance of equipment New dedicated vehicles Safety and Hygiene Signage Blood rendering Feather rendering Solar power Burial Blood dryers Pneumatic or Hydraulic Hand tools Diesel / biodiesel Generators Disease compensation Hide pullers Aeration tanks Live bullet CCTV Carbon dioxide gas stun 61 61 61 60 60 60 60 60 59 59 58 58 57 57 57 56 55 55 55 54 54 53 52 50 48 43 61 Technical Option Viscera pan conveyors Biogas derived electricity OVI Score 62 61 61

November 2009

Page 42

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

The above results provide an interesting support to the subjective expert analysis, numerically representing in broad terms how viable a very large array of techniques, carried out using different methods in different locations, could be. It is conceivable that other conclusions could be drawn about the potential viability of several of the interventions shown in Tables 4.4 and 4.5; however, the very extensive category descriptions established appears to adequately address the likelihood of success in the relevant setting, based on the experience and technical knowledge of the Team from the LSWM Study and current study. Whilst the Study Team attempted to use systematic techniques for the short-listing, inevitably some degree of intuition and experience in what works and does not work elsewhere, and what is likely to work or not work in the study countries has had an impact on the scoring. Whilst the above rankings provide a general indication of what types of equipment and upgrades are more feasible than others, it was immediately clear to the team upon completion of the analysis that several anomalies exist within the results. Furthermore, the issue of “independence”, i.e. whether or not the option can function or be installed as a stand-alone item, could not be addressed in the evaluation. Even the ordering of results according to score can cause misinterpretations, as options should be examined as part of a category or area of upgrade and options within these categories compared against each other. The interventions and technologies identified, therefore, were further examined and were grouped to determine if they would require installation along with other technologies or if they could succeed as part of a unilateral or ‘stand alone’ investment. Table 4.7 (livestock markets) and Table 4.8 (slaughterhouses and meat processing facilities) display the results of this evaluation, re-grouped according to technical category, and with indications of whether or not the particular option can be installed as a stand-alone item. The tables also provisionally indicate whether or not a given technical option is suited to upgrade, retrofit or solely for inclusion in new facilities. Note that many options fall into multiple categories, but have only been displayed once each.

November 2009

Page 43

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 4.7 – Categorisation and Independence of Technical Options for Livestock Markets Category Technical Option
Piped water Well and treatment River water with treatment Segregation of market and slaughter facilities Hygiene Segregation of food stalls and livestock areas Baited vermin traps Sewered latrine facilities Cesspit latrine facilities Chemical / biological latrine facilities Latrines to biogas Central skip / dumpster Waste Collection drums around market Incineration Open / pit burning Epidemiology Central cage Burial Installation of fencing Species segregation (pens) Free disease checks Disease compensation Vehicle upgrades Process Contracting of market cleaning Scales onsite Knowledge Market prices history Market rankings / political incentives Provision of feed & water Lairage Yards/ Tethering rails Feed & water troughs Animal Welfare Permanent steel/iron shade Market welfare inspectors Welfare Inspector Canvas strung shade Concrete unloading ramps Occupational Health & Safety Worker health checkups Concreted / non slip surfaces

OVI Stand Upgrade Retrofit Score Alone?
78 62 61 86 87 77 77 70 62 63 79 76 73 72 59 59 79 80 69 52 80 74 68 65 76 88 83 83 82 82 82 79 85 83 82 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

New Facility

Previous Ranking
17 34 36 42 43 45 52 53 54 55 14 20 22 23 37 38 41 46 48 49 12 50 26 32 51 1 4 5 6 8 9 16 2 3 7

November 2009

Page 44

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Category

Technical Option
Vehicle-borne unloading ramps Market H&S inspectors Steel unloading ramps Personnel ID check on arrivals/departures Composting Rainwater capture

OVI Stand Upgrade Retrofit Score Alone?
81 80 80 68 79 76 67 66 77 77 75 72 71 66 67 66 64 62 58 56 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

New Facility

Previous Ranking
10 11 13 47 15 19 27 29 44 18 21 24 25 31 28 30 33 35 39 40

Environmental

Reed beds Aeration tanks Vehicle cleaning facilities Screening/ sedimentation Water tanks & bowsers

Wastewater

Drainage channels Anaerobic facultative ponds Duckboards Biogas production Biogas production and use for lighting or power

Energy

Grid electricity Biogas derived electricity Diesel / biodiesel Generators Solar power

November 2009

Page 45

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 4.8 – Categorisation and Independence of Technical Options for Slaughterhouses and Meat Processing Facilities Category Technical Option
Segregation of food stalls and livestock / slaughter areas Inspection stamping / roller branding Tap installation Ante and post mortem inspection Dressing cradles Baited vermin traps Viscera buggy systems Tables for 5th quarter processing Procedures for handling animals dead on arrival Suitable identifiable protective clothing & equipment Laboratory / on site swabbing to private lab Electric hoists for hide removal & evisceration Carcass chilling River water with treatment Hygiene Sealing of interior walls and floors Footbaths at processing entry Temporary modification of existing vehicles Piped water Well and treatment Chilled despatch vehicles only Installation of skid roller / gambrel system for dressing Laundry service for operator clothing Knife sterilisers Worker changing rooms and facilities Air conditioning Steriliser handwash units Installation of netting Water sprays New dedicated vehicles Blood dryers Hide pullers

OVI Stand Upgrade Retrofit Score Alone?
85 85 83 82 80 79 79 76 76 YES YES YES YES YES YES

New Facility

Previous Ranking
1 2 4 7 11 13 14 21 22

75

27

75 74 74 73 73 73 72 71 71 71 69 69 67 67 67 67 65 60 58 55 53 YES YES YES YES YES YES

28 39 40 41 43 44 53 54 55 58 60 61 65 66 70 71 74 98 103 109 113

November 2009

Page 46

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Category

Technical Option
Dyeing of pathological waste Containers around slaughter & process floors Species segregation (pens) Central skip / dumpster Installation of fencing Central cage

OVI Stand Upgrade Retrofit Score Alone?
78 74 73 68 65 65 65 62 61 60 60 55 54 59 84 75 73 72 72 71 67 67 64 64 62 62 58 57 57 55 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

New Facility

Previous Ranking
15 34 42 63 73 75 76 87 93 96 97 108 112 100 3 25 48 51 52 57 67 68 81 82 86 88 102 105 106 110

Epidemiology

Incineration Open / pit burning Dedicated single species transport Rendering pathological solid waste Boning waste rendering Burial Disease compensation Rail transport conveyor Segregation of market and slaughter facilities Installation of manual rail system for carcass transport Additional walls Contracting out of slaughterhouse cleaning Blood collection Process improvements Personnel ID check on arrival

Process

Traceability system for live animals to carcasses Tighter controls on access Splitting saw Refrigerated carcass chillers Viscera pan conveyors Regular maintenance of equipment Blood rendering Feather rendering Pneumatic or hydraulic hand tools Slaughterhouse benchmarking and performance incentives

81 76 71 71 YES

8 20 56 59

Knowledge

Scales onsite Market prices history Training programmes, reviews, etc.

November 2009

Page 47

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Category

Technical Option
Electronic scales with ticketing Permanent steel/iron shade Canvas strung shade Water troughs Welfare inspector

OVI Stand Upgrade Retrofit Score Alone?
61 81 77 77 75 73 67 60 59 43 80 76 76 75 75 75 74 73 73 68 65 63 57 50 48 82 82 74 74 75 79 77 74 72 63 60 77 69 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

New Facility

Previous Ranking
94 9 18 19 30 47 69 99 101 117 10 23 24 26 29 32 36 46 49 64 79 85 104 115 116 5 6 38 37 31 12 16 33 50 83 95 17 62

Animal Welfare

Simple race Complex with forcing yards Electric stun Captive bolt Carbon dioxide gas stun Concrete / non-slip flooring H&S inspectors Signage Working platforms (bovine / equine) Concrete unloading ramps Manually operated restraint box pen

Occupational Health & Safety

Steel unloading ramps Vehicle-borne unloading ramps Single race to restraint box Worker health checkups Percussion stun bolt Rotating restraint box Safety and hygiene signage Live bullet CCTV General fluorescent lighting

Lighting

Intense lighting for inspectors Lighting to reduce need for goads

Ventilation

Internal rotating fans Well designed roof ventilation Rainwater capture Composting Vehicle cleaning facilities

Environmental

Water tanks & bowsers Reed beds Sedimentation & flotation tanks

Sanitation

Sewered latrine facilities Cesspit latrine facilities

November 2009

Page 48

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Category

Technical Option
Chemical / biological latrine facilities Latrines to biogas Drainage channels Anaerobic facultative ponds (poss. with biogas recovery)

OVI Stand Upgrade Retrofit Score Alone?
66 61 74 73 63 61 52 65 65 64 61 61 56 54

New Facility

Previous Ranking
72 92 35 45 84 90 114 77 78 80 89 91 107 111

Wastewater

Static screens Rotating screens Aeration tanks Incineration with energy recovery Biogas production and use for power or rendering

Energy

Grid electricity Biogas derived electricity Biogas production Solar power Diesel / biodiesel generators

4.3

SUMMARY

A summary of the LSWM Study Team’s objective assessments and ideas on the countries, facility types, and practices requiring the most urgent attention has been prepared and is illustrated in Figure 4.1. These are based on the data from the LSWM Study; the results of the literature search; and consideration of where some change might have the most immediate effect. Also identified at a top level are the most obvious and cost effective reconstruction improvements which emerge when the team members asked the question - what are the few inexpensive measures that could be taken that would

have dramatic positive impacts?
Although priority issues are listed above, most are interrelated and a holistic approach to a paradigm change in the sector is highly desirable, despite the aims of the present study. The scoring system for new techniques enabled a systematic assessment of what is essentially a very subjective and complex issue; best examined holistically in terms of process and goals but on a case-by-case basis in terms of reforms. The overriding conclusions of the literature and technology reviews are as follows: • There exists a wealth of literature / past study on certain issues but considerable gaps in other, equally critical areas. Our gap analysis shows that there is a lack of specialist information on the following areas relevant to developing countries: o o o o • Livestock market equipment and reconstruction in general; Occupational health and safety, food safety and public health in the livestock market setting; Economics and productivity, to assist operators’ decision making; Management and policy, and facility planning and operation.

The technologies and practices which can readily be installed and operated in a high-income country, despite being preferable from all aspects of the process, are almost entirely without foundation in the developing world. In virtually all cases examined, neither the financial resources nor the practical competencies currently exist to adopt this kind of intervention. Whilst individual techniques and equipment can be ranked and promoted, subsequent work should concentrate on complementary groups of equipment and upgrade types, delivering suggested levels of intervention for differing categories of situations on the ground. Page 49

November 2009

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Infrastructure, Processing Facilities, and Equipment Practices, Awareness, and Training Hygiene and Sanitation Facilities Management, Policy, Regulation and Inspection Decreasing urgency / severity

Country 1 Country 2 Country 4 Country 3 Country 5 Decreasing urgency / severity of situation

Country 3 Country 2 Country 1 Country 4 Country 5 Increasing GDP per capita

Slaughterhouses Livestock markets Processing Facilities Decreasing urgency / severity of situation

Live Markets – Lowest Cost and Greatest Benefit 1. Provision of basic sanitation facilities (e.g. detergents, functioning toilets, running water) 2. Provision of basic solid and liquid waste storage and disposal facilities 3. Provision of effective veterinary inspections and handling of diseased/distressed stock (including emergency slaughter receiving priority; consistent inspection at markets) 4. Shade and water for livestock (market authority obliged to comply & financially equipped to do so) 5. Segregation of different areas of the market and use of pens Slaughterhouse & Processing Facilities – Lowest Cost and Greatest Benefit 1. Provision of basic sanitation facilities (personal & plant - detergents, functioning toilets, running water) 2. Improved training in the awareness of good slaughtering practices with training certification and recognition (clothing identification - provision of budget to enable training etc) 3. Provision of basic hook / chain equipment and segregation / contamination reduction 4. Provision of effective veterinary inspections and efficient process auditing 5. Provision of basic solid and liquid waste storage and disposal facilities (e.g. locked room)

Figure 4.1 – Summary of Objective Assessments for Upgrading Works

November 2009

Page 50

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

5
5.1

CONDITIONS AT EXISTING FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION

The assessment of conditions at the existing facilities visited during the LSWM Study was undertaken using data collected during the study including reports, survey instruments, photographs, and video footage. A full account of the conditions encountered in the 90 or so facilities visited during the study is provided in the LSWM Final Report (Nippon Koei 2009), as well as in the Survey Instruments provided in Annexes D and E. Sections 5.2 and 5.3 below provide a summary of the findings from the LSWM Study, for livestock markets and meat plants respectively, illustrating the main problem areas from the five countries visited. Conditions on the ground were generally appalling, with only a handful of facilities - most of which were privately owned or operated – displaying more than a cursory nod towards facility layout, maintenance, cleaning, and improvement. Most slaughter and processing facilities observed were: • • • • • • • In unsuitable buildings and locations, with unsuitable access, and in poor states of repair; Without suitable internal fixtures, fittings or dedicated slaughtering equipment; Lacking in basic utilities such as water and lighting; Overcrowded, and lacking any kind of design or infrastructure that promoted animal welfare concerns; Lacking refrigeration, proper waste storage or disposal infrastructure, and drainage; Lacking process flows, security measures and acceptable despatch arrangements; Lacking in cleaning, maintenance or upgrade/expansion programmes.

Having identified the prevailing conditions of the facilities under the LSWM study, the present study further assessed and analysed the data country by country at a facility level, assessing where possible: • • • • •

Location, Security and Access; Overall layout; E.g. Arrival / Despatch, Lairage, Process flow and Segregation; Buildings; E.g. External and internal condition; Flooring and walling, Heights and spacing, Design and maintenance of fittings; E.g. Lighting, Ventilation, Dedicated equipment; Utility Services, Drainage and Sanitation; E.g. Availability of utilities, Waste storage and treatment, Sanitary facilities, Sanitary equipment, and Sanitary design issues.

Whilst the design, construction, state of repair and local setting of each facility was analysed, relying heavily on satellite imagery, photography and sketches (as drawings and plans were in general not available); in the interests of keeping the report relatively concise, general trends only will be described. Examples of the individual analyses are provided in Annex M. The purpose of this section is not to provide an exhaustive analysis of each facility, or even each country (as such an exercise could fill volumes) but to provide an introduction to the likely situations and problems that will be faced on the ground by upgrade teams, permitting an appreciation of the general problems, leading to feasible and sustainable solutions. 5.2 LIVESTOCK MARKETS

Livestock markets in the study countries were the least developed facility type in terms of infrastructure and operational procedures. They frequently consisted of nothing more than an open area of land, with no infrastructure whatsoever, though more commonly some very basic structures existed; such as basic unloading ramps, basic latrines, occasional containers for waste, and some temporary shelters for provision of shade or use as commercial purposes. Typical images of livestock markets in the study countries were provided in Figure 3.1, and additional images are provided below.

November 2009

Page 51

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

5.2.1

Location, Security and Access

The locations of livestock markets serving the cities in the countries visited varied, from relatively remote rural areas to entirely urban settings. Markets in urban areas were usually surrounded by residential, commercial or industrial development, as well as waterways and municipal facilities such as dumpsites. In many locations the livestock markets were adjacent to retail markets or slaughter facilities. Access to the urban livestock markets was usually totally inadequate, due to the restrictions of the urban environment, traffic levels, the unsuitability of the roads for livestock vehicles or herding, and their poor state of repair. The area in the immediate vicinity of the markets was often severely dilapidated in terms of road quality, drainage, and available space, with conditions worsened by a large profusion of unrestricted movements, overspill pens and lairage, dumps and commercial stalls (see for example Figure 5.1). There is no separate access for livestock vehicles and public vehicles, limited parking, and usually no municipal control; meaning that animals are sometimes kept in unsuitable transport vehicles (having already spent extended periods in unsuitable market conditions) for hours on end as drivers attempt to negotiate the crowded access points. Lack of paving and drainage in many areas means that mud or dust become problematic, and this further slows vehicular movements. It is clear that at most locations, whilst authorities claim they are restricted in what they can do to improve the infrastructure services, their failure to impose any kind of management on traffic, parking, livestock flows, the general public and informal trade aggravates an already difficult situation.

Figure 5.1 – Poor Market Location, Access and Security Arrangements are Common Markets in rural or semi rural areas were not without problems, and many suffered from similar issues as those described above. Clearly the space restrictions and overcrowding are not as severe as at urban locations, however road and drainage infrastructure in rural or semi-rural areas is usually more basic than in towns. Security at almost all locations, whether rural or urban, was practically non-existent, with no checks on livestock traders, the livestock itself, tradesmen or the general public, other than for fee-collection purposes.

November 2009

Page 52

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Annex D shows satellite imagery of most of the livestock market facilities visited, and provides a good understanding of the existing situation with regards to location, access and security. 5.2.2 Overall layout

The overall layout of most livestock markets encountered was basic. At best these facilities consisted of a dedicated paved and fenced area, including some form of ramps and pens, angled floors and drainage channels, with the provision of rails, water troughs and some shade. Whilst by no means ideal, this basic infrastructure provides an acceptable location (in comparison to most other facilities) in which to trade animals without too much stress to the beasts11, and maintaining some form of control12. Figure 5.2 shows one of the better livestock markets.

Figure 5.2 – One of the Better-Designed and Equipped Ruminant Markets Encountered

More commonly, however, facilities were far more basic than those described above, consisting of little more than an open or semi-enclosed area of land, usually bare earth but in one instance on a disused dump site. Occasional temporary areas of shade were erected at some locations, as well as some stalls selling food, drink, and farming and veterinary supplies. Figures 5.3 and 3.1 show an example of this common market layout. No logical flow through the facilities existed, and layouts were in general ad hoc, with no dedicated areas for different activities or even species; the lack of areas or infrastructure for tethering animals encourages transactions to occur in the main open area, in amongst the animals and vehicles. Few markets had any permanent buildings on site, but those that did generally consisted of a small administrative building or guard post, often situated at the market entrance. Most markets had some form of perimeter wall or fencing - though these were in poor repair and served little purpose - or were naturally demarked by roads or adjoining waterways.

11 Whilst the market layouts in this country were better than elsewhere, access arrangements remained very poor, and thus arriving animals were nevertheless exposed to excessive stress 12

Control over livestock movements and sale, but also in terms of access and commercial stalls selling food

November 2009

Page 53

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Figure 5.3 – Standard Ad Hoc Market Layout The standard ad hoc layout encountered frequently in the field is clearly the historical method, and to a certain extend is acceptable on a small scale, in rural or semi-rural environments in terms of welfare, safety and so forth. However the same model transplanted to an urban environment and swollen in size presents all manner of concerns and risks. 5.2.3 Buildings

As mentioned above, livestock markets were generally very basic, usually having no permanent buildings on site whatsoever, and with all market activities occurring outside. Some markets had very basic wood or brick-built administration and/or sanitation buildings, but these were without exception small and in need of external and internal renovation. 5.2.4 Design and maintenance of fittings

All livestock markets visited took place outdoors, having at best a small number of mainly administrative buildings. These facilities had no electricity for lighting or ventilation and as a result, business hours are restricted to daylight. Most facilities did not have a water supply, and as such there was no provision of water troughs, or sanitation facilities. Most locations had either no unloading/loading ramps, or very basic or makeshift ramps made from earth, waste, or wood. Other than for the exceptions described above, none of the markets were fitted out with rails, pens, races, shade, scales or any of the infrastructure and equipment that one might reasonably expect to find at a modern or even semi-modern livestock market. The above situation is further aggravated through a general lack of clear operational control over proceedings, official procedures, or schedules, and a general failure on behalf of the authorities to maintain order. 5.2.5 Utility Services, Drainage and Sanitation

As already described above, facilities were predominantly not supplied with electricity or water, meaning that not only were operations and animal welfare compromised, but site cleaning and sanitation were also of concern. This, combined with a lack of cleaning services, and waste storage and collection meant that almost all facilities and their environs were strewn with a mixture of animal and human excrement,
November 2009

Page 54

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

dead stock and vermin, and slaughter waste in addition to straw and the ubiquitous mud caused by the generally poor drainage arrangements, which at best consisted of basic channels running to the nearest watercourse. The conditions described above and shown in Figure 5.5 clearly represent a considerable danger to human and animal health.

Figure 5.4 – Where Present, Market Sanitation and Drainage were Very Basic 5.3 SLAUGHTER & PROCESSING FACILITIES

While some facilities were clearly making an attempt at managing operations and maintaining their infrastructure, and the difference between the best and worst facilities was tangible, the overall assessment is of a very poorly provisioned and managed sector, operating in dreadful conditions from decaying, inappropriate and overcrowded buildings and in unsuitable locations. There was far more variety encountered in terms of infrastructure design, layout, quality and maintenance within the municipal slaughter and processing facilities than for livestock markets, both between study countries and individual locations within the same city. It is therefore more difficult to generalise with respect to existing conditions, however, despite the many differences encountered, clear trends were observed13, and these, along with the major differences, are outlined below. 5.3.1 Location, Security and Access

Due mainly to urban expansion and the age of existing facilities, the locations of most of the slaughterhouses visited had become largely inappropriate; often right in the urban or suburban environment and closely surrounded by residential and business premises. Some smaller and more recent facilities were deliberately located in the urban area in order to serve the meat demands of the local communities without the need for transport arrangements. Facility sizes varied from under 10 m2 to 12
13

For detailed information on individual facilities see Annexes D, E, and M, and the LSWM report (Nippon Koei 2009)

November 2009

Page 55

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

hectares, and in common with livestock markets, they often backed onto a watercourse of some nature for ease of effluent discharge. A small number of slaughterhouses were located in more suitable areas; on the outskirts of towns, in industrial zones, and occasionally in dedicated facilities constructed in rural areas. These were in general larger, more modern, and purpose-built, bearing some resemblance to a slaughterhouse rather than simply a space in which slaughter operations occur. Security at the facilities visited varied greatly and there was no prevailing observation other than controls even at the most secure facilities were below the standards encountered in high income countries. At some locations the nature of the infrastructure – either a totally enclosed building or a gated, fenced/walled compound - permitted good security. At other locations the open nature of the site did not allow such tight controls, and many facilities were totally open with no controls whatsoever on who enters the facility. Of note is that some of the facilities that had good security infrastructure rendered it obsolete by failing to maintain control over the vehicle and pedestrian entry and exit points. Access to the facilities is also varied, but is generally poor. Although a number of variations exist, a number of typical access formats were observed: • • • • • •

Narrow alleyways leading from urban streets (inadequate for both delivery of the animals and for the despatch of products by motorcycle, the only motorised transport that can fit); No road (In some locations the road ended several hundred metres or more from the facility, with a dirt track or open field to cross for access) Degraded and unsuitable roads (Degraded roads very difficult to navigate, too narrow, and very
crowded. Impassable by vehicle during peak times such as slaughter);

Narrow but acceptable urban roads (congested and ill suited to slaughterhouse-related traffic,
but in good order);

Secondary roads (relatively minor roads, but in good repair and due to location, relatively quiet) Major Roads (Recently built or rehabilitated major roads and dual carriageways)

Figures 5.5 – 5.8 show the variety of access and security arrangements encountered.

Figure 5.5 – Slaughterhouse Access Example 1
November 2009

Page 56

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Figure 5.6 – Slaughterhouse Access Example 2 (The best municipal access and security arrangements encountered by a considerable margin)

Figure 5.7 – Slaughterhouse Access Example 3

November 2009

Page 57

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Figure 5.8 – Slaughterhouse Access Example 4 The often unsuitable access roads, coupled with poor security, lack of parking (very widespread), failing infrastructure and overcrowding, means that the approaches to many facilities encountered are a danger to be for the pedestrian, but also very difficult to negotiate as a vehicle owner, and in particular as a livestock or as a driver of a livestock or meat vehicle. The poor conditions and overcrowding represent a public health risk. In summary, the majority of the facilities visited are poorly located, with deficient security and access, and as a result the daily operation of the facilities cause a variety of problems from noise and air pollution to road blockages, odour, and major public health problems. Annex E shows satellite imagery of most of the slaughter facilities visited, and provides a good understanding of the existing situation with regards to location, access and security. 5.3.2 Overall layout

The basic site layouts encountered, whether for poultry, swine, smallstock or cattle processing, were generally loosely based on one of two formats: • • Closed building, with all lairage (if present), slaughter, processing and despatch occurring inside the building; or A walled or fenced compound comprising of a number of buildings, yards, and storage areas.

Most facilities, including many larger facilities and many urban facilities, fell into the latter category. Site layouts varied widely depending on country, species, facility size, adjacent features and so forth; and no two facilities were the same, however there were similarities in their overall way of functioning, and hence layout. Despite the huge variety in configurations encountered, most fell within one of the following: • Batch facilities; o o o • No booth system; kill floor only; Booth system with hoists; Booth system with hoists and rails;

Line facilities; o o With manual rail system; Semi automated; Page 58

November 2009

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

o

Fully automated.

Beyond the basic layout alternatives outlined above, it is very difficult to generalise about plant layouts, with some being logically arranged and spacious, whilst others were cramped or poorly designed, if they were designed at all. Many of the compound-style facilities had closed or semi-closed slaughter halls, and employed the outside yard as an offal preparation area, drainage area, waste dump, and so on; often simultaneously and without separation (see Figures 3.2 and 5.9). Locations dealing with more than one species usually had separate halls for each species, however some facilities had only one hall. The majority of facilities visited were batch plants, and of those, the majority had basic booth slaughter rigs consisting of a chain or rope hoist attached to pulleys and gambrel. Only very few batch facilities had a product flow through the facility with most halls passing live animals in through the same door as wastes and meat products exit; usually also the same door that is used by workers. Some slaughterhouses had “fitted” infrastructure such as concrete basins, meat hooks, and drying racks, however no trends in layouts were observed.

Figure 5.9 – Hall with Yard Workspace Configuration

Whilst the batch facilities described above were basic, poorly designed, and usually in a poor state of repair (see below for further information on condition), the layouts and equipment at least allowed the lifting of carcasses off the floor, and delineation of working space, and there had at least been some thought put in to design; several facilities visited still practiced batch slaughter and butchery on the floor of the slaughter hall, usually in dark, cramped conditions. At these locations, working conditions were usually very bad, however the workers were well organised, and as a result, distinct areas of the halls were well delineated despite the lack of infrastructure-related layouts beyond a concrete plinth, step, drain or wooden board. Figures 5.10 and 5.11 show two such facilities and Figure 3.2 provides further insight into some of the different layouts encountered.

November 2009

Page 59

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Figure 5.10 – Floor-Based Batch Slaughterhouse Example 1

Figure 5.11 – Floor-Based Batch Slaughterhouse Example 2

November 2009

Page 60

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Relatively few line facilities were encountered by the LSWM team, however most countries had at least one in operation. They were generally larger plants than the batch facilities, and as a rule they were operating to a slightly higher standard; however it should not be concluded that line facilities are necessarily superior to batch facilities; rather it was the case that these facilities tended to be privately owned and hence had better financial support and management, as well as a usually more discerning clientele. In terms of overall layout again the facilities varied, but had many common features. Those line facilities with a simple manual rail system generally had similar layouts to the batch facilities – small to medium sized halls, simple outdoor lairage, and a yard for waste removal and offal preparation – with some minor alterations to the interior due to the zoning caused by having a line. So rather than having many stations completing all tasks, each area of activity was concentrated into one zone, with the result that any necessary infrastructure was only found at that location. The powered line system plants were all far larger than the basic line or batch facilities, and were all sited in a complex, with dedicated buildings and areas for the various tasks involved, such as lairage, stunning/bleeding, flaying, disembowelling, butchering, offal preparation, despatch, incineration, rendering. At two of the plants, operations occurred not only in multiple buildings but on multiple levels, with offal processing occurring below the main kill floor. The more spacious layouts and dedicated areas at these facilities allowed for a more effective process flow, and whilst cold chains were generally not maintained, a degree of control over separation of “dirty” and “clean” operations was achieved. It should however be noted that in spite of the improved layouts and process flows, the facilities were operating to hugely different standards. Figure 5.12 shows an example of the more separated line facility layouts. It is difficult to photographically depict overall layouts of most facilities due to their size, though some example photos of more open shots are provided in Figure 5.13. For annotated satellite imagery of individual facility layouts, refer to Annexes D and E14.

Figure 5.12 – Layout Plan of one of the Line Facilities Encountered, Showing Zoning

A full record of many thousands of photos and hours of film were taken during the LSWM study, and these are available upon request for use in further studies.

14

November 2009

Page 61

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Figure 5.13 – Exterior Layouts of Line Facilities

November 2009

Page 62

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Lairage at most facilities was not a priority, with many locations not even having a dedicated lairage pen at all; animals awaited their turn on the kill floor, outside in the street, or crowded into a backroom, hallway or other unsuitable area. Those slaughterhouses that did have acceptable lairage were few, and these were usually deficient, offering little in the way of shade and water, and often overcrowded with tethered animals. The lairages consisted of a variety of layouts and construction, including: • • Cages; Walled concrete pens, open or boothed; d • • Fenced-off dirt-floored pens; Internal courtyards.

Figure 5.13 shows one of the better lairage facilities encountered, however note lack of shade and water. Poultry slaughterhouses were privately run in all countries, but a description is provided below for completeness. They tended to be one of three broad sizes, each having roughly similar layout and operation: •

Small neighbourhood or market chicken shops and stalls offering on site whole live chickens as
well as offering slaughter and butchery of the same as well as pre-prepared meat. These facilities generally slaughtered a low throughput of birds, one or two at a time, with just one or two workers and minimal equipment. An example is shown in Figure 5.14.

Small dedicated slaughterhouses geared solely towards slaughter and butchery of poultry for
wholesale, rather than consumer/retail operation. These facilities were often small (50-200 m2) and found grouped together (up to around 50 separate businesses) in the same area or even in identical booths (see Figure 5.15). Slaughter teams usually numbered 5-10, and equipment was usually no more than cones, knives and hot water. Modern powered line facilities not owned by municipalities and operating for export or supermarket sales. These private facilities were operating to standards comparable with high income countries. Whilst these facilities had good process flow and well designed layouts, due to being non-municipal they were not examined under the present ToR.

Figure 5.14 – Example of a Market Poultry Butcher/Slaughterer
November 2009

Page 63

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Figure 5.15 – Examples of Small Private Poultry Slaughterhouse layouts; the Most Common Type Encountered Overall the LSWM study visits showed that whilst a variety in layouts were encountered, and there are trends within those layouts in terms of operational standards, it is quite possible to buck those trends and have a well constructed, planned and operated booth system, and a poorly constructed, planned and operated line system.
November 2009

Page 64

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

This brief summary cannot hope to comprehensively describe the wide variety of facilities visited, and in order to gain an appreciation of this variety, examination of the Survey Instruments in Annexes D and E is recommended. Further information on the condition of buildings, and the internal operations and infrastructure are provided in subsequent sections. 5.3.3 Buildings

A wide variety of buildings was encountered, with differing designs, construction methods, materials, floor sizes, and heights. Due to having detailed written and photographic records of over 90 facilities, it is impossible to provide details of all the variants, but Table 5.1 gives a summary of some of the more common types encountered at each location. Whilst fundamentally different, the vast majority of these buildings had much in common, as they were generally one or more of the following: • • • • • Poorly designed dimensions and exterior, considering present usage; Poorly designed internally, considering present usage; Poorly constructed or unfinished; Old; Ill-maintained and deteriorating.

Only a few notable examples were well designed, well built, and well maintained. It was common to encounter slaughterhouses that were sited in buildings that were not originally constructed for such a purpose, and these often had basic alterations and additions, such as lean-tos and partition walls. Where space did not allow, these facilities operate in very cramped conditions. Those buildings that had been specifically designed for slaughter operations were often so old that they were no longer suited to the task due to either present methods or throughput levels. These types of plants often had additional newer buildings on site, built to attempt to increase capacity, and these were often of a lesser quality than the main building(s). Many facilities were open-sided, or had open fronted or raised roofing to allow for easy access, cleaning and ventilation, and this clearly presents problems in terms of maintaining a hygienic envelope. The overall quality of buildings encountered was very poor, and the lack of investment in infrastructure over recent years is evident. The few facilities that were modern and of a high quality were generally operating in the private sector. Inside the buildings, most had at one time been properly painted and prepared, some having tiling and non-slip gratings, however maintenance was clearly very low priority, and only a handful of facilities showed any sign of recent repainting, let alone recent cleaning. The majority of facility interiors were, however, bare concrete, with no sealant coatings. Many buildings were missing tiling, and in areas that had been rendered or painted, cracks, holes and flaking were often observed. The poor interior finishing and maintenance encountered clearly presents hygiene risks due to presenting excellent locations for bacteria and vermin to reside. External conditions were usually worse than internal conditions; most buildings showed evidence of decay, with broken windows, missing roof sections, and cracked, unpainted or un-rendered walls. Most lacked guttering and drainpipes, doors, and fly-screens. External condition is less important than that of the interior of a facility in terms of hygiene, however in terms of longevity it presents problems. In terms of heights and floor areas, the buildings visited were generally not too cramped, and were often reasonably airy and roomy, although in many locations the perception obtained during an out of hours visit was vastly different to the overcrowded situation encountered during operating hours. Some locations, and one country in particular, had very cramped, dark and dank buildings, with low ceilings. Perimeter walls and fences, where present, were almost always ruptured in places, and deteriorating generally. Figure 5.16 shows a selection of slaughter building exteriors, and Figure 5.17 shows a selection of building interiors. Note that the photos have been selected to show the variety encountered, and the inclusion of some of the better facilities is not intended to skew the perceived ratios of these buildings, as they were very much the exception and were only rarely encountered.

November 2009

Page 65

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 5.1 – Summary of Some Building Types Encountered During the LSWM Study15 Country 1 The buildings at xxx Slaughter facility comprise concrete floors with concrete pillars and walls and a corrugated steel roof supported by a structural steel framework. The buildings suffer from broken and rusting roofs and general deterioration in general, not helped by the smoke accumulation within the building from the solid fuel water heating hearth, heavy usage, and poor maintenance. Country 2 Buildings at xxx slaughterhouse are of the open-sided portal framed type with concrete flooring fitted with open drain lines and concrete tiles. Considering their age (more than 40 years old for some) and the harsh working conditions, the buildings and associated facilities are in relatively good condition. Country 3 xxx slaughterhouse is a modern steel portal frame building that has been adapted to include a simple processing line for smallstock, mainly goats. The facilities are on a single level and have a viewing area for customers and management. Country 4 The 3 xxx slaughterhouses were all constructed of blocks/bricks, concrete and steel, with concrete flooring and basic drainage channels and grates and raised corrugated roofs; however, they are all very basic in terms of architecture and features, and were without exception in a poor state of repair. All are a minimum of 50 years old. Country 5 The two main city slaughterhouses visited both had a mix of old and new buildings. This type of building mix is common where historical growth has occurred. In both cases, the general standard of the building was good and construction was underway at both sites to introduce new production units of some form. Construction techniques varied depending on purpose, and comprised bricks and mortar, steel frame with cladding, or wooden cabin The small urban poultry slaughter operations were housed in long open fronted building with low brick walls between facilities and a basic roof.

At xxx, the buildings are of modern concrete construction and purpose-built to house the modern slaughter and processing facilities. Inside, the buildings are well designed and have painted finishes in the offices, whilst there is an abundance of ceramic tiles

xxx slaughterhouse is a newer and much smaller facility, designed in-house by a veterinarian to try an alternative layout. It is built on the same small site as the previous facility so is very restricted in terms of space and capacity. The facility is essentially contained in one integrated concrete building which is inconspicuous as a slaughterhouse

The buildings at xxx abattoir are relatively small and simple; condition is average.

xxx slaughterhouse, whilst old and outdated, and in some aspects in poor repair, is at least visibly maintained to some degree, and it is obvious that they have a reasonable cleaning regime and repaint frequently.

15

Text taken from LSWM study report, with facility names removed

November 2009

Page 66

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Country 1 Whilst the buildings at xxx Poultry Slaughter are inadequately sized, particularly in the sticking/plucking areas at the rear, the buildings are generally in a sound condition. A degree of wear and tear is evident as it seems that there is little attention paid to regular maintenance of the floors, walls, and working surfaces

Country 2 At xxx slaughterhouse, open portal frame buildings with tiled floors and open drains, are in use, but at this facility the buildings are generally in poor condition, especially the roof and floors

Country 3 The buildings at the private xxx abattoir are only 2-3 years old and in good condition

Country 4 xxx slaughterhouse, whose construction was completed in 1997, is in a far better state of repair than other slaughterhouses visited in the study area. Buildings are constructed using a variety of techniques, but steel frames, and concrete block or lightweight corrugated studwork are employed widely. Roofing is either flat and felted, or angular and made of corrugated steel. The modern poultry facilities, in common with xxx slaughterhouse, are all relatively new, and are reasonably well constructed and maintained.

Country 5 The municipal slaughterhouses visited were aged and in poor to very poor condition. Construction was of stone and brick and in traditional style, with corrugated iron roofing. There is clearly little budget available to maintain the facilities as they were old and decrepit. Some basic attempts to patch up the walls and repaint were, however, observed.

The building at xxx Poultry Slaughter is in good condition, reflecting reasonably recent construction and low utilisation of the facility.

xxx slaughterhouse is relatively small and has a cattle slaughter area, a small ruminant slaughter area, an offal processing area, and a skin area, all in one compact building.

xxx abattoir is not custombuilt but is a modern portal frame building with simple internal modifications for the slaughter of small-stock only

In comparison, the slaughter buildings at another slaughterhouse could best be described as temporary structures only, consisting of simple low walls with flat roofs provided on columns, creating shade but permitting ventilation also.

November 2009

Page 67

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Figure 5.16 – Examples of Slaughterhouse Building Exteriors

November 2009

Page 68

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Figure 5.17 – Examples of Slaughterhouse Building Interiors 5.3.4 Design and maintenance of fittings

As with all the other infrastructure aspects already described, interior design, fittings and equipment varied greatly from facility to facility and yet retained a common thread of neglect and deterioration. The most basic facilities had no internal fittings or equipment to speak of, and consisted of simply floor space on which to carry out the slaughter and preparation activities (see Figures 5.10 and 5.11). These basic slaughterhouses usually had no lighting, and some were even without a supply of water. Others had some rudimentary concrete pens, plinths slightly raised from the floor on which to perform butchery, and basins of foetid water, used for various tasks such as scalding and cleaning. Examples of two such facilities are shown in Figure 5.18 below.

November 2009

Page 69

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Figure 5.18 – Examples of Basic Slaughterhouse Fittings & Equipment

November 2009

Page 70

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

The next level of facility encountered still consisted of a very basic slaughter hall that had no ancillary buildings or functions such as lairage or offal preparation areas, however the halls had some basic hooks or hoists from which to suspend carcasses during preparation. In these facilities the only equipment used were the knives and axes owned by the slaughtermen. Water and electricity were still not present or were insufficient and in short supply. No provision was made for collection of slaughter wastes or 5th quarter items. Some facilities had basic concrete water troughs or raised platforms for butchery operations. Examples of such facilities, which represented the majority of slaughterhouses visited during the LSWM study visits, are shown in Figures 5.17 (bottom and middle right images) and 7.1. Two more levels of facility were encountered in terms of interior fittings and fixtures; those with a manual line, and those with a powered line system. Both facility types included a ceiling-mounted line system, and as a result the carcasses passed along these allowing for different operations to occur at different locations. In turn this meant that in general an amount of ancillary fixtures and fittings were present, though the amount and type varied considerably; some lines merely passed through different rooms or areas which separated the processes and the operations at each station were performed with knife alone(e.g. Figure 5.18). Lighting and provision of cold and hot water were generally improved at these types of facility. More complex configurations included a variety of equipment, including: • • • • • • • • • Races; Stun boxes and tongs; Rotating bleed boxes; Paunch collection systems; Blood collection systems; Hide pullers; Motorised winches; Electric saws; Plucking machines; • • • • • • Hot water baths; A variety of stainless steel vessels and tables (including rolling tables & cradles); Knife sterilisers; Hand washing facilities; Static and rising platforms; and Waste pans and bins.

Figure 5.18 – Manual Line Slaughterhall with no Additional Fittings & Equipment
November 2009

Page 71

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Outside the slaughterhalls themselves, some facilities included ancillary equipment including: • • • • • • Pens; Incinerators Paunch drying systems; Blood drying systems; Screens; Waste Water Treatment Plants; • • • • Chillers; Boning and butchery room equipment e.g. mincing and sausage machines; Despatch ports; and Rendering systems.

Generally the more advanced a given facility’s line was, the more ancillary equipment it had present outside the slaughterhalls. The various items of slaughter and process equipment listed above were in a variety of states of repair, use and cleanliness, from poor to relatively good. Lack of cleaning can in places makes interior fittings that are present more dangerous/unhygienic than were they not present. Examples of ancillary equipment are shown in Figure 5.19.

Figure 5.19 – Ancillary Fittings and Equipment Lighting levels varied from very bad (See Figures 5.11, 5.17 & 5.18) to acceptable, but no facility had truly good levels of lighting in all areas, and the dark conditions hampered both slaughter operations and veterinary inspections. There was uniformly no thought towards animal welfare in terms of lighting installations. Ventilation was also generally poor, and air conditioning systems were rare.

November 2009

Page 72

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

5.3.5

Utility Services, Drainage and Sanitation

Levels of utility services, drainage and sanitation were universally poor. Many facilities lacked basic sanitation facilities for workers, had no hot water, limited cold water supply or dispensing points, and no waste or wastewater treatment. Even mid-level facilities that included drainage channels sunk into the floor did not screen or treat the wastes prior to discharge to local watercourses or sewers, and the covering grates were frequently damaged or broken, presenting a danger to workers and livestock. Where sanitation facilities were present, they were often woefully inadequate and filthy. Some facilities had on–site generator sets as backup for power cuts, however these were rare. The few locations that included paunch drying systems or wastewater treatment systems were not operating these properly due to lack of sufficient power and/or reagents. Figure 5.20 shows a variety of utility and sanitation arrangements, or lack thereof.

Figure 5.20 – Poor Utility, Drainage and Sanitation Arrangements
November 2009

Page 73

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

5.4

ASSESSMENT OF CAPACITY

During the LSWM facility visits, the following Capacity-related aspects were examined: • • • • Current operation levels; Capacity of the existing facilities; Extent of over or under-capacity operation; Potential for expansion and potential for increasing capacity in existing buildings.

Most facilities visited were operating over present capacity, or over capacity considering existing equipment /procedures (i.e. not due to overall space available). Individual capacity assessment results are available in Annexes D, E, and M. The aim of this section is therefore not to provide details of the field assessments carried out, but to provide a capacity assessment guide for future application by survey teams and upgrade strategists. 5.4.1 Determination of Slaughterhouse Capacity

A number of factors must be taken into account to determine the potential capacity of slaughterhouses. Some of the factors are related directly to the built environment and others are related to the ability of the connected infrastructure to service the needs of the facility. Potential capacity will depend on the mix of these factors and the requirements of the facility. In some locations (in particular with line facilities) capacity is capped by one clear limiting factor, for example a bottleneck in production such as the speed of a particular process. In other cases (more commonly in batch facilities) the capacity limit cannot be directly attributed to any one area and is usually a combination of factors. Refrigeration Refrigeration and hanging of meat is the norm in high income countries, and refrigerated meat has become widely accepted and is now preferred; unrefrigerated meat would almost certainly be viewed with deep suspicion. Whilst attitudes and practices are slowly changing in some countries, consumers in most low and middleincome countries still expect unhung and very fresh meat, and in contrast to higher income countries, suspicion is levied towards chilled meat.

Where Refrigeration is Required
In circumstances where it is required that carcasses are chilled prior to release to the market, the capacity of the plant will be limited by the capacity of its refrigeration facility. Approximate floor areas required for active chilling space to refrigerate carcasses are provided in the following tables: Table 5.1 – Approximate Floor Area Required Per Carcass Carcass Type Beef Pig Small-stock (goats & sheep) Approximate Floor Area (m2/carcass) 0.8-1.0 0.3-0.6 0.15-0.3

Table 5.2 – Estimated Chiller Area Requirements Plant Capacity (head/day) 25 50 100 500 1,000 2,000 Approximate Chiller Area Requirements (m2) Beef Pig Small-stock 23 11 6 45 23 11 90 45 23 450 225 113 900 450 225 1,800 900 450

November 2009

Page 74

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Where Refrigeration is not Required
The capacity of a slaughtering site in locations where refrigeration is not required by consumers is difficult to assess based on the available floor area for any of the operations. The operating period for many of this type of non-chill plant is often short as carcasses are prepared in the early to late hours of the morning so that they can be delivered to the meat markets in a fresh condition. To dramatically increase the capacity of the site without change to floor space simply requires an extension of the working time, and extended working periods can be observed at a number of the facilities visited during the study. Of course the problem of consumer preferences and market operation hours still remain an issue, however market operations should not be permitted to cause unnecessary over-capacity operation, and in these instances, focus is best placed further down the supply chain. At plants that do not refrigerate prior to despatch, the capacity of the plant is best determined by the individual capacities of other infrastructure elements including: • • • • • • Ability to transport animals to the slaughtering location; Ability to despatch carcasses from the slaughtering location; Ability to hold animals in holding yards ready for slaughter; Availability of water, electricity and fuel; Process speed; Capacity to handle: o o o o o hides and skins; fifth quarter; blood; effluent treatment & disposal; solid waste material.

Some indicators that can be used to determine the potential capacity of a slaughtering site include: • • • • Livestock Delivery & Carcass Despatch Logistics; Capacity of Holding Yards; Availability of Water, Electricity and Fuel; and Handling Capacity.

Livestock Delivery & Carcass Despatch Logistics The types of vehicles used for livestock transport and delivery to central slaughterhouses vary significantly in developing countries, however many livestock are delivered on relatively small vehicles containing only a few head of animals. Large numbers of vehicles delivering small numbers of animals in each vehicle can be a significant restraint on the capacity of the overall slaughtering site. The livestock delivery and unloading area must be able to: • • Provide sufficient space for controlled vehicle movement including adequate turning circles; and Adequately unload the intended number of livestock in a controlled manner.

Some indication of delivery vehicle movement logistics are provided in Table 5.3: Table 5.3 – Estimated Number of Traffic Movements Plant Capacity (head/day) 25 50 100 500 1,000 2,000 5 5 10 20 100 200 400 Average Number of Head Delivered Per Vehicle 10 15 20 3 2 1 5 3 3 10 7 5 50 33 25 100 67 50 200 133 100 25 1 2 4 20 40 80

November 2009

Page 75

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

It can be observed that with low numbers of head per vehicle the number of traffic movements become significant at higher capacity levels. Exactly the same scenario applies to transport vehicles taking carcasses from the slaughter site to the meat markets, and a similar table can be prepared for carcass delivery logistics. As noted in previous sections, road and access infrastructure is often inadequate and becomes a major restriction on the capacity of facilities, particularly those that were built many years ago when livestock were often walked in low numbers to the slaughter facility. These facilities are now surrounded by the built environment and the capacity of the site is restricted by incoming and outgoing goods transport logistics. Capacity of Holding Yards For proper control of operations at slaughter facilities the specific number of livestock to be processed during a session should preferably be on-site at the commencement of slaughter operations. While this does not occur in many circumstances it is certainly highly desirable. Requirements for yard space are set in a number of publications. For general purposes in the developing world environment it is recommended that the following tables16 be used to assess the capacity of the site. Table 5.4 – Floor Area for Livestock Holding Yards Livestock Type Cattle (loose) Cattle (tied) Small Pigs Large Pigs Sheep & Goats Approximate Floor Area (m2/head) 2.3-2.8 3.0-3.5 0.5-0.7 0.7-0.9 0.7-0.9

Table 5.5 – Estimated Area Requirements for Holding Yards Plant Capacity (head/day) 25 50 100 500 1,000 2,000 Approximate Holding Yard Area Requirements (m2) Cattle Loose Cattle Tied Small Pigs Large Pigs Sheep & Goats 63 81 15 20 20 125 163 30 40 40 250 325 60 80 80 1,250 1,625 300 400 400 2,500 3,250 600 800 800 5,000 6,500 1,200 1,600 1,600

Availability of Water, Electricity and Fuel The proper operation of a slaughter facility requires adequate supplies of water, electricity and fuel. The most important of these is water. While modern high standard meat processing operations use large volumes of water these plants have a high degree of automation and water wastage occurring. Based on the circumstances prevailing in developing countries, including the cost of infrastructure and the cost of provision of water, sites should have available at least half the amount of water that would normally be used in a modern processing facility. On this basis the minimum amount of water that should be available so as to prevent capacity limitation is included in Table 5.6. Table 5.6 – Minimum Water Requirements Livestock Type Cattle Pigs Small-stock
16

Minimum Water Availability (m3/head) 1.0-2.0 0.3-0.4 0.2-0.3

Based on PAA; CSIRO; MLA/Mintrac industry data. 2009

November 2009

Page 76

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 5.7 – Estimated Minimum Water Availability Requirement Plant Capacity (head/day) 25 50 100 500 1,000 2,000 Approximate Water Availability Requirements (cubic metres/day) Beef Carcasses Pig Carcasses Small-stock Carcasses 38 9 6 75 18 13 150 35 25 750 175 125 1,500 350 250 3,000 700 500

Electricity and fuel can be combined into one measure as the vast majority of electricity is used to heat water rather than provide lighting. Electricity consumption in simple processing operations where electricity is used to provide basic water heating is in the order of 100 kWhr/tonne of carcass weight produced (this is equivalent to an energy use of 400 MJ/tonne carcass weight.) On this basis energy availability requirement for slaughtering facilities can be estimated as follows: Table 5.8 – Estimated Minimum Energy Availability Requirement Plant Capacity (head/day) 25 50 100 500 1,000 2,000 Handling Capacity The ability to handle non-carcass outputs from the site can limit capacity and therefore the following generally require capacity assessments: • • • • • Hides and skins recovery & processing, storage, and despatch/disposal; Fifth quarter recovery and processing storage, and despatch/disposal; Blood recovery and processing storage, and despatch/disposal; Effluent treatment & disposal; Solid waste storage, and despatch/disposal. Approximate Energy Availability Requirement in kWhr/day (MJ/day) Beef Carcasses Pig Carcasses Small-Stock Carcasses (180kg) (65kg) (16kg) 450 (1,800) 163 (650) 40 (160) 900 (3,600) 325 (1,300) 80 (320) 1,800 (7,200) 650 (2,600) 160 (640) 9,000 (36,000) 3,250 (13,000) 800 (3,200) 18,000 (72,000) 6,500 (26,000) 1,600 (6,400) 36,000 (144,000) 13,000 (12,800) 3,200 (12,800)

Hides, skins and fifth quarter items in most developing countries have a significant value and therefore the observation is that in general there are value exploitation chains that recover these items and obtain revenue from collecting, processing, consolidating and marketing. These mechanisms differ between jurisdictions and individual site assessments are required to assess the impact of these value chains on the capacity of the slaughtering facility. From observations made during site visits adequate facilities for blood recovery and processing, effluent treatment and disposal and the handling of solid waste material are essentially non-existent. While these facilities would normally provide a restriction on the capacity of a site in developing countries, these items are essentially disposed to the environment, and are thus rarely as restricting as in high income countries. Individual site assessments are required to address capacity restrictions based on these criteria and the essential question that needs to be addressed at each site is this:

Is it more economical to address the issues at the current site or should the facility be moved to another location where access, blood, effluent and solid waste can be better managed at a significantly lower cost?
It is essentially this question that is driving the process of relocation of slaughtering facilities from urban to peri-urban areas.

November 2009

Page 77

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

5.4.2

Problems with Capacity Assessment and Maximising Potential Site Capacity

Whilst it is relatively straightforward to estimate the current capacities of low income country slaughter facilities, according to the information provided above, it is extremely difficult to provide rules or a basis for the estimation of maximum potential capacity of each facility. This is due primarily to the vastly different conditions encountered at each location, with infrastructure and operating practices being highly variable and making comparison difficult due to the degree of upgrading required at each individual facility. Other factors making maximum capacity estimation guidelines difficult include amongst others: • • • • The level of skills required for improved operation is generally low; Zoning criteria will likely require the facility in the medium to long-term; Limited working days and single shift working (cultural and religious reasons) can affect operation. The potential for use of refrigeration and the ability of the downstream operations to handle refrigerated product has a considerable unknown impact.

The present study cannot, therefore, provide estimates or guidelines based on rearranging or “tweaking” existing facilities, as the results heavily depend on local conditions and the operation procedures rather than purely the infrastructure.

November 2009

Page 78

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

6
6.1

COMPARISON WITH CONDITIONS IN HIGH-INCOME COUNTRIES
INTRODUCTION

The country visits undertaken in the LSWM study, together with the survey instruments and supporting notes from the site visits, provided the current study with a wide array of examples and case studies. The materials highlighted the key issues which characterise live markets and processing facilities in the developing world and enabled the consultancy team for the Reconstruction project to assess the types of issues which potentially could be resolved at the current sites, compared to issues and problems which require significant structural alteration. Infrastructure in many of these facilities is now at a critical level of decay and yet day-to-day live market and slaughter operations continue because there is generally no feasible alternative. Several infrastructure-type problems can be addressed at existing sites at relatively little expense and have the potential to greatly ameliorate conditions for workers, consumers and livestock. Other interventions are more far-reaching and could not realistically be completed without virtually destroying the building and starting again. These factors include several of the following issues identified in the study’s terms of reference: • • • • • • • Overcrowding and urban encroachment. Disregard for animal welfare. Weak decision making processes by government departments or other instrumentalities. Lack of funding from the departments to enable improvements or training. Poor or nil educational standards on the part of workers. Unwillingness of the populace to pay more for better products/services. Lack of access to power, clean water.

At many sites a plethora of issues were handled poorly, including hygiene, environmental protection, and sanitation so it was difficult to identify which problem should first be addressed. These visits illustrated that the same symptoms were common to virtually every facility to some degree and were contributing to the sub-standard results evident all around. The following guidelines, regulations and codes of practice for the livestock and meat processing sector were consulted in the course of identifying the main issues relevant to this study. They include: • • • • • • • Guidance for the Slaughtering of Animals (Cattle, Sheep and Pigs) Sector (DEFRA, UK Environment and Food Safety Agency). USEPA Effluent Guidelines for Meat and Poultry Products (MPP). USEPA Operational Guidelines for Abattoirs/Slaughterhouses. Food Standards Australia & New Zealand (FSANZ) Primary Production and Processing Standards for Meat. IFC Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Poultry Production. IFC Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Meat Processing. European Union Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives.

Of particular relevance is the last reference, EC Directive No 1/2005, part of an extensive set of regulations and requirements from the EU. The Union is increasingly setting the international standard to which major international processors and exporters refer in planning improvements in animal transport and handling; plant planning and hygiene; animal traceability; and food safety. The EC has recently introduced new regulations governing livestock movement within the Union, for example, the provisions of which would be unattainable in most developing countries, including those visited for the LSWM Study. It is in reviewing these types of regulations and supporting codes of practice that the considerable gulf between the developing and developed countries, both in terms of infrastructure and operating conditions, becomes so apparent. Many of the requirements cited in these references are simply not achievable under current conditions in the municipal facilities in the countries visited. It can be argued that these regulations set a standard that public facility managers in these markets can try to attain, however, the survey instrument reports suggest that in most cases existing practices fall well behind.
November 2009

Page 79

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

It is in reviewing this calibre of documents that the considerable deficiencies of resources and processes in the developing countries’ facilities, such as those visited under the LSWM Study, become readily apparent. Many of the requirements cited in these references are simply not achievable under current conditions in the public sector facilities in the countries visited.

6.2

COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS

A detailed analysis was conducted of the key operational and infrastructure issues observed during the country visits in the LSWM Study. Results of this analysis in tabular form are included in Annex G for livestock markets and Annex H for slaughterhouses and meat processing facilities. The Annexes describe the prevailing conditions, practices, and methodologies in the livestock market and slaughter sector and are organised into two groupings: the low-income countries and the middle-income countries visited. The LSWM Final Report made the point that there exists a diverse range of responses and conditions within these countries, but that there were many features common to almost all facilities. Thus, while there were certainly public markets and slaughter facilities where an effort was being made to improve practices and conditions, there is still a very large number of other enterprises where improvement is impossible due to lack of resources, revenue, space, willpower and managerial competence. To place these observations in greater perspective, Annexes G and H describe the corresponding practices at facilities in high-income countries. It is apparent that there is often a gulf between the prevailing methodologies, practices and conditions in the two groups is often quite pronounced. The last column of the table uses a classification system to indicate the feasibility of rectifying defects or modifying/changing existing practices and infrastructure. The livestock markets and meat processing stages are considered in terms of operations (behaviours and practices) and infrastructure / equipment. A summary of these issues is presented below: 6.2.1 Live Markets – Infrastructure and Operations

Developing countries: Live markets are usually characterised by an ineffectually low level of regulation, with few or nil controls in place with regard to environmental, animal welfare and public health and safety issues. Market administration is solely occupied with the collection of fees. The sites are typically congested with traffic carrying livestock to and from market, and are often situated near high density residential areas. In several of the facilities, families were observed to be living permanently at the livestock markets in poor, derelict housing. Road conditions surrounding the market and within the market are inadequate for the traffic. Drainage is poor or non-existent and therefore animal and/or human waste from the site often spills over into nearby waterways including canals and open sewers. Surfaces in the market are often slippery and covered in faecal matter and spent bedding. Lack of surface drainage may create holes and gouges in the flooring base at the market, resulting in injury to livestock. Cleaning and maintenance programs are not regarded as essential to the markets’ operation. Despite expansion in the market area due the growth of the city, there are few planning or environmental controls placed on their growth. Micro-industries develop in close proximity to these markets and surrounding districts to supply goods and services for livestock owners and traders. Animal welfare is seen as a low priority to most parties at the live markets. There is generally no authority within the market administration to take action in extreme cases. Ramps and equipment for loading stock off or onto vehicles is generally absent. This poses a direct threat to workers’ and animals’ safety and is the direct cause of much ill-treatment of livestock. Pens for segregating livestock are normally absent which means herders use harsh tethering practices, or force, to keep livestock groups separated from each other. Where pens exist, they may be in poor repair, and can cause significant injury to livestock and workers/owners. There is often poor or nil access to water and adequate shade for livestock. Waste disposal is an ongoing problem for these sites and is not regarded as the responsibility of the municipal body. Scavengers and other vermin are often present in large numbers. Sick or injured animals are not removed or attended to. Likewise there is generally no procedure for disposal of dead stock. Markets sometimes collect documentation to indicate origin/ownership of livestock. In practice though there is not a robust, larger scheme to support this in the event of an animal disease outbreak. Forward traceability systems do not exist either, as animals are dispersed to other farms or to slaughter.
November 2009

Page 80

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

In developed countries, livestock markets and normally located outside the city limits and are regulated well beyond the basic collection of marketing fees. They operate under environmental licenses and ongoing audit programs are in place to ensure issues such as drainage, management of runoff, security access and worker safety are all addressed. Normally, facilities will be licensed to accommodate a certain number of livestock and are operated to a strict schedule of sales and business hours. Pens, loading and unloading facilities are all subject to approval and inspection: safety or animal welfare breaches are punishable by heavy fines and other penalties. Transport vehicles must be approved for carrying livestock. There are guidelines for vehicle densities and regulations regarding resting and watering of livestock during transport. It is imperative to have adequate shade area for the livestock. Workers at the live market are trained to detect and remove sick or injured animals and to recognise any signs of illness among a single group of livestock. Veterinary officers either attend or are available to deal with sick or injured animals. Codes of practice are regularly used by market management in decision-making and day to day operations. The codes themselves will have had extensive input from interested parties including animal welfare proponents, veterinary bodies, public health, food safety and worker safety advisory groups. Many of the major meat exporting countries, and the countries in the EU, either have in place or are introducing traceability systems for livestock. 6.2.2 Meat Plants – Infrastructure and Operations

Developing countries: Infrastructure at these facilities is very often overloaded, damaged, or not working. In some countries the buildings themselves are substantial and solid but now show decay and deterioration due to lack of maintenance, inadequate funding for repairs and nil replacement of broken equipment and building materials. As a consequence many of the facilities’ day-to-day operations are compromised in terms of worker safety, food safety, hygiene control and environmental impact. Drainage, access to services, and wastewater treatment methods are often compromised. Repair or replacement at the existing site is often not an option because of the extent of the decay: so the enterprise is forced to struggle on, making running repairs and deteriorating further. Floors and walls are generally in poor repair and harbour bacteria; lighting is poor and makes ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection difficult. Municipal facilities are typically regulated by legislation which may be out-of-date or difficult to enforce. Inspection systems by relevant health authorities are often cursory, enabling ongoing breaches of food safety. There is a general lack of capacity or willingness by relevant authorities to enforce adherence to regulations. Facilities in general are not observed to have routine schedules for plant cleaning, maintenance or repair. Animal welfare and humane handling guidelines are also generally foreign concepts in these facilities. The use of codes of practice to assist management in operating the facilities is not common. Operators generally fail to acknowledge damage to environment from operational and waste disposal factors. The handling of sick or injured animals may be left until after normal commercial kills have taken place. There is no provision to detect and manage sick or injured livestock in the lairage. Absence of audit and inspection procedures at all stages of operation: commercial interests are often given priority over safety, public health and other considerations. Carcass inspection processes are often hampered by poor lighting; offal inspection is often inadequate. There are often poor security arrangements and the general public can gain access to the sites. A high proportion of carcass dressing and processing is undertaken on the floor. There are no livestock preparation procedures to prevent handling of dirty stock so faecal matter regularly comes into contact with ‘clean’ surfaces. Separation of clean and dirty processes, in particular treatment and handling of ingested material, offal etc, is often inadequate. Carcasses at various stages of evisceration are close together, increasing the risk of cross-contamination. In developed countries, abattoirs and meat processing plants are highly regulated and subject to scrutiny from environmental, food safety, biosecurity, worker safety, animal welfare and hygiene perspectives. Livestock transportation has become a high priority issue, with accreditation for drivers and facilities now more prevalent. Audit trails are routinely checked for consistency and compliance. Breaches of

November 2009

Page 81

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

regulations routinely lead to fines and other penalties. Repeated offences particularly in regard to environmental offences can result in jail terms. There are mandatory audit systems to ensure compliance with regulatory obligations. These audits cover all stages of slaughter, carcass dressing, refrigeration and waste disposal. Water potability, chlorination levels, knife steriliser temperatures and similar aspects of plant operation are routinely checked for compliance. Plant management will normally have in place their own internal audit systems to ensure repairs and faults are corrected in order to minimise downtime and/or penalties. In all developed countries, facilities operate under a system of planning controls which prohibit substantive changes to building fabric, layout, size, access etc without prior approval.

6.3

SUMMARY

The analysis presented in Section 6.2 and supported by Annexes G and H was intended to indicate current practices and facilities at the two development levels and to compare these with existing practices and methodologies from high-income country settings. The country visits undertaken under the LSMW Study provided a wide range of experiences and observations; however, the following points are the key emerging issues: 1. Animal handing and welfare – the poor handling and in many cases maltreatment of animals observed at numerous visits is due partly to lack of alternative means of receiving and organising livestock for transport and sale. 2. Provision of shade and shelter is easily achievable at most settings, provided finance is available. 3. Breakdown in hygienic practices observed at individual stages of the processing chain seem to compound to produce an entire process which is seriously compromised. 4. Existing facilities often do not lend themselves to much more than cosmetic alterations, but those alterations themselves could have profound impacts on worker health, animal welfare and, eventually, meat/product safety. 5. The more complex issues of drainage, space, and separation of processes simply cannot be addressed at many of the sites visited in the LSWM Study, although better outcomes could be achieved on a site-by-site basis. This analysis concludes that the issues requiring greatest attention are in: • • Operations, including training, so that management and workers understand why a certain method is desirable over another. Provision of adequate infrastructure for: o o o Receiving and holding of animals. Drainage (at all locations at the site). Slaughter and evisceration process stages.

Table 6.1 summarises analysis, showing the areas of operation and infrastructure that could be addressed at different stages of development.

November 2009

Page 82

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 5.7 – Estimated Minimum Water Availability Requirement 1) Issues that could be addressed with relative ease and little expense in the immediate future

Shade Suitable hoses / fittings Pest control

Provision of water Lighting Access to site

Cleaning program Training Storage

Cleaning materials Latrines and sanitation Discouraging waste pickers from sites

2) Areas where technologies/infrastructure are only applicable either with modifications or longer term planning and preparation are as follows:

Animal welfare issue Overcrowding Rendering

Animal handling Simple methods to assist slaughter & evisceration Flooring in markets and slaughterhouses

Treatment of sick animals Materials in livestock markets / lairages Water access & effective use

Transport vehicles (livestock and product) Moving slaughter offsite from markets Firmer inspection standards

3) The following areas are considered to be those where either far longer term planning and preparation is needed or where methodologies used in the developed countries are simply not appropriate and alternatives need to be developed

Drainage More mechanised stunning and / or slaughter systems

Movement to user-pays fees More mechanised carcass dressing systems

Traceability systems

More stringent veterinary checks

The next Chapter of the report considers technologies which could conceivably be introduced in developing country facilities and the merits or otherwise of each.

November 2009

Page 83

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

7
7.1

TECHNICAL OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION

The previous chapters and their corresponding Annexes have put into perspective the operational and infrastructure-based issues that characterise livestock markets, slaughterhouses, and meat processing facilities in developing countries, as reported on by the LSWM study and this report. The analysis performed in Chapter 6 and Annexes G and H also indicates instances where the regulations and practices adopted in high-income countries are applicable to facilities in developing countries and where they are not feasible, due to cost, logistics, infrastructure, operation or other reasons. This chapter summarises the reviews of technical options17 that are available for the modification and improvement of existing livestock markets and slaughterhouses. As discussed earlier, in many countries throughout the developing world, the relocation of an existing set of facilities (markets, slaughter, associated by-products, etc.) to a new site can be a very complicated undertaking. In reality, a number of factors often combine to mean that such a move is deferred indefinitely or ruled out altogether, no matter how urgent the need might be from food safety, environmental, logistical or animal welfare perspective. The ultimate reason for this reluctance is more often than not financial; however, cultural, commercial and administrative reasons are also contributing factors in the decision (made either directly or through inaction) to keep the operation at the same location. It has also been observed that there have been numerous attempts to renovate inadequate facilities in developing countries by leapfrogging the basic upgrades so desperately needed through the provision of advanced or even “state of the art” equipment which, in truth, is largely inappropriate due to: • • • • • • • The skill level of the existing workforce; The size and scale of the equipment given the available footprint; The capacity of the operation to afford to run the equipment; The high cost and low availability of replacement parts and ancillary accessories; The requirement to operate the new layout economically; Suspicion on behalf of workers and consumers; and The services requirements of the new equipment (power, compressed air etc). departments (wastewater treatment, offal areas. When equipment and processes are if generally appropriate items are installed more of the following is likely to occur; the

These conclusions are just as valid for other slaughter handling, etc.) as they are for the slaughter and dressing installed which are unsuited for the individual facility, or without providing adequate training to the workers, one or equipment will • • • • • Stand idle and not be used; Be bypassed in a low cost labour environment;

Be damaged or lie dormant through lack of parts or services; Be incorrectly operated, and blamed for loss of productivity; Be incorrectly operated, causing injury to workers or suffering to livestock beyond what occurred in the previous scenario.

These conclusions are borne out in the related literature and prime examples were also seen during the LSWM fieldwork. It is noted, for instance, in the 2008 FAO report titled “Abattoir Development. Options and Designs For Hygienic Basic and Medium-Sized Abattoirs” that throughout Southeast Asia and India there are several newly-constructed abattoirs and slaughter lines that have either never reached anywhere near their capacity or have stood idle because of the issues noted above. The 2008 FAO report is a strong example of practical, detailed guidelines for construction of small to medium sized slaughterhouses for the three main species under discussion. The report primarily concentrates on facilities found in Southeast Asia; however, its observations and recommendations are largely applicable to the types of municipal and city slaughterhouses which the present report deals with. The FAO report also advocates the installation and use of equipment and approaches which are
17

E.g. from Chapter 3

November 2009

Page 84

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

appropriate to the individual facility, including the workforce and the operating budget. Having noted those points, there are also some areas on which the approach and philosophy of the current report differ from those shown in the FAO report and these will be reviewed throughout this chapter. Despite recognising that all too often basic upgrades can have more sustainable improvements than high technology upgrades can, it is the opinion of the present study team that this otherwise excellent resource still over estimates the capabilities and adaptabilities of study locations, and proposes some technologies and layouts that seem unlikely to be sustainable in reality. This section therefore will examine the most feasible technical options for upgrading existing slaughter facilities and will focus on improvements that can be made in a practical sense in the areas of slaughter process; infrastructure and building fabric; process control issues; and ancillary functions such as byproducts handling, drainage and wastewater. The key aims of the renovation of existing livestock market and slaughter facilities are as follows:

1. Improve overall hygiene of equipment, perimeter, and building fabric. 2. Enable proper receipt and ante-mortem inspections to occur. 3. Provide for segregation and appropriate handling of sick, injured or diseased stock. 4. Ensure that livestock movement is terminal i.e. animals cannot re-enter the marketplace. 5. Gain control of the slaughter and dressing areas to enable separation of clean and dirty processes. 6. Provide for segregation and destruction of condemned materials.
It needs to be said that, in terms of slaughterhouse operations in the developing world, there are generally a number of parties who will have relatively more or less influence over the slaughter process and product outcomes. In other words the day-to-day operations will usually comprise players other than a group of workers, management, and supervisors as is the case in high-income countries. For example in many slaughterhouses the order of proceedings is largely dictated by what the fee-paying customer (who pays for services performed at the slaughterhouse) wants in terms of carcass dressing, retention of offal, order in which groups of animals are slaughtered, etc. Also, as noted in the FAO report, and as confirmed by members of the LSWM Study Team during site visits, the fee-payer will often provide his own slaughter team and merely uses the slaughterhouse as a service facility. At other locations political or corruption issues can have a big effect on operation of the facility. The slaughterhouse may in effect only provide labour to handle the livestock, load-out, and technical aspects (drains, pumps, electrical) of the operation. Similarly, slaughtermen’s associations and veterinary services often dictate to the facility operator how a kill floor will be run on a daily basis, including the order of processing and what might pass for hygiene standards. This also has ramifications for the treatment of livestock, the handling of condemned material, offal and ‘waste’ items, as well as general access to the site. 7.2 PREVAILING GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS

There are a large number of guidelines and regulations available in the area of meat standards and hygiene, including the following: • • • • • • • • Guidance for the Slaughtering of Animals (Cattle, Sheep and Pigs) Sector (DEFRA, UK Environment and Food Safety Agency). USEPA Effluent Guidelines for Meat and Poultry Products (MPP). USEPA Operational Guidelines for Abattoirs/Slaughterhouses. Food Standards Australia & New Zealand (FSANZ) Primary Production and Processing Standards for Meat. EU Council Directive 64/433/EEC on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat and Annex L thereof. IFC Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Poultry Production. IFC Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Meat Processing. European Union Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives. Page 85

November 2009

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

However, as stated in the Final Report of the LSWM Study, “…at these municipal sites, the project team

observed the many inherent difficulties for operators and workers to achieve anything approaching the IFC [or EU] guidelines reviewed above, and it is clear… that at present, most guidelines and handbooks… are so far ahead in the context of the facilities visited that they become almost useless.”
It is considered reasonable therefore that the standards and regulations mentioned above and which form the framework for slaughterhouse operations and inspection requirements in the developed countries be used simply as reference points to establish the general principles that should prevail in this area, rather than support the expectation that renovation of the municipal slaughterhouses could even approach the fulfilment of these requirements. Through the overhaul of the hygiene standards at these plants, together with satisfactory completion of the type of infrastructural improvements discussed here, it is conceivable that some plants could be brought up to a level that approaches the concepts, if not the practice, behind the EU directives and similar benchmarks. Annex L of this report contains relevant excerpts from the European Union’s current directives on standards and procedures for slaughterhouses. They are reproduced here as a means of indicating that the principles that should be followed in renovating existing facilities have a strong basis in national and international regulations and that, while the EU directives are detailed and specific, the logic and intention of each of the provisions is unmistakable. Whilst it is not imagined that the relevant slaughterhouses are going to be able to prepare meat for the EU, it is entirely possible for the character of their refurbishment and subsequent operations to be compatible with the conventions that make the EU’s requirements among the most demanding in the world. 7.3 APPROACH TO IMPROVING EXISTING FACILITIES

Earlier sections of this report illustrated that the poor standards of hygiene, process control and equipment which are evident at facilities are essentially interconnected. In this environment, failure to guarantee basic hygiene control is as big a contributing factor to poor outcomes as is the lack of suitable provision for hygienic slaughter and carcass dressing. Secondary issues include the following: • • • • Lack of regular maintenance; Broken equipment; Rapid deterioration of any newly-acquired equipment; and Lack of training/inability to perceive a better way of working.

Therefore, in developing options for the rehabilitation of these facilities, it is necessary to ensure that operational / process control problems are given equal treatment to physical infrastructure and equipment issues. The recommended improvement programme which is presented in this report is based on the following meat processing conventions as specified in the literature shown in Section 7.2 and which are subsequently in evidence in all high-income country slaughterhouses: 1. Ensuring that stockyards can accommodate formal ante-mortem holding and inspection. 2. Separating slaughter floor processes and carcass handling into separate areas: o o o o o o Sticking and bleed area Hide/skin removal area Evisceration Inspection Cooling, drying; and chilling if applicable Carcass load-out.

3. Moving the opening of intestinal tract off the slaughter floor. 4. Providing for the separate storage of condemned material. 5. Improving control over all aspects of process labour. This agenda can be achieved through a two-stage process which is intended to identify, order, and rectify the underlying process control issues and to review the rehabilitation options available in the slaughter and carcass dressing stages at a given site. The two stages are presented in the box below:

November 2009

Page 86

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

STAGE ONE - IDENTIFY TECHNICAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE WEAKNESSES AND DEFICIENCIES Assess each facility individually to identify deficiencies and to order priorities. This stage comprises (a) a review of process control issues and (b) an inspection of buildings and infrastructure that support the operations. Plan any equipment installations to be appropriately sized to the available footprint. A detailed examination of the livestock slaughter process is presented to facilitate this stage so that operational outcomes contribute to a substantial improvement in hygiene, waste management and related areas. Satisfactory completion of these tasks will contribute greatly to the hygienic handling of product. STAGE TWO - PROPOSED REHABILITATION OPTIONS Introduce asset-based improvements to slaughter and dressing process. Installation of appropriate slaughtering / dressing configurations and relevant equipment is feasible when the characteristics of the particular facility (workforce, customer base, demand levels, etc) are properly accommodated. The report provides detailed consideration of several options for the processing of cattle, small-stock and pigs in addition to providing guidance on relevant costs. Figure 7.1 – Two-Stage Process for Planning Rehabilitation Options 7.4 IDENTIFICATION OF TECHNICAL & INFRASTRUCTURE WEAKNESSES AND DEFICIENCIES Livestock Markets

7.4.1

As shown in the LSWM report and earlier in the present report, livestock markets generally exhibit the same chaotic and overcrowded conditions as the rest of the production stages and present specific threats to hygienic meat processing and disease detection further along the chain. In several markets visited during the LSWM study, it was not unusual for livestock owners, who were trying to sell their animals, to move them to another formal or informal market. This makes it difficult to detect and/or minimise any animal health or disease issues which emerge during the market session when all stock are in close quarters. Most forms of backwards traceability once livestock have been sold or dispersed to other centres are absent. There is generally an inadequate or nil level of traceability for groups of animals. Sick and injured animals often stay longest in the marketplace and receive no veterinary attention. Standards of veterinary inspection, in fact, are often poor or non-existent due either to lack of competence, poor level of resources or both. At most sites, expansion of the live market facility is not an option due to location in the already-crowded urban settings. Where stockyard modification is feasible, it is considered desirable to keep species in separate areas. In order to accommodate times of high demand for one species or the other, the stockyards should be configured to be able to hold smallstock in the cattle area and cattle in the smallstock area. There should be adequate provision for a ‘hospital’ pen for sick or injured animals. There also needs to be provision for shade, since the market sessions are often extended concerns and stock may have to wait for several days in the elements. All livestock in the market also need access to fresh water. From the perspectives of animal health and disease control, there must also be provision for the water troughs to be cleaned regularly. Poultry markets will require specific attention to the way in which cages are organised for sale. The recycling of cages back to the production site should be discouraged as it is an enormous public health and disease cycling hazard. Sellers need to be encouraged to be vigilant about maintaining hygiene in their stands and to disinfect the areas regularly. It is concluded that, if live markets cannot be relocated to more ideal surroundings where access, odour and space requirements are adequately addressed, the best rehabilitation options will be reached through the following actions: • • Improvement of the access roadways and trafficked areas; Upgrade where applicable of stockyard materials; Page 87

November 2009

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

• • 7.4.2

Provision of water, shade, pens, rails and ramps; Provision of competent veterinary health resources. Processing Overview

In order to achieve hygienic slaughter and dressing of animals, a number of prerequisites need to be examined. Several of these can be remedied by capital intensive programmes including investment in new plant and maintenance, but they also need to be addressed by maintaining a satisfactory level of control over the slaughtering and dressing process. These prerequisites include: • • • • • • • • • • • • • Control over cleanliness of incoming livestock; Hygienic processing (dressing techniques and procedures, equipment, dropped meat and condemned product); Sanitary design of equipment and process flow; Sanitation and cleanup procedures for edible areas and food contact surfaces; Potable water quality; Hygiene and training for personnel; Protective clothing requirements and personal equipment; Provision of adequate amenities; Training and skill-building; Control of chemicals; Pest control including vermin and scavengers; Handling and disposal procedures for wastewater and solid wastes; Repairs and maintenance of equipment.

This section of the report considers each stage of the slaughter and carcass dressing process in order to highlight the areas that are most important in gaining control of the hygienic process. Through this audit process a list of priorities for further action can be developed. 7.4.3 Hygienic Processing Guidelines

During the various processing stages from the lairage onwards, it may be unclear who is actually in charge of overall process control, and the control of individual elements. In many cases the nominal control person will likely have to deal with several customers’ demands and assumptions. This has major ramifications for instance in the lairage area where officials may be under pressure to approve sick or injured animals as being acceptable for slaughter; and in the dressing area where hygiene procedures simply break down because the slaughter teams pay no heed to hygiene requirements or are paid on a per weight basis, or for other reasons. The system in high-income countries is based generally on centralised authority and order of command (though with breakdowns occurring on occasion), whereas in many of the facilities in low income countries there is a different set of relationships that reflect basic market forces and more lax law enforcement and inspection. In these circumstances it can be difficult to clearly identify the parties responsible for different parts of the slaughterhouse operations, or the one party responsible for overall operations. Thus the need exists for a competent authority to maintain control over the standard and extent of all operations on the slaughter floor. The remarks included below, in regard to appropriate handling and marshalling of livestock, also pertain to the livestock market setting.

Lairage (Livestock Handling Prior to Slaughter):
It is important to realise that the quality of handling of livestock presented for slaughter has a major impact on the subsequent slaughter and dressing process as well as on the production of meat which is safe for human consumption. This is due to the level of microbiological contamination that can occur on the carcass and other edible materials during the slaughter and dressing process, as well as, for example, issues such as meat hardening and browning, phenomena directly related to poor welfare and treatment. There are several methods to ensure that only animals that are sufficiently clean are sent for slaughter: adherence to this standard alone will help reduce overall levels of microbiological contamination in later stages.

November 2009

Page 88

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

The responsibilities of the establishment operator must include the following: • • • • • Ensuring there is minimal opportunity for soiling and cross-contamination of animals with foodborne pathogens. Having a system in place so that only animals that are sufficiently clean are killed. Ensuring that feed has been withdrawn before slaughter to minimise contamination following the opening of the viscera. Using a system to maintain identification of animals (either individually, or as lots) until dressing is completed. Operating the lairage so that animals’ physiological needs are not compromised and that antemortem checks can be properly conducted (livestock should be adequately rested and under cover where appropriate). Ensuring that animals presented for slaughter do not re-enter the marketplace through buyer intervention or other means. Putting procedures in place so that different classes of livestock are separated and processed appropriately, e.g. those with special dressing requirements, segregation of injured animals, in addition to animals which may transfer specific food-borne pathogens among the group. Ensuring animals remain calm and well cared for at all times.

• •

Properly addressing these issues in the lairage stage will contribute greatly to reducing the contaminant load on livestock coming into the slaughterhouse and will also address animal welfare concerns that may go unnoticed currently.

Livestock for Slaughter:
The above section addressed important issues and processes for the lairage. In many locations livestock may be delivered direct to the slaughterhouse from the market for immediate slaughter, i.e. without any holding period or real opportunity for ante-mortem inspection. It is important that these animals, too, be sufficiently clean so as not to compromise hygienic slaughter and dressing. For the period they are actually held at the slaughterhouse, the potential for contamination with food-borne pathogens should be minimised. Ante-mortem checks must be conducted on these livestock including science-based and risk-based inspections as appropriate. Data from the testing should be conveyed to the appropriate authority for analysis and further management as required. It is important to also note the need to ensure that no animals other than those intended for slaughter are brought into the slaughterhouse. The LSWM Study Team routinely found other animals including dogs on the process floor which is a major cause of cross-contamination as well as a serious health risk for humans. This is a specific requirement of the EU and most other inspection bodies.

Slaughter and Dressing:
Once processed through the lairage and following ante-mortem checks, animals should be slaughtered without delay. This requires close attention on the part of the competent authority that the stun, sticking, and bleeding processes do not proceed at a rate faster than the rate the bodies can be handled for dressing. Failure to maintain this equation can easily result in a number of detrimental outcomes. These include: livestock which have been stunned but not slaughtered (animal welfare concerns); animals which recover consciousness (threat to worker safety); and the development of ecchymosis, subcutaneous bleeding (seen under the skin) due to the sudden rise in the animal’s blood pressure which will inevitably cause bruising later in the dressing process. Dressing operations followed at the slaughterhouse must ensure the following in order to minimise contamination: • • • • Bleeding is carried out as quickly and completely as possible; Head skinning in cattle is competently performed to enable proper post-mortem inspection; Lactating / diseased udders are cut off animal bodies promptly without contaminating the carcass; Procedures are followed to prevent a build-up of hides and skins in any part of the plant, as these items are major sources of contamination onto carcasses. Page 89

November 2009

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

From the flaying process onwards, carcasses must be kept separate from each other to avoid crosscontamination and this separation must be maintained until they have passed post-mortem inspection. The flaying process or, in the case of small-stock, removal of the skin, must be completely finished before evisceration is started. Once evisceration commences the operator should ensure the following: • • • • Evisceration is completed promptly; Spillage of material from the viscera is prevented, including oesophagus, crop, stomach, intestines, or rectum, or from the gall bladder, urinary bladder, uterus or udder; Intestines should be kept intact with the stomach during evisceration and no other openings made unless the intestines have first been tied or clipped to prevent spillage; Cross-contamination is prevented by removing from the dressing area as soon as possible all stomachs and intestines, plus all inedible material from the slaughtering and/or dressing process and that the removal process itself does not pose a threat to hygiene; Steps taken to remove visible and microbial contamination on edible product e.g. trimming, carcass washing, should not result in further contamination but should, instead, be shown to be effective; Any edible product exposed during the dressing process does not come into contact with other surfaces or equipment unless unavoidable. Where there is contact, e.g. use of splitting saws the hygiene of the equipment must be constantly monitored.

Bearing in mind that the identification of groups of animals or single animals should be maintained until this stage, the carcasses processed as described above can be presented for post-mortem inspection. Where a problem is detected, the identification details will assist in rectification. During the post-mortem inspection, if the relevant authority determines that, for example, livestock are not sufficiently clean, or dressing and handling practices are having an adverse effect on meat safety, then the rate of production should be slowed or the operations stopped until the faults are corrected. It is worth noting that none of the plants visited was removing Specified Risk Material (tissues and other items including the brain and tonsils which can transmit Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as Mad-Cow Disease). Its removal is mandated in many developed markets, however, it is regarded as a non-issue in most of the slaughterhouses in the countries visited. SRM material is found predominantly along the bovine animal’s spine, in its upper thoracic spinous processes and in ganglia located through the neck. Invariably in these slaughterhouses the carcass is split with an axe or by electric saw with little care taken about cleaning the saw blades, so that the SRM matter is smeared all along the interior surfaces. Stun guns were relatively absent: these items are largely out of favour with many administrators due to the relatively high cost of replacement parts, bullets, etc.

Post-Mortem Inspection:
Inspection should occur as soon as possible after livestock slaughter. During the post-mortem inspection of carcasses and other relevant materials, the person responsible uses information from ante-mortem inspection along with the results of inspecting the carcass, head and viscera to determine the safety and suitability of the parts intended for human consumption. Where the results of inspection are inconclusive, the materials should be set aside and followed up with confirmatory inspection procedures and/or tests. Condemned carcasses or parts thereof should be identified and handled so as not to result in crosscontamination of meat or parts from other carcasses. The reason for condemnation should be recorded. 7.4.4 Food Safety & Hygiene

Table 7.1 indicates by department the key areas of concern and the deficiencies common to the plants visited in regard to food safety and hygiene. Many of these issues relate directly back to the failure of the infrastructure and maintenance programs to keep pace with substantially higher demand on production, together with the lack of effective control over processes identified in this chapter.

November 2009

Page 90

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 7.1 – Examples of Primary Deficiencies by Department DEPARTMENT Ante mortem inspection procedures and facilities Pre-slaughter animal handling External surface contamination of skin prior to and during slaughter Bleeding and dressing DEFICIENCIES Often hindered by overcrowded lairage capacity and inadequate or nil ante-mortem facilities. Live animals in close proximity to dead animals and semi processed carcasses. External surfaces of animals are highly contaminated with blood and faecal matter on the slaughter floor. These tasks often performed all in the same area.

Due to these factors, and subsequent carcass handling faults, there is a high degree of cross contamination of edible product Processing operations Almost no separation of processing operations is apparent. Slaughter, skinning, evisceration and intestine opening tasks all occur in the slaughter floor area. Intestinal parts, including the rumen, are opened and emptied directly on the slaughter floor where they can cross-contaminate edible products. Nil training for operators in hygienic procedures and no standardisation of tasks and guidelines. No method to identify carcasses with corresponding heads and offal; inspection should occur concurrently to ensure all ‘at-risk’ items are located. Complete lack of procedures and facilities e.g. rinse booths, fresh clothing for workers to recover from contamination episodes (spilt intestinal content, effusive blood discharge, etc). Personal and clothing hygiene level is inadequate: no handwashing or sanitation facilities.

Gut opening

Hygienic dressing procedures Post mortem inspection

Contamination of equipment or operators Personnel hygiene

Standard procedures (and enforcement) are needed to ensure correct actions are taken for routine and non-routine tasks Pest, vermin and insect control Cleaning and plant sanitation Internal and external drainage Cross-contamination occurring due to lack of effective pest and vermin control. Scavenging animals enter most sites. Wholly inadequate; complete lack of sanitation. Inadequate drainage is apparent, contributing to inadequate hygiene and further contamination.

7.5

BUILDINGS & INFRASTRUCTURE

During the LSWM Study country visits, it was apparent that the already poor standard of operational practices in many places was made worse by the infrastructure deficiencies evident all around, and which is the focus of the present study. The field reports noted details about the state of the infrastructure using a range of criteria starting at the access point, through the buildings themselves and also looking at related issues such as wastewater treatment, drainage and ventilation. The types of infrastructure deficiencies that were noted during the site visits for the LSWM Study are discussed in Chapter 5 and summarised in Table 7.2. Most facilities will require remedial work to be undertaken in every one of the categories.

November 2009

Page 91

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 7.2 - General Areas for Infrastructure Assessment and Investment AREA Roads and Access DEFICIENCIES
Welfare is compromised due to traffic blockages and poor roads. Process flow is compromised by lack of sufficient access points, and lack of security poses many risks. Dust and mud from unsealed roadways enters the plant and livestock holding areas.

General Building Fabric (Carpentry, Metalwork, Apertures, etc.) General Building Fabric (Tiling, Surfaces, Painting)

Damage to doors, walls, frames, chiller panels if present; broken windows, damaged or missing roof materials. All these elements are crucial to maintaining the hygienic envelope which is the meat processing area. This includes cleaning of all equipment and parts and re-galvanisation if indicated. Chips, dents and other damage to tiles and wall surfaces are prime media for bacteria. A tile height of at least 2m in all edible processing areas is recommended (including edible fifth quarter areas), preferably with curved transitions. Many floor areas are dangerously slippery. Non-slip surfaces should be prepared. Damaged walls or those affected by moisture require a surface coating, e.g. painting. Surface coat and sealant need to meet requirements for food premises. External painting is also recommended to ensure easier maintenance in the future.

Civil Engineering (Assess structural condition along with preparation of budget for repairs) Plumbing (Water potability, pressure, and accessibility)

The building itself must be structurally sound, weather proof, vermin proof, and have cleanable surfaces. Attention must be paid to areas of structural instability (owing sometimes to drainage problems, see below), building damage, leaking roofs and floor joints, and sustained moisture damage on walls and ceilings which render them unable to be cleaned. The ability to meaningfully monitor and boost water through chlorination must be achieved. There must be sufficient control over the system to ensure sufficient residence time and appropriate levels of free chlorine. Adequate clean water storage is required with a minimum of one day’s water requirements; as well as adequate delivery pressure for water (>350kpa is recommended). Water reticulation system through the building must provide sufficient quantity and pressure at delivery points. The transformer and electrical distribution/reticulation system must be sufficient to safely deliver adequate quantities of electricity to the site. The electrical system should be reviewed and upgraded where required. Lighting levels were generally non-existent or very poor. Replacement and upgrade of lighting throughout the plant. Ventilation and panelling needs to ensure that the building is a hygienic envelope and not accessible to birds and flying insects. Floor levels need rectification to eliminate water pooling. Draining to nearby watercourses is not desirable. Urgent need to separate out liquids from the bleeding, paunch opening & general wastewater streams & install primary treatment/disposal systems.

Electrical Engineering

Lighting Ventilation Drainage

7.6

WIDER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Most facilities are located in heavily built up urban areas which makes traffic and congestion issues more difficult to address. Furthermore there are odour issues to consider due to the number of residents in the immediate vicinity of these slaughterhouses, and the generally severe contamination of local watercourses due to the facility effluent. In reality, the location issues will have an impact on attempts to do anything other than short to medium term modifications as under discussion here. The issue of odour emanating from livestock markets and animal processing plants is a key consideration as many facilities appear unwilling or unable to control the odours from putrefaction. Major environmental issues that need addressing through the infrastructure rebuild are shown in Table 7.3.
November 2009

Page 92

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 7.3 - Environmental Issues AREA Odour DEFICIENCIES Poor waste-related infrastructure and processes, and poor cleaning create considerable odours. There will generally be other emission sources in the vicinity however the slaughterhouse processing area will be held responsible for odours perceived in the vicinity. Noise Considerable levels of outdoor processing, the proximity of neighbours, and welfare issues leading to animal noise (in particular in pig plants), and traffic are causes of noise pollution. There is high potential for cross contamination when blood is not collected and handled separately. This is further accentuated when flaying/skinning procedures mean that blood collects on these materials. Disposal to sewers or watercourses places a very high BOD load on the system. Most wastewater is disposed directly to sewer or watercourses without any primary or secondary treatment occurring such as screening or settlement ponds. Where condemned material / pathological waste is retained, it must not enter the food chain. Provision must be made for destruction as storage will result in putrefaction and odour, and disposal to dumpsites often results in recycling into the food chain. Intestinal contents are normally disposed directly into the municipal sewer or nearby watercourses which adds to quantities of suspended solids and nutrient loads

Blood disposal

Wastewater disposal Retention and disposal of condemned material / other animal tissue Disposal of paunch and intestinal contents

7.7

ACTION PLAN TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES

A review conducted against the issues noted under Sections 7.4 to 7.6 will result in a detailed list of process-related errors (see Table 7.1) as well as a list of hardware-related items requiring refurbishment, repair or replacement as indicated in Table 7.4.

Table 7.4 – Example of Physical Infrastructure Tasks Resulting From Defects List TASK Provide shade over remainder of lairage area. Repair doors, metal gratings, repair hoists and pulleys. Repair of plumbing faults; install new potable water tank. Renovation of electrical network. Seal surface of roadways adjacent to lairage and delivery site. Repair floor, walls and roofs including preparation, surface coating, painting, windows and leaks to maintain the existing structure. Supply and install replacement equipment in chiller and perform maintenance on motor. Remediation of drainage system.

Table 7.5 shows an example of typical capital works items that may require action during the rehabilitation process. The program undertaken in this way also encourages the repair of existing assets and buildings where possible rather than initiating the wholesale replacement of major items. Table 7.5 - Example of Proposed Capital Works Program

November 2009

Page 93

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

CURRENT SITUATION Livestock Yards Yard and lairage areas are too crowded for proper ante-mortem inspection. There is no access to shade or to water for animals awaiting slaughter.

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT

Increase the holding capacity of the livestock yards and improve lighting. Provide water in yard and lairage area.

Slaughter Floor Habitual overcrowding on slaughterfloor. Extend the slaughterfloor; install new roof, windows and tiling. Allow for specific areas to dump paunches and perform other activities Improve access arrangements Equipment is lacking, or dilapidated and in need of replacement. Building perimeter has holes, access to vermin. Provide or replace basic equipment e.g. Hoists and rollers Sealing of walls, joins etc, replacement of grates and screens, and broken windows. Install or improve water reticulation network and make hot water available. Repair or replace interior finishing Improve hygiene through provision of suitable clothing; enforce manual cleaning and washing procedures. Provide acceptable sanitation facilities Waste Disposal Condemned material stays on site in putrefied state prior to disposal in a dump site. Install an incinerator with appropriate fuel source18.

No hot water to kill floor; cold water pressure is unsatisfactory or not present. Severe damage noted to floor and wall tiles; chronically dirty.

In general, it is observed that the main investment required at many sites to improve the flow of operations (and also in the fifth quarter area) is in providing suitable infrastructure and equipment to enable the separation of bleeding from skinning; skinning process from evisceration; and opening and cleaning of the intestine. These interventions are fundamental to the improvement of hygienic processing. Investment in worker and management amenities are essential to improve the hygiene status of workers and management. Other items typically included in infrastructure are those for cleaning and sanitation, including production and supply of hot water; and improved handling of solid and liquid wastes. Also for consideration are items such as chutes and fixed rails. Virtually all of this equipment is able to be transferred to another slaughterhouse or a new investment. 7.8 PROPOSED REHABILITATION OPTIONS

This stage considers the type of new equipment and slaughter configurations which are appropriate for the specific works. Chapter 8 follows on from the present analysis of rehabilitation options by providing comprehensive assessment tools that allow for the identification of issues in individual plants, the development of action plans, and onward monitoring plans. As indicated previously in the report, there are prominent examples in the developing world of new installations of inappropriate equipment, including slaughter lines which do not adequately reflect the
18 Most high income facilities render their wastes; this is not feasible for low income countries. Residual wastes are then usually landfilled, however considering the scavenging and lack of security at dumpsites in low income countries, this should be avoided. Low-tech incineration therefore appears to be a sensible solution to these problems.

November 2009

Page 94

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

nature of processing and demand for meat products at that particular site. On the part of bureaucrats and administrators, as well as donor aid organisations, there is often the strong expectation that new equipment should be fully mechanised and should also incorporate the latest technology, in order to obtain the following perceived advantages: • • • • Easier and more effective cleaning; Labour saving; Increased process speeds; and Multi-task features.

In addition to the above, in most low income countries, officials in municipalities and local governments have an unfortunate tendency to look to the developed world and desire the often complex installations employed without giving any consideration to the local conditions in either location. This phenomenon occurs across many industries and utilities, and is not just restricted to slaughter facilities; for example waste management authorities in low income countries are quick to decide that they require high tech, high cost incineration systems, which are totally inappropriate for the operating and financial conditions (e.g. fuel source, waste profile etc). There are sound reasons to consider an alternative approach that uses appropriate (mostly lower) levels of technology for the situation. In many countries, for example, the cost of operating and maintaining a given item of equipment will far exceed the cost of potential labour savings through the equipment’s introduction. In these areas, labour costs are so low that the loss of up to half a dozen workers in the slaughter area will have a relatively small impact on total costs for the facility, but would likely destabilise operations in the wider establishment, in addition to the obvious loss of employment. Contamination of product will not necessarily decrease if the number of process workers is reduced; however, the introduction of, and adherence to, adequate process control will have a marked impact on product hygiene and outcomes. The initial challenge, therefore, is to provide basic upgrades and devise and implement sound principles of process control. Members of the LSWM Study Team noted many instances where a highly mechanised system, designed to reduce or eliminate the required number of labour units in an already low cost labour environment, has been abandoned or bypassed because its mode of operation was incompatible with the prevailing working arrangements, the skill level for relevant workers, the operating costs, or other related reasons. Similarly, the introduction of more sophisticated equipment with faster operating speeds will not necessarily make processing more hygienic but may instead introduce bottlenecks, as different sectors of the slaughter team work at different speeds. This is particularly true in newly installed lines where one area has ceased operation or is being bypassed for the reasons described above. In a system where there is no cold chain, as is the case in most of the slaughterhouses currently under discussion, it is vital that carcasses not be allowed to accumulate, particularly in the bleeding and dressing stages when potential for cross-contamination of carcass parts is high. Equipment choices and design of modified facilities, therefore, must be compatible with the characteristics of the individual slaughterhouse and its staff. By the same token, equipment which seeks to combine one or more tasks, e.g. mechanical shoulder and final puller on a small-stock chain, may actually disrupt the relatively smooth product flow that occurs on a non-mechanised floor where workers complete various linked tasks at a uniform speed. As for the merits of mechanised equipment being easier to clean, this is almost always not the case as the mechanised designs will require regular disassembly and re-assembly which most workers are not skilled to undertake. It should be recalled that one characteristic common to virtually all of these plants is the absence of cleaning materials and equipment. By contrast, plants in high-income countries have specific budgets for cleaning materials and cleaning labour to handle routine plant hygiene tasks as well as specifically-focussed jobs. It is noted that cleaning appears to be one of the most challenging of all the issues confronting slaughterhouse management in these settings judging by the extensive photographic evidence from the LSWM Study. The introduction of overly complex equipment, therefore, may only exacerbate this issue, resulting in an apparatus that is neither cleaned regularly nor used properly. Virtually none of the slaughterhouses visited used a regular cleaning schedule for the premises; it is recommended that portable water jet cleaners be used to clean the facility on a regular basis. The equipment requires electricity to operate the pump, a water supply and gas or diesel to heat the water for the steaming process, and water. Basic inspections and the provision of new brooms, squeegees, and

November 2009

Page 95

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

other low-cost cleaning implements on a regular basis would do much to improve basic hygiene standards. Infrastructure upgrades should not be limited to the slaughter areas, and many hygiene-related risks can be greatly minimised through provision of sanitation facilities for workers, and enforcement of usage; both sadly lacking at most facilities visited. 7.8.1 Improved Process Control for Livestock Delivery & Arrival

In order to better manage the animal health and disease risks of livestock entering the slaughterhouse, it may be considered necessary to dramatically change the way in which animals are received and prepared for slaughter. This will have implications for the parties supplying livestock and taking delivery of carcasses; at some sites there may be initial resistance to the tighter arrangements, but efforts must be made to raise awareness and change behaviour and attitudes. The following procedures are considered crucial to maintaining better oversight of the livestock supply end of the supply chain: • • • Movement away from existing short timeframe scheduling for livestock delivery and holding to one which enables proper ante-mortem inspection to occur. Establishment of a full 12-hour quarantine period so that animals in the yard are processed the next day and there is no opportunity for animals to re-enter the market. Keeping livestock consignment groups intact wherever possible to assist later traceability in the event a fault is detected by the veterinarian.

Figure 7.2 shows proposed amendments to a typical livestock delivery and holding scheduling and, consequently, to the slaughter stage. If properly introduced and enforced, the alterations to the way in which livestock are scheduled for slaughter will deliver benefits for the enterprise overall, the final product and for animal welfare as well. The arrival area will start to operate for the benefit of the slaughterhouse and consumer, rather than just for the convenience of livestock buyers and wholesalers. These benefits are as follows: • • • • • Improved ante-mortem inspections can be carried out, with obvious secondary benefits in terms of food safety and disease control; The 12-hour quarantine enables identification and quarantine of any sick or ‘suspect’ animals; Reduced opportunity for livestock to move back out of the slaughter sector into the market; By effectively ceasing the “slaughter on demand” service, all animals have the chance to rest and be properly assessed for injury or illness; Capacity can be increased at the same time as reducing time pressures on staff.

November 2009

Page 96

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Draft Final Report

Figure 7.2 - Proposed Delivery, Holding and Processing Schedule for Livestock19

19

Transaction period equals the period between purchase of live animal and release of refrigerated carcass to wholesaler/customer.

November 2009

Page 97

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

7.8.2

Slaughter and Dressing Options

In considering rehabilitation options for the slaughterhouses of developing countries, constrained as they are by numerous factors which prevent their relocation to improved surroundings where a modern hygienic envelope with adequate services can be constructed, it is worth noting that even marginal improvements in the slaughter and dressing processes can bring significant change in the final product outcome. Whilst an individual plant may have myriad weaknesses in terms of lack of process control and failing infrastructure, virtually all of these can be improved to an acceptable standard provided there is adequate training for staff; financial resources to complete the rehabilitation measures; and the will of the relevant authority to implement and uphold the new arrangements. Having said this, it must also be noted that the more pronounced the movement from old to new becomes, the higher the risk that new procedures will be ignored and new equipment rejected. The challenge is to find the right combination of change and stability and to match new arrangements and workflow designs as closely as possible to existing processing speeds and scale, because at most facilities there is little scope to actually increase the level of throughput, only the scope to reorganise the process for improved outcomes.

Definitions:
There are common approaches across all the countries – including developed countries - for the labour process involved in converting a bovine/sheep into a carcass, namely “booth” and “line.” This report understands them to be as defined in the 2008 FAO report, viz: • Booth / Batch slaughter – The slaughter spaces “are divided into many spots (booths) which allow for the simultaneous slaughtering of a certain number of animals (batch). A team of men attends each slaughtering spot. The animals in a batch are each taken to a defined floor area, slaughtered and dressed in that spot.” Line slaughter - “Line slaughter entails hoisting up the carcass at an early stage, preferably beginning with the bleeding. All subsequent slaughtering and dressing procedures are carried out with the carcass suspended on, and moving along, an overhead rail (or line). Line slaughter is suitable for bovines, small ruminants and pigs.”

Therefore, the batch or booth slaughter mode is essentially performed in one spot from stunning and sticking through to bleeding and evisceration and often to carcass splitting stage. These steps may mean the carcass is positioned on the floor or suspended from a stationary hook tripod or rope. There may be one worker for the entire operation or the tasks may be shared between a few workers. Line slaughter, by contrast, entails the carcass being positioned on a rail or “chain” from the point where it is stuck, through to bleeding, flaying, and evisceration stages. There is normally a worker at each stage undertaking a particular task so the operation is sequential, as opposed to booth slaughter where tasks are performed by one or two workers at the same location. An important point of difference between this report and the analysis provided in the FAO report is on the question of the relative merit of booth slaughter. In the opinion of the Study Team, there is much to recommend continuation of the booth slaughter system under the right conditions. As has been established earlier in this report, the current dilapidated state of municipal slaughterhouses in the developing world is due to a number of inter-related factors, not necessarily to the actual slaughter process itself. There are just as many opportunities for poor hygiene practices to occur on a slaughter chain as there are in the booth system, and this is not confined to the developing world. A prime source of cross-contamination in slaughterhouses in high-income countries for example is through poor worker hygiene, e.g. not rinsing the knife between carcasses. Properly done, booth slaughter can result in a reasonably hygienic outcome provided the conventions discussed earlier in this report are observed, without any of the technical and operational problems associated with complex machinery and moving carcasses. One of the major advantages of a slaughter line over booth dressing is that the carcass can be kept vertical for most of the dressing tasks but there is still potential for contamination through poor practice. For example, some line or rail systems are deliberately positioned very low to allow the carcasses to rest on the slab for additional stability. In both the booth and line scenarios, the best outcome is to get the carcass up off the floor for all of the bleeding and dressing stages.

November 2009

Page 98

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Figure 7.1 –Booth Slaughter System

Figure 7.2 –Line Slaughter System The preferred means of improving the standard of dressing in the booth system is to install hoists so that the carcass can be moved from the bleeding area to another area where subsequent dressing tasks take place, preferably onto a dressing cradle or skinning cradle which keeps the carcass stable for workers and
November 2009

Page 99

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

also gets the carcass up off the floor. Contamination of the meat products by intestinal material is far less likely to occur using this method. A dressing cradle is equally suitable for bovines and small-stock. It is effectively superfluous for pig carcasses which are normally sent skin-on and can be eviscerated with relative ease once bleeding has been completed. 7.8.3 Cost estimates

There was a wide variation of throughput levels and slaughter methods among the slaughterhouses visited during the LSWM Study, ranging from small batch systems of two or three slaughtermen handling around 50 head per day, to larger establishments processing 400-500 head of cattle or 2,000-3,000 small-stock per day. This data was studied in order to determine some typical throughput rates for each species (bovine, small-stock, and pigs). Table 7.6 provides cost estimates for various upgrade options which are explored in the following sections. The table shows species to be processed, the rate of throughput (head per day) and approximate slaughter floor area. There are three scenarios for small-stock, three for beef, and two for pigs. These scenarios are based on those described in the FAO report; the cost estimates have been arrived at independently.

Variations in Cost Estimates:
It should be noted that our equipment cost estimates and those indicated in the FAO report differ substantially in some cases. We feel it is necessary to note that, in addition to the recommended equipment (the cost of which sometimes varies substantially between FAO’s estimates and our own), it is also essential to include other basic items such as knife sterilisers, handwash stations, blood collection vessels, offal vessels (gut buggies), and similar hygiene ware. In addition, it is necessary to allow for the use of proper stands and supports. Currently many of the plants have poorly-built, stopgap measures that compromise worker safety, hygiene control, and structural integrity. Equipment estimates, to be of use, need to be as complete as possible in order to give a realistic picture about the cost of the planned upgrade. In both cases, this report’s and the FAO report, the equipment cost estimates are shown on a supply basis only, i.e. there is no provision for freight, cartage, finance or import costs, nor, importantly, for labour. It is also strongly suggested that all upgrade budgets should include an allowance for training and operational improvements, even if the intention is present to implement such changes in the future. It would be preferable to have fewer upgrades that include sensible accompanying revisions to process operation rather than the maximum available infrastructure upgrades, only to find that future budgets for operational change do not materialise. Table 7.6 – Proposed Slaughter Improvements and Capacity by Species Processing Approx. speed Slaughter area Head/hr Simple smallstock line (A) Line slaughter smallstock (B) Line slaughter smallstock (C) Classic booth bovine (D) Classic booth bovine w cradle & rail (E) Large static rail bovine (F) Terraced pig slaughterline (G) Modern pig slaughterline (H) 10 20-30 40-60 2-8 10-15 15-20 15-20 12+ 50 60 75 35 160 240 36 75 m2 Approx. Cost of kill area $US 20,000 24,000 30,000 14,000 64,000 96,000 14,400 30,000 Approx. Cost of equipment $US 27,650 52,550 95,950 10,600 61,900 141,750 29,500 118,500 Approx Total Cost $US

Slaughter Layout

47,650 76,550 125,950 24,600 125,900 237,750 43,900 148,500

The FAO report does not make provision for other remediation works that must occur within the slaughterhouse itself; for example, repair of floors, replacement of tiled areas, improved lighting, etc. Table 7.6 makes an allowance for this work under “Approx Cost of kill area”. As indicated in Table 7.6, this can increase the total cost of the individual project anywhere between 30%-100%.

November 2009

Page 100

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

There is no provision in the FAO report for remediation of stock yards or carcass assembly areas which are likely to be required at a high percentage of the plants visited during the LSWM Study if the overall hygienic process is to be improved. 7.8.4 Overview to Cost Estimates for Plant Scenarios

Cost estimates were prepared for the equipment required in several plant upgrade scenarios. Each upgrade was considered on the basis of a single species, i.e. sheep, cattle, etc. The estimates are shown in Table 7.7 and successive tables. As previously indicated, there is less emphasis on productivity levels and plant capacities in developing country slaughterhouses than in those of high-income countries. Any significant increase in demand for carcasses is usually accommodated by putting another one or two workers somewhere on the slaughter slab in order to process more animals; the traditional booth system is ideally suited to this as no additional resources are required. The rate per hour indicated in the scenarios in Table 7.7 therefore should be used as a guide only as to the general level of slaughter. Scenarios have been provided for the upgrade of small, medium, and large plants in the case of small-stock and cattle; for pork the scenarios under consideration comprise a very simple ‘terraced’ operation or a modern production system utilising a line process. Annex H contains basic drawings which complement the costing scenarios provided here. Each equipment costing and drawing adheres to the basic conventions discussed earlier in the report about hygienic processing, namely, separation of bleeding and evisceration tasks; keeping the carcass off the floor; as well as a simple stun box and stun equipment to aid in humane slaughter. The basic bovine and small-stock configurations do not, however, include either of those items as there will likely be facilities where their introduction will not be feasible for space or other reasons. Electrical tongs are included for pig slaughter. 7.9 SMALLSTOCK OPTIONS

As noted in the FAO report, processing of small-stock is relatively straightforward and there is certainly a great deal of it occurring in the informal sector. In areas such as North Africa and the Middle East, sheep and goat slaughter comprise a very high percentage of total slaughter numbers, particularly when religious and cultural festivals are taking place. It is quite common for a slaughterhouse in high-income countries to process 2000-3000 head of small-stock per day and it is no different in developing countries; the skinning and evisceration steps are very simple and can quickly be undertaken by teams of 2-4 workers. Animals are bled over a tray and then processed on tables, as opposed to the floor, for the relative ease of the workers. Three cost scenarios have been prepared for small-stock. The main differences between the costings relate to the estimated daily throughput levels, with the high throughput model incorporating a skin puller and a mechanical rail as opposed to the gravity rail in the middle scenario. Estimated costs range from $US27,000 to US$95,950. The main advantage of the three small-stock designs is that they will probably not be perceived as substantially different from the current process. However, several important inclusions are made which will contribute to a better outcome: the incorporation of a stunning box and electrical stunner, the use of bleed trays to reduce contamination to the drainage and wastewater system, and the use of simple rail systems to keep the carcasses off other surfaces such as tables for the evisceration stages. In addition, there is provision for proper hygiene equipment and hand wash stands as well as knife sterilisers. Hot water, lighting, and associated costs would still need to be incorporated into the budgeted price. In summary, the designs for the smallstock processing options present relatively few changes for the workforce to have to adapt to, but do provide a good opportunity to improve hygiene and environmental outcomes with relative ease once workers are trained adequately. A municipal facility processing more than 500 small-stock per day would likely be better served by choosing the layouts for either the second (20-30 head/hour) or third scenarios (40-60 head/hour) which include a simple change-over hoist: these will help eliminate some of the congestion that normally occurs in this area.

November 2009

Page 101

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 7.7 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Small-Stock Basic Item Description Stunning Box Stunning Gun Electrical Landing / Sticking Table Blood Collection Vessel Rail system Galvanised Stands Sterilisers / Hand Washes Hygiene Equipment Supports Offal / Evisceration Vessels Miscellaneous Equipment Quantity 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 TOTAL Cost (US$) 2,500 3,500 1,350 1,200 4,300 1,200 4,000 2,300 1,000 1,800 4,500 27,650

Table 7.8 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Small-Stock 20-30 head / hour Item Description Stunning Box Stunning Gun Electrical Landing / Sticking Table Blood Collection Vessel Rail system Galvanised - Static Stands - Galvanised Sterilisers / Hand Washes Skids and Gambrels Hygiene Equipment Supports Shackle Change Over Change over to Skid Hoists Offal / Evisceration Vessels Miscellaneous Equipment Quantity 1 1 1 1 2 4 60 1 1 1 3 TOTAL Cost (US$) 2,500 3,500 1,350 1,800 14,200 5,000 8,000 1,200 2,300 2,000 2,200 2,200 1,800 4,500 52,550

Table 7.9 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Small-Stock 40-60 head / hour Item Description Stunning Box Stunning Gun Electrical Landing / Sticking Table Blood Collection Vessel Rail system Galvanised - Mechanised Stands - Galvanised Sterilisers / Hand Washes Mechanical Hide Pulling Hygiene Equipment Supports Shackle Change Over Hoist Change over to Skid Hoists Offal / Evisceration Vessels Skids and Gambrels Small Tools Miscellaneous Equipment Quantity 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 3 120 TOTAL Cost (US$) 2,500 3,500 1,350 1,800 32,400 5,000 8,000 20,000 2,300 2,000 2,200 2,200 1,800 2,400 4,000 4,500 95,950 Page 102

November 2009

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

7.10

CATTLE OPTIONS

Three costings have been prepared for cattle processing, ranging from the classic one-man booth design through to a mechanised rail on which carcasses are transported from sticking to bleeding stages and then onto evisceration. It is considered important that, where there is an existing bovine booth system, an effort be made to replace it with another booth system. This has the advantage of not presenting too many new challenges for the workforce yet it also introduces the opportunity for substantial improvement if properly executed. This improvement in process control will mainly result from the use of the dressing cradle(s) which get the carcasses off the floor and assist in the evisceration process. Similarly the use of gut buggies and blood collection vessels in the previous stage assist in mitigating the current environmental damage and reduces the risk of cross-contamination from visceral material and intestinal content. The throughput rates indicated in the costings and summary table (Table 7.6) are entirely nominal. In the vast majority of cases in these slaughterhouses, processing rates/hour are not considered to be an important parameter as they are in high-income countries. This reflects the fact that total labour costs are extremely low in the developing world, and that facilities tend to operate intensively for shorter periods rather than under a lower level of activity but continuously. Secondly processing speeds will vary considerably from site to site, as much a reflection of the payment arrangements (per head, per hour, etc.) as of the overall efficiency of the place. Overall the slaughter teams work to the arrival of the delivery trucks to take the carcasses to the retail markets: throughput per hour is largely a foreign concept which is only included here to give the reader some idea of size and capacity. The simple booth design enables the worker, through the use of hoists, to get the carcass up off the ground yet does not disrupt the existing work pattern of one man, or team, per beast at the same spot. This would best be suited to small to medium sized plants which currently perform a very basic level of service for customers. There is still provision however, in this design, for the efficient handling of blood and viscera material. This approach is further developed in the second and third beef designs which include a small secondary line (for inspection of heads which are indexed to the bodies suspended from the rail) and use of a mechanical hide puller. Electric hoists are also included for greater efficiency. A design such as the simple booth design or the simple static rail when looked at as individual units can be “bolted onto the side” of a low range slaughterhouse with relative ease; similarly, there could be 3 or 4 placed alongside each other if space permits. Typically there would be 1-4 men working in the simple booth design and up to 15 in the static rail design. The fully developed Slaughter Line scenario incorporates many features found in plants in high-income countries such as change over stations (moving from one side of carcass to the other), two rise and fall platforms which will accommodate 4 workers who will perform hide removal, trimming, and evisceration as well as splitting the breastbone and sides. It also features a carcass washing cabinet. As already explained, this design is fairly advanced and would not usually be warranted in most locations, where issues with economics and cost, and levels of competence and training are key issues. Table 7.10 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Bovine Basic Item Description Bleed Hoist - Manual Skinning Cradle - Galvanised Blood Collection Vessel Sterilisers / Hand Washes Spreader / Bleed support Bar Supports Offal / Evisceration Vessels Miscellaneous Equipment Quantity 1 1 1 1 1 2 TOTAL Cost (US$) 700 1,800 1,200 2,000 1,100 1,000 1,600 1,200 10,600

November 2009

Page 103

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Table 7.11 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Bovine 10-15 head / hour Item Description Stunning Box Stunning Pistol Bleed Hoist - Electric Skinning Cradle - Galvanised Blood Collection Vessel Flaying Hoist / Evisceration - Electric Platforms - Galvanised Rail system Galvanised Hooks Gambrels Sterilisers / Hand Washes Hygiene Equipment Supports Offal / Evisceration Vessels Miscellaneous Equipment Quartering Equipment Quantity 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 40 4 1 3 TOTAL Cost (US$) 4,000 1,000 2,900 1,800 1,200 2,900 8,000 9,200 2,000 8,000 1,600 1,000 9,000 8,500 1,800 62,900

Table 7.12 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Bovine 15-20 head / hour Item Description Stunning Box Stunning Pistol Rodding Tool and Steriliser Hock Cutter Blood Collection Vessel Electric Hoists Change Over Station Platforms Electric - Galvanised Rail system Galvanised Hooks and Shackles Sterilisers / Hand Washes Hygiene Equipment Breastbone Saw Splitting Saw Head Wash Cabinet Evisceration Hoist / Rail Supports Offal / Evisceration Vessels Carcass Washing Cabinet Chutes - Racks - Tables Hooks Small Tools Miscellaneous Equipment Quartering Equipment Hide Puller Quantity 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 40 4 1 2 TOTAL Cost (US$) 4,000 1,000 1,650 4,500 1,200 8,700 800 16,000 12,600 2,000 8,000 4,600 6,500 1,200 8,600 3,100 1,000 9,000 7,700 6,500 6,000 8,500 1,800 16,800 141,750

7.11

PIG OPTIONS

Two pig plant scenarios are presented here. Pig processing is relatively straightforward compared with bovine and small-stock as pig carcasses are mainly split and sold head-on, feet-on and skin-on (with some effort made to de-hair the carcass before transport). The overall aim in upgrading the slaughter and processing of pigs is to minimize the amount of time that carcasses are handled on the floor as this
November 2009

Page 104

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

normally entails considerable cross-contamination with other matter on the floor, and also to keep the bleeding process separate from the next stages. The traditional or terraced system of processing means that the carcass can be kept at a level surface and gradually lowered from stage to stage as suggested in the drawing in Annex H. Where space permits, installation of a processing line will greatly assist hygienic processing of pigs. In particular the evisceration stages are improved when done on a static line system. However the cost of implementing a slaughter line is considerably more than the basic upgrade estimate and in many of the sites visited, the competent authority would likely not see the value in its installation. Table 7.13 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Pigs Basic Item Description Electrical Tongs ( Imported) Scalding Vat Scraping Table Rail system Galvanised Hooks Gambrels Sterilisers / Hand Washes Supports Hygiene Equipment Offal / Evisceration Vessels Quantity 1 1 1 1 40 2 1 4 TOTAL Cost (US$) 3,500 4,000 2,500 6,800 1,600 4,000 1,500 3,200 2,400 29,500

Table 7.14 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Pigs 12+ head / hr Item Description Electrical Tongs ( Imported) Electric Bleed Hoist Blood Collection Vessel Scalding Vat Dehairing Machine Scraping Table Rail system Galvanised Hooks Gambrels Sterilisers / Hand Washes Platforms - Galvanised Gambrel Up Hoist Hygiene Equipment Supports Offal / Evisceration Vessels Electric Splitting Saw Breastbone Saw Miscellaneous Equipment Quantity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 60 4 2 1 4 1 1 TOTAL 7.12 SUMMARY Cost (US$) 3,500 2,200 1,200 8,100 45,000 3,800 9,200 2,400 8,000 8,000 2,600 3,200 1,000 2,400 8,000 3,400 6,500 118,500

The preceding chapters of the report confirmed that many factors are responsible for the generally poor operation of slaughterhouses in developing countries. The hugely degraded level of infrastructure is one of the key reasons for the poor operation. Basic repairs and upgrades to the buildings and interiors, and basic improvements to the slaughter process infrastructure and equipment will greatly improve the present situation with respect to many aspects such as food safety, animal welfare, pollution, disease control and health and safety. However upgrading infrastructure alone, whilst clearly offering improvements, will not remain sustainable unless other issues are addressed simultaneously. Contributing factors are poor or non-existent hygienic standards and a poor level of control over the slaughter and dressing stages of livestock processing. Inadequate infrastructure is also seen in the poorly-organised

November 2009

Page 105

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

live markets and livestock holding areas where there is often no adequate provision for sick or injured animals, or for control of disease. A piecemeal approach to this set of circumstances will not provide a remedy, rather, there needs to be a cohesive plan combining operational, process, and infrastructure elements devised for each of the sites under consideration for remediation. Specifically the site by site assessment must look at process control and building provisions in order to achieve the objectives in Table 7.15.

Table 7.15 – Objectives for Slaughterhouse Rehabilitation / Upgrading LAIRAGE Infrastructure • • Provision for sick, injured, and suspect animals. Infrastructural improvements where feasible to enable segregation of stock, improvement in fencing standards, & provision of water and shade. Terminal entry for livestock i.e. slaughter only. Sufficient opportunity (time, room and facilities) for proper ante-mortem inspection.

Process Control

• •

SLAUGHTERFLOOR Infrastructure • • • • • • • • Process Control • • • • • Upgrade building fabric and fit-out to resemble a hygienic envelope including ventilation, roofs, doors, all surfaces. Improve water availability, pressure and access to hot water. Enable heads and offal to be indexed with carcass until post-mortem inspection is completed. Provide a storage area for condemned/diseased product. Get carcasses up off the floor, and prevent cross contamination of viscera. Install basic equipment upgrades e.g. handwashing stations etc Install a locked area for storage of condemned material. Devise work configurations that reflect characteristics of the site including peak demand, skills level and available footprints. Separate clean and dirty processes at all times. Separate slaughterfloor processes and carcass handling into separate areas. Handle intestinal contents in a separate area. Provide for the separate storage of condemned material. Improve control over all aspects of process labour.

November 2009

Page 106

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

8
8.1

TOOLS FOR THE EVALUATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES
NEED AND METHODOLOGY

Before any improvements to a livestock market or slaughterhouse / meat plant can be planned it is essential to establish which areas need improvement and how to prioritise these to ensure the efficient use of investment funds available. It is a relatively easy task to visit any livestock market or meat plant in a developing country and immediately identify areas that require improvement; in fact, there are often so many areas that need improvement that it is difficult to establish what needs to be done first and to avoid the assumption that a completely new facility is needed. The latter is often the case in the medium to long-term, however in these situations improvements will be required in the short to medium-term whilst new facilities are being planned and constructed. A structured logical approach is therefore required to ensure that the evaluation of a facility can be undertaken in a meaningful and constructive manner. The Study Team was not able to identify any appropriate guidelines or tools for the evaluation of the myriad of existing facilities in developing countries20, therefore a suitable evaluation tool was developed, together with an appropriate methodology for planning and implementing improvements.

Evaluation Tools:
For an evaluation tool to be effective, it must be standardised and objective, so that wherever it is used and whoever uses it the same basic findings will result with as little variance as possible. Therefore, the tool must be relevant for both national and international standards, with the highest grades being the typical standards of the high-income countries, such as those of Europe, with various grades below this representing the actual standards for a particular facility, good or bad. To achieve this, a framework approach was developed, in which evaluation criteria were identified to represent the important features of livestock markets and meat plants. To evaluate each criterion a scoring system was developed from which to measure the relative level of advancement for that particular item. A score of 0 (zero) indicates an absence of any meaningful activity in a particular area while a score of 4 indicates good status. In this way it is possible to pinpoint only those items that fall below the required level and thus prioritise these areas for immediate investment; those items that already meet or exceed the desired standards need not be improved at that point in time but can be planned in the medium to long term to achieve better overall scoring. The scoring mechanism also allows for comparison between different facilities or the same facility over time and also provides a tool to guide progress.

Proposed Methodology:
It was apparent from the site visits during the LSWM Study that often a number of non-management stakeholders play very important roles in the operation of livestock markets and meat plants and often exert much influence on the day-to-day running of the facility and the final products. It is important, therefore, not to alienate any of these parties and ensure that they are be actively involved in any potential changes to the operation of the facility; this should ensure acceptance of any changes and, in addition, court and hopefully incorporate some of their ideas. The following methodology outlines the main steps to be completed, from initial evaluation to handing over and monitoring, including crucial steps when stakeholder involvement will be needed: • • • • • • • Carry out standard on-site evaluation of the facility; Identify areas requiring improvement; Establish priority areas, i.e. those required to reach agreed minimum standards; Consult with stakeholders; Establish an investment budget; Establish whether or not to proceed with upgrading works based on applicability, cost, and future plans; Plan and design upgrading work for improvement of the priority areas, including involvement of stakeholders;

20

Although some elements of tools for use in high income countries, such as the OIE PVS tool, had some relevance

November 2009

Page 107

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

• • • • • • 8.2

Select, plan, and design non-priority upgrading work, if budget allows; Establish methodology for temporary operations during construction, with stakeholders; Procurement and implementation; Training for stakeholders (operations and management); Handover of completed facility; and Follow-up monitoring / audits. TOOL FOR EVALUATION OF LIVESTOCK MARKETS (TEMA)

Livestock markets are a concentrating point for many livestock between the original producer in rural parts of the country and those who process them for human consumption. As such they are a focal point at which the health of animals can be checked and their safety for moving through the food chain can be checked. This allows areas with disease to be identified and allows veterinary authorities to limit the spread of diseases by appropriate segregation of livestock. It also provides an important opportunity for the administration to check tests or vaccines as part of national or regional health control programs, as well as a place to assist producers to improve their productivity by providing information on the weight and status of their animal so they obtain a good market price. It is therefore very important that all markets have the correct physical and organizational infrastructure to allow them to function efficiently in these and other roles. This analysis tool is designed to evaluate fundamental components of individual livestock market activity, including animal welfare and occupational health and safety (OHS). Regardless of their size, location, frequency, and how long animals remain at the facility, there are certain criteria that should be met to provide a suitable and safe environment for the animals, their handlers, and visitors to the market, as well allowing veterinary and administrative staff to effectively control and monitor livestock movements and carry out any necessary treatments or sample collections. The following mechanism can be used to clearly assess the status of a market, identify strengths and weaknesses. It can also be used to monitor the progress of an individual market as it improves. There are two sections: Section 1 - Physical Infrastructure Section 2 - Organisational Infrastructure To carry-out routine inspections of an individual market-place, it is recommended that in conjunction with the use of TEMA, a check list of each market’s specific features be developed. Using a specific checklist, individual features can be compared over time. For instance, if the market has five unloading ramps each can be identified separately and changes to each one can be noted. Similarly if damage is noted in for example pens 39, 57, and 60 then a personalised checklist will allow that to be clearly marked; a market place that uses rails and not pens will require a different checklist. Annex I contains the TEMA evaluation tool for livestock markets. 8.3 TOOL FOR EVALUATION OF MEAT PLANTS (TEMP)

This analysis tool is designed to evaluate fundamental components of individual plant activity (meat hygiene, waste management, animal welfare, and OHS) during the production of meat which fit for human consumption. The criteria selected include both factors within an individual plant itself and also some relating to the national approach to standards, training, and others which are very relevant to the operation of that plant. Its objectives are to provide: • • • • • An indication of current performance; Indications of where inputs are required for improvement; Analysis of progress over time in an individual plant; Comparison between different plants (either within the same or different countries); and Assistance to the World Bank or other agencies in identifying where applied resources may be expected to deliver the most benefit.

November 2009

Page 108

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

With this tool, all criteria in lower grades must be met before a plant can be allocated a higher rating, e.g. all criteria in Status 0 and 1 must be achieved for a plant to be allocated Status 2. The higher scores reflect those features whose presence will allow for the highest standards of meat production, including waste management and animal welfare issues. On occasions, a particular component may not be present at a particular plant, e.g. a chiller. However, while it could be argued that traditionally the market requires wet-meat (unchilled) and so a chiller is not required, public health interests suggest that an efficient cold-chain should exist between slaughter and the consumer. For this reason, such items should be included in the evaluation with the importance attached to particular components being assessed in the final analysis. Some suggested indicators to classification are shown in the evaluation tool but others may also be used, depending on local conditions. A series of inspection charts can be used to ensure all aspects of different areas of work are thoroughly inspected. These look at individual areas of a facility in more detail and should be developed specifically to apply to an individual slaughterhouse rather than using generic ones, where certain features may not apply. The term ‘Edible Livestock Products’ is used to describe all the parts of an animal which may be eaten by consumers. What constitutes Edible Livestock Products varies between countries but can include carcass meat, heads, red offal (heart, lungs, liver and spleen), green offal (intestines and rumens), limbs (feet, lower legs), tails, blood, and other organs. The basic components of plant activity are grouped into four sections and sub-sections as detailed in Table 8.1: Annex J contains the full TEMP evaluation tool for meat plants.

Table 8.1 – Criteria for Evaluation of Meat Plants Section 1 - Components of Vital Criteria 1.1 Meat Hygiene 1.2 Waste Management 1.3 Animal Welfare 1.4 Occupational Health and Safety Section 2 - Components of Physical, Human and Financial Resources 2.1 Physical Plant Structure 2.2 Staff 2.3 Plant Management 2.4 Product Management 2.5 Training and Continuing Education 2.6 Funding 2.7 Maintenance, Refurbishment and Development Section 3 - Components of Capability and Application 3.1 Statutory Instruments and Standards 3.2 Sustainable National Policy 3.3 Technical Independence 3.4 Laboratory Support 3.5 Traceability 3.6 Transparency Section 4 - Components of Interaction with Stakeholders 4.1 System Co-ordination 4.2 Consultation with Stakeholders 4.3 Participation of producers and other stakeholders in joint programmes 4.4 Public Awareness
November 2009

Page 109

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

9
9.1

ANIMAL WELFARE IMPROVEMENTS
OVERVIEW

The LSWM study clearly identified that in all locations there was little practical awareness of animal welfare in slaughterhouses or market places, including ancillary features such as livestock transportation. Earlier chapters of the present report also summarise infrastructure and operations – related problems with regards to animal welfare. Although all the countries visited are signatories to the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), major contraventions of the OIE Animal Welfare Code were widespread. Most of the livestock facilities visited were of considerable age and their original designs often lacked features now considered necessary for good animal welfare. However, many of the subsequent modifications were also unsuitable and showed a lack of awareness of fundamental science among those who designed and authorised the expenditure for upgrades. Where modern facilities had been constructed, full benefit was not being obtained from them because staff are inadequately trained to use them effectively and there was no training, inspection, control or correction policy in force. The veterinary services of most countries lack personnel with adequate understanding of animal welfare requirements which limits their ability to both recommend and enforce desirable standards. At the same time, there is generally no ability to sanction incorrect staff behaviour with respect to animal welfare because of the weak management structure in these facilities and the absence of political will to tighten up on ‘traditional practices’, often due to the fact that the butcher fraternity is both richer and more influential than the poorly-paid veterinarian. OIE member countries have made a commitment to working towards the animal welfare guidelines of that organisation but none of those countries visited had any structured animal welfare policy or a department with responsibility to develop a strategy. A very recent FAO report (Capacity building to implement good animal welfare practices, 2008. ISBN 978-92-5-106146-6) identifies the need for a structured approach to capacity building and increasing expertise. As indicated in the LSWM report, good animal welfare is a moral responsibility of civilised society while bad animal welfare is a cause of reduced productivity and a source of increased disease. It is therefore a source of significant economic loss to the country, and mechanisms to raise standards should be incorporated in all livestock projects. It is important that the improved productivity that comes with improved animal welfare is highlighted. Many working with animals in developing countries fail to recognise this fact and consider animal welfare to be only an ‘emotional luxury’ by those who fail to appreciate the commercial value of livestock. Without proper attention to control mechanisms it is also likely that improving animal welfare will be seen as an unnecessary imposition rather than a source of low-cost improvement. Schemes to raise standards of animal welfare therefore require some form of incentive to encourage their adoption, as well as some mechanism to monitor progress and ensure specific standards are being routinely applied. Consequently the Study Team recommends establishment of national standards, training to increase animal welfare capability within a country, and monitoring to ensure compliance over time. The discipline required to achieve such a mechanism is also required for proper application of any structural developments indicated for improved hygiene and waste control. The relevant ministries should therefore be developing teams of specialists with expertise in all aspects of modern hygienic meat production and livestock waste control. 9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPECIFIC FACILITIES SUPPORTED BY THE WORLD BANK OR OTHER DONORS

The following discussion provides practical observations on inspecting individual facilities due for upgrade. There are essentially two aspects to achieving good animal welfare standards: • Ensuring the physical structures are suitable for livestock in that environment; and Page 110

November 2009

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Ensuring that animals in the facility are well-treated.

Inspection of physical structure and environment
In the first instance, every relevant facility should be inspected by a team from the Animal Welfare Authority with World Bank specialists to identify the suitability of the existing facility or any proposed changes. In many cases, it is best to undertake this inspection when the facility is not in use. This inspection also allows relevant records to be examined (if maintained) and a clear idea formed of the structure of any management approach to maintaining standards.

Inspection of animal handling
Practical animal welfare can only be assessed when the facility is in operation and the practical skill levels of staff and visitors can be monitored. Confirmation of management strategies and procedures can be made at this time. For instance, the unloading practices, behaviour of drivers and farmers and the reaction of facility staff to breaches in welfare. The TEMP and TEMA analyses described in Chapter 9 and Annexes I and J allow for comparative analysis of different facilities, while it is recommended that a personalised reporting format should be developed for each facility for routine use as the project progresses. This would include measurable parameters, e.g. average time between stun and cut at slaughter counted over a specific number of animals, the percentage of animals slipping on unloading ramps. 9.3 DEVELOPMENT AND ANIMAL WELFARE FOR NEW OR REFURBISHED FACILITIES

Given the wide variation in facility size, throughput and seasonality, climate and local resources (e.g. power, roads, electricity, etc) ideally every facility should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and recommendations made accordingly. In general, the poor resources available for routine operation and maintenance of equipment and structures in developing countries, plus the preference for using manual as opposed to mechanical devices, indicate that problems will require low technological solutions. Without a well-established history of the country or the specific facility being able to work with modern equipment and carry out routine maintenance, it is strongly recommended that a gradual, step-wise improvement towards ideal techniques is adopted to ensure sustainable improvement of essential understanding. For countries to make a leap from primitive to state-of-the-art facilities strongly indicates, at best, an unrealistic comprehension of the complex mechanisms involved in using the facility to its full effect. A less charitable interpretation suggests that a significant proportion of the costly installation budget will be diverted into neither structure nor capacity building. Structural and practical reports, including the TEMP and TEMA tools, will provide donors with more information to accompany realistic financial appraisals that take into account existing socio-economic factors and such counter-productive features as extensive informal commerce. To complement structural designs presented to donors, the AWA should also submit animal welfare standards and work guidelines for use in the new facility, plus a programme for achieving adequate resource capability that can all be embedded in project milestones. As discussed earlier, legislative framework and formal AWA structure to ensure effective jurisdiction are essential components for meaningful development of the resource capability to train and license personnel and effectively deliver and monitor standards. A suitable mechanism for auditing facilities and their records should be developed using inspectors who are not working with the butchers on a daily basis. Any discrepancies measured are therefore handled by a panel of specialists who are not directly involved in the day-to-day running of the plant. 9.4 MANAGEMENT OF FACILITIES

Facilities around the world frequently serve a different role in the community in countries in the developing world when compared with high-income countries. Slaughterhouses in high-income countries may run as commercial enterprises which deliver a service at a price, slaughtering livestock and delivering end-product where every expenditure and product is carefully costed so that the slaughterhouse makes a profit after covering all its costs, both fixed and variable. In this system, the local authority charges the slaughterhouse for the service it provides in inspection and
November 2009

Page 111

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

ensuring that the slaughterhouse meets all its mandatory requirements for animal welfare, environmental safety, worker health and safety, etc. In developing countries, however, it is common to find that the local authority provides both the facilities for butchers to slaughter their own animal, and the inspection services for health and welfare. Financial analysis of the costs is usually weak or non-existent. This latter mechanism is fundamentally flawed in that the authorities are essentially inspecting themselves and often cut back on expenses related to inspection services, waste control, etc, to reduce their overheads in running the facility. Animal welfare inevitably gets sacrificed in this scenario and a fundamental change in the way facilities, especially slaughterhouses, are managed and financed is recommended. The inspection of animal welfare (along with food hygiene) should be carried out by an authority that is totally separate and unconnected with the management of the plant to ensure there is no conflict of interest as currently exists in the majority of establishments. 9.5 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING

In addition to the infrastructure related changes discussed in earlier chapters that would improve animal welfare conditions, more general procedure-related recommendations for improving animal welfare include: 1. Projects involving the livestock sector should contain milestones towards sustainable improvements in animal welfare standards which identify progress on the part of the receiving country as a condition for receiving financial instalments. Any refurbishment or construction of new facilities must be preceded by establishment of an Animal Welfare Authority (AWA) with a strategy for adequate infrastructure, regulations and staff capability covering animal welfare in livestock facilities. All projects must be inspected by a donor-approved panel with members of the national AWA to identify specific animal welfare weaknesses and suitable mechanisms for strengthening them in the first feasibility study. A donor-approved audit of AWA performance should be required as proof of achieving milestones within the project prior to receiving a funding instalment. Donors should support initiatives to include Animal Welfare as a separate discipline within undergraduate veterinary and agricultural training and establish a network of Regional Animal Welfare Centres for relevant local specialisation and post-graduate training. Animal Welfare Milestones

2.

3.

4. 5.

9.5.1

The absence of any national programs concerned with animal welfare to-date indicates that there must be some form of requirement to advance this important aspect of animal husbandry rather than leaving it to voluntary progress. Without pressure to meet specific achievements there will be little change from the present appalling situation. The creation of suitable project milestones will ensure that a sustainable mechanism is developed and progress maintained. 9.5.2 Establishment of an Animal Welfare Authority

It is unrealistic to think that a new or improved facility can function with animal welfare standards far in excess of general levels found throughout the country without extensive capacity-building. Without meaningful training and development of effective legislative mechanisms, the weak control that officials generally have within livestock facilities means that animal welfare will not improve but continue to be neglected. In practice, the only effective way to achieve meaningful progress is by having commitment at upper political levels and then developing a strategy that will create change at all levels in the production system. Such a mechanism requires the formation of a Committee that will report to the Minister which uses the expertise of both national and international specialists and organisations. This Committee should be supported by the AWA which compiles standards and guidelines while providing both training and extension as well as licensing and an Inspection Service. There is usually no pool of informed animal welfare knowledge in low income countries, so it is difficult to draw upon knowledgeable people to form the AWA. This will inevitably cause delays in establishing a meaningful welfare strategy and may well require some suitable advanced training to be provided to
November 2009

Page 112

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

senior staff. It is also important that the Animal Welfare Committee is empowered to make meaningful decisions rather than being an impotent low-level group. It seems highly likely that a specialist advisor will need to work with a team from the AWA to develop meaningful animal welfare legislation, standards, working procedures and protocols relevant to that particular country. For this reason it is recommended that an AWA be already established and progressing its strategy before construction or refurbishment commences. It is important that the AWA is involved in the early stages of design so as to take ownership of the project as it develops. The structure identified in Figure 9.1 suggests a mechanism suitable for upgrading animal welfare, although variations could prove equally effective. In this structure, the Minister of Agriculture is advised by an Animal Welfare Advisory Committee which contains specialists from his own Ministry as well as invited specialists from the legal department, local and/or international Animal Welfare and consultative organisations, research or training organisations, police, etc.

Minister of Agriculture

Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

Legal Department

Consultative Organisations

Animal Welfare Authority

Regulations

Training

Standards and Guidelines

Inspection Service

Staff, Ministry, Police etc

Licensing

Audit

Public Awareness

Figure 9.1 – Overview of a Suitable Structure to Create Animal Welfare Improvements

Critical to the whole process is the creation of effective Training and Inspection Services that use the Standards and Guidelines as the foundation of their work. People requiring training include Ministry staff and all those working with animals in slaughterhouses, markets, etc., as well as police and other regulatory officers, some of whom will not be in the Ministry of Agriculture. The Legal Department should be involved during the preparation of legislation and also in the prosecution of those who contravene the law. Staff working in critical areas must be trained and examined to ensure their knowledge and practical skills meet national standards and then, having achieved adequate proficiency in their duties, they are licensed by the Animal Welfare Authority. Job descriptions, goals and rewards, as well as encouragement of professional associations would also be a relatively simple and low cost way in which to dramatically alter attitudes of workers by giving importance and direction to their work and careers. Regular monitoring of their work practices in a written format should be mandatory and those who fail to maintain the required standards should lose their license until re-trained. Staff requiring licenses include veterinary inspectors, slaughtermen, market inspectors, livestock transporters, and those handling animals at slaughterhouses and livestock markets. For all roles, job descriptions, goals and rewards, as well as encouragement of professional associations would also be a relatively simple and low cost way in which to dramatically alter attitudes of workers by giving importance and direction to their work and careers.
November 2009

Page 113

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

The Welfare Inspection Service would be at the front-line of national strategy because it needs to identify instances of bad welfare as well as passing on advice to continually encourage improvements. This is the critical point where many existing systems breakdown and there are several potential reasons for this, including: • • • • • • • Inspectors are not knowledgeable enough; Weak welfare standards; Weak application of standards; Inspectors are not supported by superiors; No extension support to increase training and awareness among livestock owners; Coercion against inspectors; and Inadequate prosecution of repeat offenders.

It is therefore important that any formal structure covers the full spectrum of officials who are involved with every stage of the complete supply chain and that there is a strong national application of principles which will both increase productivity and improve welfare. 9.5.3 Identification of Specific Animal Welfare Weaknesses and Suitable Mechanisms for Strengthening These

The feasibility studies for new projects or the facility assessments in the case of upgrades would clearly identify the weaknesses in animal welfare and any control mechanism already in existence using the TEMP and TEMA tools discussed in Chapter 8 of this report, as well as other pertinent observations. Until such time as a worthwhile AWA has been created and achieved progress in raising the standards of animal welfare by improving the skills and attitudes of animal workers, there will be little chance of attaining raised standards. Structural improvements alone have only limited scope of providing significant improvements because the human element in animal welfare is critical. 9.5.4 Audits of AWA Performance as Proof of Achieving Milestones within Projects Prior to Receiving a Funding Instalment

An independent audit, at least annually, of the Animal Welfare Authority and its activities should be carried out by an independent agency and not an internal Ministry team of inspectors. In the case of an AWA created in response to a donor loan, the Audit agency would be appointed by the donor to monitor milestone achievements. As a component of good project management, the results of the audit should be analysed by the AWA and lead to modifications in activity to further improve its effectiveness even if it meets the milestone requirement. Data collected should allow clear identification of the financial benefits of improved animal welfare. 9.5.5 Introduction of Animal Welfare into Undergraduate Studies and Development of Regional Animal Welfare Centres for Relevant Local Specialisation and Training

World Bank support for initiatives to introduce Animal Welfare at the beginning of undergraduate courses for veterinarians etc will be a valuable component. It is widely recognised that young children learn their attitudes to animals and people from the influences around them, such as parents. The start of professional training is a critical time when the sudden introduction of an improved perspective may have a critical influence on their future behaviour and respect for animals. However, many centres of learning currently exhibit poor levels of husbandry which indicates that much work has to be done to raise the level of training among teachers first as a component of the AWA strategy. Animal Welfare specialists are required in all countries and national training programs will lead to creation of training centres to meet the learning needs of the many different categories of staff. Because of the dearth of animal welfare specialists in developing countries it makes sense to establish a network of regional Animal Welfare Centres that will allow for progressive specialist training and research in relevant areas of welfare activity. Such centres might initially be established to assist national progress but become international Regional Centres as their AWA gains credibility and momentum, finally reaching accredited status.

November 2009

Page 114

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Much of the animal welfare promotional material currently produced is founded on western production systems. Regional Centres would allow more relevant material to be developed. A range of techniques could be introduced to provide training and awareness while colleagues visiting for specific workshops would receive pro-active extension of practical welfare solutions and techniques and training materials relevant to their cultures. There is still wide disparity between national welfare standards around the world and much observational research on low-quality practices can only be performed in countries where relevant systems are still practised. Demonstrating the advantages of improved management practices within such regional centres can have significant advantage in influencing traditional farmers. Observations indicate that veterinarians, agriculturalists and farmers are all reluctant to adopt the recommendations of expatriates when they imagine cultural, colonial, or religious reasons for wanting to change traditional practices. 9.6 SUMMARY

Animal welfare is not yet recognised as an important factor in livestock productivity in developing countries and many veterinarians and others working in the livestock sector are unable to make changes to traditional practices. The main reasons for this are ignorance of the importance of good husbandry and improved techniques, absence of strong legislation and jurisprudence to enforce raised standards as well as weak institutions and underfunded and poorly managed veterinary services with insufficient powers. The way to improve animal husbandry, and therefore animal welfare, productivity and economic value, in developing countries is essentially simple. It requires training of animal handlers to meet well-defined national standards accompanied by inspection and enforcement by competent officials to ensure those standards are met. Whilst welfare problems can be reduced through improvements in infrastructure, particularly at the most basic facilities, high-priced installation of buildings and machinery is not likely to solve the problem. No amount of high-expenditure on mechanical equipment will ensure animal welfare if staff are not trained to use that equipment effectively and routinely monitored to ensure they do so all the time. Some form of enforcement is required and inspectors who identify weaknesses must be supported against the pressure of influential people who resent having to alter their work strategies. This requires recognition and support for changes to existing systems at the highest political levels in order for increased levels of livestock production to be achieved. Without top-level support, few of the infrastructure-related recommendations in this report will be effective or sustainable in terms of animal welfare, and large amounts of money will continue to be spent in the construction of facilities which are never used efficiently and which deteriorate without delivering their full-potential in terms of livestock productivity or financial recovery.

November 2009

Page 115

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

10

CONCLUSIONS

The LSWM Study’s reports and Survey Instruments provide a comprehensive insight into the existing condition and needs of facilities in developing countries, and the study has raised awareness of the very poor conditions encountered at almost all of the 238 facilities visited as part of the assessment. The results of the study were deeply worrying and initial feedback from stakeholders was that of surprise and concern at quite how bad conditions were. The present study is a follow-up to the larger LSWM project and this report has summarised and expanded on the findings of the LSWM study with respect to infrastructure (see Chapter 5), economics, legislation, and animal welfare (Chapters 3 and 9), and distilled the common infrastructure-related issues encountered at the facilities visited. This summary, in conjunction with a full literature review (Chapter 2) permitted the preparation of a costed guide to technical options for infrastructure improvements (Chapter 7) as well as basic assessment and reconstruction tools (Chapter 8) to be used by project preparation teams. In addition to reporting on the condition of facilities in low income countries, the LSWM Study concluded that the problem encountered is not merely one of decaying infrastructure; all manner of inter-related issues (such as but not limited to welfare, waste management, food hygiene, economics, process management and epidemiology) are being neglected, and together these present a far more dangerous proposition than the localised poor condition of facilities. It was clear that whilst at the local level the situation was frequently cause for significant concern, the potential for more widespread issues arising, such as the development of new zoonoses, could have considerably more significance. Certainly the decaying buildings and equipment encountered need attention, but these are simply the physical manifestation of a far wider and complex set of problems requiring more than simple engineering solutions. Certain conclusions of the LSWM Study with respect to epidemiology have to some extent been reinforced since its publication, with the recent emergence of Swine Influenza (H1N1). Despite the conclusion that the problems to be dealt with go well beyond that of infrastructure, the buildings and equipment encountered on the ground - and through which many millions of animals pass each day - are clearly the most obvious starting point in the effort to gain control over the sector, as infrastructure is easier to assess, grade, cost and fund than the “softer” issues relating to cultural issues, governance and corruption. The present infrastructure study and assessment guide is therefore the first stage of a long and relatively complex process that is urgently required, and that has thus far been overlooked. The proposed Global Alliance for Humane Sustainability is a global public/private collaboration for humane and sustainable livestock production and processing, founded on the basis of “one world one health” and having the aim of promoting and conducting the multi-faceted work that is required in order to address the many issues involved and achieving sustainable changes to the sector. The Alliance proposes numerous studies, investigations and pilot projects aimed at improving the sector in a holistic manner, however it is presently in its infancy. This study is therefore taking a first step in addressing infrastructure issues. This report has addressed the Terms of Reference by combining the review, assessment and investigation of existing information with the provision of new material and tools aimed at guiding project planners and infrastructure upgrade teams on the ground. The reviews and tools generated by the study are necessarily detailed, and as a result much of the ground work and tools have been annexed with the intention of keeping this main report manageable. It is the hope of the authors that individual sections of the voluminous annexes be made available separately, where appropriate21, to assist reconstruction efforts when they begin. The assessment element of this report has highlighted many problems currently encountered at the facility level, as well as the paucity of relevant literature to draw on when developing upgrade plans. Key conclusions of the assessment chapters include:

Some of the annexes unavoidably refer to the names of countries and cities visited, and due to the need to maintain anonymity, these have been labelled as “confidential”

21

November 2009

Page 116

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

Conditions at existing facilities
• • • • • • • The condition of existing infrastructure varies considerably from country to country and facility to facility, but is in general extremely poor; Most facilities are badly designed, poorly laid out, and operating above present capacity levels; Interior fittings and fixtures such as rendering, windows, and tiling, are often poorly installed, broken or decaying; Infrastructure maintenance is more or less absent; Waste management and cleaning are woefully inadequate and unsuitable; Infrastructure and equipment at private facilities are often (but not always) better than at corresponding municipal facilities; A widespread lack of refrigeration limits operational flexibility and therefore capacity, but refrigeration is often not feasible due to cost (capital and operational), power supply, lack of ongoing cold chain, and consumer preferences; Conditions can be so poor that initially it may be concluded that a facility is beyond upgrade, especially if coupled to a sensitive urban location. However in the present climate, these conditions present an opportunity for considerable improvements with minimal investments via basic upgrades.

Available literature and data:
• • • • There is a wealth of literature relating to slaughterhouse operations and infrastructure, however little of it is relevant to the basic upgrading of developing country facilities; There is a considerable gap in the literature with respect to livestock market infrastructure and management; There is a lack of literature pertaining to financial and economic feasibility and management of facilities; Facilities and governing authorities in developing countries either fail to gather financial data for their facilities, or are reluctant to provide such information, making analyses very difficult.

Finances, regulations, and economics
• • • • • • Most developing countries have a relatively comprehensive set of relevant laws; However lack of political will or capacity mean that laws are widely ignored; Financial management at facility, city and national levels is poor; Political interference and corruption are common; Detailed analysis was not possible due to lack of data, but willingness to pay for improvements on behalf of the consumer is almost non-existent; Facilities require effective managers, even with limited financial resources and poor infrastructure.

Key outcomes of the toolkit element of this study include:

Review of available technologies
No fewer than 50 infrastructure-related steps that were stand-alone and suitable for upgrades rather than replacement were identified on a “lowest cost and greatest benefit” basis; • In disagreement with current thinking, it is proposed that well-operated booth slaughter systems are often more suited to local conditions than line systems; • High-income country models and standards are in most cases unsuitable for upgrades and should be avoided. •

Technical options and tools for improvement of existing facilities
• A two stage initial analysis is proposed: o identification of technical & infrastructure weaknesses and deficiencies o action plan to address deficiencies / proposed rehabilitation options Comprehensive tools for the evaluation of existing facilities (TEMA and TEMP) were developed; Page 117

November 2009

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

• • •

Different levels of upgrade scenarios were developed and costed. Cost estimates, including equipment and rehabilitation to buildings, vary from just under US$50,000 to US$125,000; Very basic upgrades to infrastructure could be achieved for under US$20,000 In addition to infrastructure issues, scheduling and operation are presently a restriction on capacity, and revised schedules are proposed.

The next steps to be taken following this report are the testing and refining of site assessment and upgrading procedures. Pilot projects are therefore needed at selected municipal facilities. The required output is a repeatable methodology for planning and implementation that can be used at all locations, rather than a set of standard upgrading solutions that fail to include critical local conditions and practices. Whilst there are common components that require attention from one facility to the next, each location has many site specific factors (such as cultural/religious issues, availability of water and power, business and political interests) and no two sites are the same. As a result, standard improvement options and technologies should not be recommended; the emphasis should be on developing planning procedures that will result in achievement of standard outcomes irrespective of the actual "nuts and bolts" of the technologies, methods, and practices used. To this end, the following process is proposed for facility-level upgrades: 1. Identification of technical and infrastructure weaknesses and deficiencies using standard evaluation tools (e.g. TEMA & TEMP) to identify priority improvements in a logical and objective manner. 2. Identification of desired outcomes to address the important issues identified by the evaluation, such as minimum standards for animal welfare, off-floor slaughter and processing, or improved ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection. 3. Development of action plan including site specific solutions which are sensitive to local cultural and religious practices, investment level, and locally available equipment, technology, and skills. 4. Undertake Environmental and Social Impact Assessment if necessary. 5. Conduct extensive consultations with politicians, managers, staff, butchers, consumers and local residents. 6. Finalisation of proposed improvements prior to design and implementation.

The present report has focussed on infrastructure-related issues and upgrade, but it is clear that whilst appropriate infrastructure upgrades will provide immediate improvements, these will not provide sustainable long term solutions until the technical, economic, financial, political and cultural conditions in which facilities operate are improved. This conclusion should not, however, be taken as an excuse for inaction, and whilst long term sustainable solutions require more than simply infrastructure-related interventions, even the most basic upgrades at most facilities will provide considerable improvements to many aspects of operation, from animal welfare to worker health and safety and public health.

November 2009

Page 118

Nippon Koei in association with
ProAnd Associates Australia

Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities Final Report

11

REFERENCES

This report has drawn on a large compendium of academic papers, manuals, strategies and policies, as well as past studies, good practice guidelines and codes. All of these are provided in Annex A and were fully investigated as part of the investigations. The major resource that was drawn upon for the present study and which does not feature in Annex A is the data and reports generated under the earlier LSWM Study. Much of this information is unpublished but has been provided to the World Bank and is available for use on application. The main LSWM has been circulated and is cited as follows: Nippon Koei: (2009): Global Study Of Livestock Markets, Slaughterhouses And Related Waste Management Systems. Available at: http://www.sandracointreau.com/WB7142400LSWMStudyFinalReportFeb2009.pdf

November 2009

Page 119

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful