Global Reconnaissance of Slaughter and Meat Processing in Developing Countries

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 Reconstruction of Live Markets and Meat Processing Facilities
ProAnd Associates Australia 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 sub-
standard 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

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

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 The Study and its Objectives ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 Background to the Study .................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Methodology................................................................................................................... 5
2 Review of Available Literature and Data ............................................................................ 8

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................................. 8
3 Finances, Regulations and Economics: Background ......................................................... 10

3.1 Existing Regulations .......................................................................................................10
3.2 Financial Arrangements...................................................................................................13
3.3 Financial and Economic Issues .........................................................................................21
3.4 Summary ......................................................................................................................34
4 Review of Available Technologies ..................................................................................... 36

4.1 Examination of Available Technologies and Techniques ......................................................36
4.2 Identification of Appropriate Technologies and Techniques .................................................37
4.3 Summary ......................................................................................................................49
5 Conditions at Existing Facilities ........................................................................................ 51

5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................51
5.2 Livestock Markets ...........................................................................................................51
5.3 Slaughter & Processing Facilities ......................................................................................55
5.4 Assessment of Capacity ..................................................................................................74
6 Comparison with Conditions in High-Income Countries ................................................... 79

6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................79
6.2 Comparison and Analysis ................................................................................................80
6.3 Summary ......................................................................................................................82
7 Technical Options for Improvement of Existing Facilities ................................................ 84

7.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................84
7.2 Prevailing Guidelines and Regulations ...............................................................................85
7.3 Approach to Improving Existing Facilities ..........................................................................86
7.4 Identification of Technical & Infrastructure Weaknesses and Deficiencies .............................87
7.5 Buildings & Infrastructure ...............................................................................................91
7.6 Wider Environmental Issues ............................................................................................92
November 2009 Page iii

7.7 Action Plan to Address Deficiencies ..................................................................................93

7.8 Proposed Rehabilitation Options.......................................................................................94
7.9 Smallstock Options ....................................................................................................... 101
7.10 Cattle Options .............................................................................................................. 103
7.11 Pig Options.................................................................................................................. 104
7.12 Summary .................................................................................................................... 105
8 Tools for the Evaluation of Existing Facilities ................................................................. 107

8.1 Need and Methodology ................................................................................................. 107
8.2 Tool for Evaluation of Livestock Markets (TEMA) .............................................................. 108
8.3 Tool for Evaluation of Meat Plants (TEMP)....................................................................... 108
9 Animal Welfare Improvements ....................................................................................... 110

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

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 – Summary of Legislative Coverage for Country 1 ............................................................. 10
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

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

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 5.9 – 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

ACRONYMS
AFTA ASEAN Free Trade Area

APF Animal Protein Food
AWA Animal Welfare Authority
BOOT Build, Own Operate, Transfer
BSE Bovine spongiform encephalopathy
DEFRA United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation
FSANZ Food Standards Australia & New Zealand
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GMP Good Manufacturing Practices
HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
IDPs Internally Displaced Persons
JCTF Japan Country-Tied Fund
kWhr Kilowatt hour
LGU Local Government Unit
LSWM Livestock and Slaughter Waste Management Project
MPP Meat and Poultry Products
OHS Occupational Health & Safety
OIE World Organisation for Animal Health
OVI Overall Viability Indicator
SIs Survey Instruments
SRM Specified Risk Materials
TB Tubercle bacillus or Tuberculosis
TEMA Tool for Evaluating Market Activities
TEMP Tool for Evaluating Meat Production
TOR Terms of Reference
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
WTO World Trade Organisation
November 2009 Page viii

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 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 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.2.1 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

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

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.

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.

1.3 METHODOLOGY
1.3.1 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) Pre-visit planning and initial coordination with the local World Bank offices.
(ii) 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.
(iii) Meetings with city government officials to introduce the objectives and gain their support and
5
With the exception of Middle Income Country 2, which had two target cities due to the differing situations and close proximities

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) Surveys to collect primary data on existing facilities.
(v) Identification of links for animal-to-human diseases relating to livestock handling and
slaughter wastes.
(vi) 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.
(vii) Identification and collection of other related and available secondary data, including economic
and financial data where available.
(viii) 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.
(ix) Engagement and management of a local media / film company to capture professional
footage of stakeholder interviews and facilities for a proposed Bank video production.
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 Coordinate with the LSWM Study Team.
o Examine data on livestock markets, slaughterhouses, and meat processing facilities.
o Examine various technologies, techniques, materials, and supplies available.
o Identify appropriate technologies, techniques, materials, and supplies.
• Phase 2 – Assessment of Existing Conditions:
o Examine key municipal regulations and financial arrangements.
o Examine the existence and potential for economic instruments.
o Examine sanitary conditions, facility layout, and construction details.
o Assess the key issues observed versus methods in high-income countries.
o Assess existing facility space and maximum capacity.
• Phase 3 – Examination of Technical Options:
o Examine proposals for refurbishment or reconstruction of facilities.
o Develop budgetary cost estimates for technical options.

o Examine potential scenarios for disease outbreaks and environmental damage.

• Phase 4 – Final Reporting:
o Draft Final Report.
o Presentation for World Bank staff.
o Final Report.
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.

2 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE LITERATURE AND DATA
2.1 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.

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

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 EXISTING REGULATIONS
3.1.1 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 None
Good Acceptable Weak None exist
Found
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

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.

Found
Animal epidemiology
Animal Welfare
Human Health /hygiene

Waste management
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.
Found
Animal epidemiology
Animal Welfare

Waste management
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.


Found
Animal epidemiology
Animal Welfare

Waste management
Other relevant laws
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.

Found
Animal epidemiology
Animal Welfare
Human Health / Hygiene

Waste management
Other relevant laws

3.2 FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
3.2.1 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:
• 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.
3.2.2 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)

Table 3.6 – Slaughter Fee Structures in Country 1
Animal Description
Poultry 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.
Pork 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.
Cattle 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.
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
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.


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.
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.
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.
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.

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

3.2.4 Country 3
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.
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.
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.

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

of the Target Countries


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.

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
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.
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

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

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.
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.
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.
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 FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES
3.3.1 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.

Table 3.7 – Indicators in Developing Countries vs. a High-Income Country
Low Income Countries Middle Income High

Countries Income
Indicator Country
Country Country Country Country Country Australia
1 2 3 4 5
Population (millions) 86.968 176.243 83.237 34.859 29.547 21.263
Population growth (%) 1 1.9 3.2 1.5 1.23 1.2
Median age (years) 27.4 20.8 16.9 25 26.1 37.3
Urbanisation (%) 28 36 17 56 71 89
Population below poverty line (%) 14.8 24 38.7 15 44.5 0
GDP ($US billion) 90.88 160.9 25.08 125.3 131.4 1,069
Per capita GDP ($US) 1,010 913 301 3594 4447 50,277
Agriculture share of GDP (%) 19 20.4 45.9 14.5 8.5 2.5
Inflation 24.5 20.8 41 4.6 6.7 4.7
Labour force (millions) 47.41 50.58 27.2 11.5 10.2 11.21
Cattle population (millions) 8.2 53.9 28 2.5 5.223 26.7
Sheep & goat population (millions) 1.2 87.4 7.15 20.8 16.724 120
Red meat production (‘000 tonnes) 310 1,956 495 300 209.31 2,120
Red meat consumption per capita ( kg) 1.3 11.10 5.9 14 7.4 24
White meat production (‘000 tonnes) 3,188 463 5 340 909.13 1,237
White meat consumption per capita (kg) 25 2.63 0.06 11 31.9 60
Total meat production (‘000 tonnes) 3,498 2,419 500 510 715 4,365
Total meat consumption per capita (kg) 26.3 13.73 5.96 19 42 84
Beef price ($US/kg) 5.34 2.48 3.55 8 2.33 18
Mutton price ($US/kg) 4.72 8 12
Pork price($US/kg) 3.48 NA 2.66 7 1.7
Chicken price ($US/kg) 2.81 2.0 3.55 4 1.3 4.50
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 centrally-
planned 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.

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 / by-
products 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 Year
2000 2002 2008
Cattle & Buffalo 7,025 6,877 8,200
Sheep and Goats 544 622 1,200
Pigs 20,094 23,170 29,150
Poultry 196,100 233,000 240,000
Table 3.9 – Livestock Production (‘000 Tonnes) in Country 1
Species Year
2000 2002 2008
Beef 185 201 299
Mutton 5 5 11
Pork 1,409 1,654 2,771
Poultry 365 420 417
Total 1,964 2,280 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.

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 Year
1993 1997 2001 2005
Cattle 17,800 20,800 22,400 25,500
Buffalo 18,700 20,800 23,300 28,400
Sheep 27,700 23,700 24,200 25,500
Goat 40,200 42,700 49,100 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 Year
1995 2004 Change (%)
Beef 0.47 0.91 92
Mutton 0.95 1.97 108
Chicken 0.50 0.72 45
Wheat 1.36 2.62 92
Lentils 0.26 0.29 11
Sugar 0.17 0.24 40
Clarified Butter 0.48 0.76 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.

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 Market Major Slaughterhouse Butcher

Processor Operator
No. of sheep & goat 355,446 322,400 322,400 260
No. of cattle & buffalo 2,402,127 2,178,000 2,178,000 1,560
Annual revenue (US$) 331,250 250,000 352,500 212,500
Annual costs (US$) 68,750 96,250 283,750 187,500
Annual margin (US$) 262,500 153,750 68,750 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

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 Market Major Processor Small Processor Butcher

No. of sheep & goat 0 75,015 1,220 -
No. of cattle & buffalo 127,970 151,977 16,800 260
Annual revenue (US$) 118,000 2,509,100 15,500 136,400
Annual costs (US$) 27,300 2,236,400 6,400 127,300
Annual margin (US$) 90,900 272,700 9,100 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.

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.

Table 3.15 – Various Fee Data for Four Cities in Country 4
Fee Species Slaughterhouse

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

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 non-
coastal 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
National Livestock Numbers (‘000)

Year
Cattle Sheep Goats Pigs Chickens Alpacas Llamas
1990 4,102 12,256 1,721 2,400 Unknown 2,750 1,262
2001 5,056 14,723 2,024 2,810 85,621 3,182 1,179
2002 5,085 14,701 1,971 2,971 91,074 3,336 1,206
2003 5,132 14,752 1,984 2,992 92,846 3,433 1,232
2004 5,181 14,785 1,959 3,004 98,165 3,420 1,230
2005 5,241 14,822 1,957 3,005 99,255 3,598 1,269
2006 5,223 14,781 1,943 3,034 118,352 3,597 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
National Livestock Production (‘000 kg)

Year
Cattle Sheep & Goats Pigs Chickens Alpacas & Llamas
2001 137,800 31,800 72,000 543,000 11,500
2002 141,500 31,800 85,000 609,000 12,300
2003 144,900 32,300 Unknown Unknown 12,200
2004 151,900 33,500 Unknown Unknown 13,200
2005 152,000 33,600 Unknown Unknown 13,300
2006 162,569 33,893 107,930 801,200 12,850
Change (%) 18 7 50 48 12

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

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.

Table 3.18 – Stakeholders and Potential Project Initiatives
Potential Project Initiatives

Stakeholder Issue Investment Operating Enforcement Legislation Training Awareness
Funds Education
Government and Public health X X X X X X
councils Income X X
Livestock owners Health issues X X X X
(dairy/meat/poultry)
Residents in Smell X X
surrounding areas Noise X X
Disease X X X
Traffic X X
Butchers Fees X X X X X X
Wastage X X
Distance from outlet
By-products waste retrieval X X X X X
processors distance
staff availability
Consumers Price X X X
Meat quality X X X
Health issues X X X X
Exporters Access to markets X X X X X

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

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.
3.4 SUMMARY
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

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
With risks also passed on to the consumer and the general population
9
More information on Islamic and other religious practices is provided in the LSWM report (Nippon Koei 2009)
10
See Chapter 5 below and the LSWM report (Nippon Koei 2009) for further information

4 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES
4.1 EXAMINATION OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNIQUES

Following completion of the literature review, the source materials identified in Annex A were cross-
referenced 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 Livestock Slaughter /
Markets Process Facilities
Occupational Health and Safety 0 15

Animal Welfare 4 16
Food Safety & Public Health 0 7
Costs, Product Yield and Productivity 0 20
Disease Control (Biosecurity) 5 7
Environmental Impacts 14 29
TOTAL 23 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.

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.

Table 4.2 – Evaluation Categories
Category Definition
Development How well developed and tested the given technology is at present.
Availability How available the given technology is, in terms of expertise, patents, location etc.
Skills The extent to which the technology or system demands specialist skills or
knowledge.
Trainability The degree of ease or difficulty in training laymen to install or operate the given
technology or system.
Capital Cost How expensive the given technology or system is to install.
Operation Cost How expensive the given technology or system is to implement or operate.
Operability How easy or difficult continued operation of the technology or system is.
Maintenance How easy or difficult maintenance operations are (e.g. maintenance frequencies,
availability/expense of parts and consumables, etc.).
Reliability The extent to which the system or technology is reliable.
Suitability 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.).
Health & Safety The degree of risk (public and occupational) associated with the technology or
Risk system.
Health & Safety The degree of benefit offered by the technology or system by replacing or
Benefit correcting existing dangerous or high-risk practices.
Environmental The degree of risk to the environment associated with the technology or system.
Risk
Environmental The degree of benefit offered by the technology or system by replacing existing
Benefit environmentally damaging practices.
Welfare / Yield The degree of benefit offered by the technology or system in terms of animal
Benefit welfare and meat yield or quality.
Epidemiological The degree of benefit offered by the technology or system in terms of preventing
Benefit disease spread or risk.
Livelihoods The degree to which the technology or system provides employment or economic
Benefit benefits to the local population.

Table 4.3 – Scoring System for Each Category
Category / Definition
Score
Operation
Development Availability Skills Trainability Capital Cost Operability Maintenance Reliability Suitability
Cost
1 Emerging With difficulty Specialist With difficulty Expensive Expensive Difficult Difficult or frequent Un- reliable Rarely suitable
3 Proven Available Basic Possible Reasonable Reasonable Average Routine Average Sometimes suitable
5 Well established Easily None Easily Inexpensive Inexpensive Simple Simple / not needed Reliable Always Suitable
Category / Definition
Score
Health & Health & Safety Environment Environmental Welfare / Yield Epidemiologic Epidemiological Livelihoods
Safety Risk Benefit al Risk Benefit Benefit al Risk Benefit Benefit
1 High risk No benefit High risk No benefit No benefit High risk No benefit No benefit
3 Some risk Some benefit Some risk Some benefit Some benefit Some risk Some benefit Some benefit
5 No risk Considerable benefit Low risk Considerable benefit Considerable benefit Low risk Considerable benefit Considerable benefit

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

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

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

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.

Table 4.7 – Categorisation and Independence of Technical Options for Livestock Markets
OVI Stand New Previous

Category Technical Option Upgrade Retrofit
Score Alone? Facility Ranking
Piped water 78 17
Well and treatment 62 YES 34
River water with treatment 61 36
Segregation of market and
86 YES 42
Segregation of food stalls
87 YES 43
Hygiene and livestock areas
Baited vermin traps 77 YES 45
Sewered latrine facilities 77 52
Cesspit latrine facilities 70 53
Chemical / biological latrine
62 54
facilities
Latrines to biogas 63 55
Central skip / dumpster 79 YES 14
Waste Collection drums
76 YES 20
around market
Incineration 73 YES 22
Open / pit burning 72 YES 23
Epidemiology Central cage 59 37

Burial 59 YES 38
Installation of fencing 79 YES 41
Species segregation (pens) 80 YES 46
Free disease checks 69 48
Disease compensation 52 49
Vehicle upgrades 80 12
Process Contracting of market
74 50
cleaning
Scales onsite 68 YES 26
Market prices history 65 32
Knowledge
Market rankings / political
76 51
incentives
Provision of feed & water 88 YES 1
Lairage Yards/ Tethering
83 YES 4
rails
Feed & water troughs 83 YES 5
Animal Welfare
Permanent steel/iron shade 82 YES 6
Market welfare inspectors 82 8
Welfare Inspector 82 9
Canvas strung shade 79 YES 16
Concrete unloading ramps 85 YES 2
Occupational Worker health checkups 83 YES 3
Health & Safety
Concreted / non slip
82 YES 7
surfaces


Vehicle-borne unloading
81 YES 10
ramps
Market H&S inspectors 80 YES 11
Steel unloading ramps 80 YES 13
Personnel ID check on
68 YES 47
arrivals/departures
Composting 79 YES 15
Rainwater capture 76 YES 19
Environmental Reed beds 67 27
Aeration tanks 66 29
Vehicle cleaning facilities 77 YES 44
Screening/ sedimentation 77 YES 18
Water tanks & bowsers 75 YES 21
Wastewater Drainage channels 72 24
Anaerobic facultative ponds 71 25
Duckboards 66 YES 31
Biogas production 67 28
Biogas production and use
66 30
for lighting or power
Energy Grid electricity 64 33

Biogas derived electricity 62 35
Diesel / biodiesel Generators 58 39
Solar power 56 40

Table 4.8 – Categorisation and Independence of Technical Options for Slaughterhouses and
Meat Processing Facilities

Segregation of food stalls and
85 YES 1
livestock / slaughter areas
Inspection stamping / roller
85 2
branding
Tap installation 83 4
Ante and post mortem
82 YES 7
inspection
Dressing cradles 80 YES 11
Baited vermin traps 79 YES 13
Viscera buggy systems 79 14
Tables for 5th quarter
76 YES 21
processing
Procedures for handling
76 YES 22
animals dead on arrival
Suitable identifiable
protective clothing & 75 27
equipment
Laboratory / on site swabbing
75 28
to private lab
Electric hoists for hide
74 39
removal & evisceration
Carcass chilling 74 40
River water with treatment 73 41
Hygiene
Sealing of interior walls and
73 43
floors
Footbaths at processing entry 73 YES 44
Temporary modification of
72 53
existing vehicles
Piped water 71 54
Well and treatment 71 YES 55
Chilled despatch vehicles only 71 58
Installation of skid roller /
69 YES 60
gambrel system for dressing
Laundry service for operator
69 61
clothing
Knife sterilisers 67 65
Worker changing rooms and
67 66
facilities
Air conditioning 67 70
Steriliser handwash units 67 71
Installation of netting 65 YES 74
Water sprays 60 98
New dedicated vehicles 58 103
Blood dryers 55 YES 109
Hide pullers 53 YES 113


Dyeing of pathological waste 78 YES 15
Containers around slaughter
74 YES 34
& process floors
Species segregation (pens) 73 YES 42
Central skip / dumpster 68 63
Installation of fencing 65 YES 73
Central cage 65 75
Incineration 65 76
Epidemiology
Open / pit burning 62 YES 87
Dedicated single species
61 93
transport
Rendering pathological solid
60 96
waste
Boning waste rendering 60 97
Burial 55 YES 108
Disease compensation 54 112
Rail transport conveyor 59 100
Segregation of market and
84 YES 3
Installation of manual rail
75 25
system for carcass transport
Additional walls 73 YES 48
Contracting out of
72 51
slaughterhouse cleaning
Blood collection 72 52
Process improvements 71 YES 57
Personnel ID check on arrival 67 YES 67
Process Traceability system for live
67 68
animals to carcasses
Tighter controls on access 64 YES 81
Splitting saw 64 82
Refrigerated carcass chillers 62 86
Viscera pan conveyors 62 YES 88
Regular maintenance of
58 102
equipment
Blood rendering 57 YES 105
Feather rendering 57 YES 106
Pneumatic or hydraulic hand
55 YES 110
tools
Slaughterhouse
benchmarking and 81 8
performance incentives
Knowledge Scales onsite 76 YES 20

Market prices history 71 56
Training programmes,
71 59
reviews, etc.


Electronic scales with
61 94
ticketing
Permanent steel/iron shade 81 YES 9
Canvas strung shade 77 YES 18
Water troughs 77 19
Welfare inspector 75 YES 30
Animal Welfare Simple race 73 YES 47
Complex with forcing yards 67 69
Electric stun 60 99
Captive bolt 59 YES 101
Carbon dioxide gas stun 43 YES 117
Concrete / non-slip flooring 80 YES 10
H&S inspectors 76 YES 23
Signage 76 YES 24
Working platforms (bovine /
75 YES 26
equine)
Concrete unloading ramps 75 YES 29
Manually operated restraint
75 YES 32
box pen
Steel unloading ramps 74 YES 36
Occupational
Health & Safety Vehicle-borne unloading
73 YES 46
ramps
Single race to restraint box 73 YES 49
Worker health checkups 68 YES 64
Percussion stun bolt 65 79
Rotating restraint box 63 85
Safety and hygiene signage 57 104
Live bullet 50 YES 115
CCTV 48 116
General fluorescent lighting 82 5
Intense lighting for
82 6
Lighting inspectors
Lighting to reduce need for
74 YES 38
goads
Internal rotating fans 74 YES 37
Ventilation
Well designed roof ventilation 75 31
Rainwater capture 79 YES 12
Composting 77 YES 16
Vehicle cleaning facilities 74 33
Environmental Water tanks & bowsers 72 YES 50
Reed beds 63 83
Sedimentation & flotation
60 95
tanks
Sewered latrine facilities 77 17
Sanitation
Cesspit latrine facilities 69 62


Chemical / biological latrine
66 72
facilities
Latrines to biogas 61 92
Drainage channels 74 35
Anaerobic facultative ponds
73 45
(poss. with biogas recovery)
Wastewater
Static screens 63 84
Rotating screens 61 90
Aeration tanks 52 114
Incineration with energy
65 77
recovery
Biogas production and use for
65 78
power or rendering
Grid electricity 64 80
Energy
Biogas derived electricity 61 89
Biogas production 61 91
Solar power 56 107
Diesel / biodiesel generators 54 111
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 Livestock market equipment and reconstruction in general;
o Occupational health and safety, food safety and public health in the livestock market
setting;
o Economics and productivity, to assist operators’ decision making;
o 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.

Infrastructure, Processing Facilities, and Equipment

Practices, Awareness, and Training Decreasing
urgency /
Hygiene and Sanitation Facilities severity
Management, Policy, Regulation and Inspection
Country 1 Country 3
Slaughterhouses
Country 2 Decreasing Country 2 Decreasing
urgency / Increasing Livestock markets urgency /
Country 4 Country 1
severity of GDP per severity of
Country 3 Country 4 capita Processing Facilities situation
situation
Country 5 Country 5
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

5 CONDITIONS AT EXISTING FACILITIES
5.1 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.

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.

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

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,

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)

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

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


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 No booth system; kill floor only;
o Booth system with hoists;
o Booth system with hoists and rails;
• Line facilities;
o With manual rail system;
o Semi automated;

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.

Figure 5.10 – Floor-Based Batch Slaughterhouse Example 1
Figure 5.11 – Floor-Based Batch Slaughterhouse Example 2

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
14
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.

Figure 5.13 – Exterior Layouts of Line Facilities

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; • Fenced-off dirt-floored pens;
• Walled concrete pens, open or boothed; • Internal courtyards.
d
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

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.

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.

Table 5.1 – Summary of Some Building Types Encountered During the LSWM Study15
Country 1 Country 2 Country 3 Country 4 Country 5
The buildings at xxx Slaughter Buildings at xxx xxx slaughterhouse is a The 3 xxx slaughterhouses The two main city
facility comprise concrete floors slaughterhouse are of the modern steel portal frame were all constructed of slaughterhouses visited both
with concrete pillars and walls and open-sided portal framed type building that has been blocks/bricks, concrete and had a mix of old and new
a corrugated steel roof supported with concrete flooring fitted adapted to include a simple steel, with concrete flooring buildings. This type of building
by a structural steel framework. with open drain lines and processing line for smallstock, and basic drainage channels mix is common where historical
The buildings suffer from broken concrete tiles. Considering mainly goats. The facilities and grates and raised growth has occurred. In both
and rusting roofs and general their age (more than 40 years are on a single level and have corrugated roofs; however, cases, the general standard of
deterioration in general, not old for some) and the harsh a viewing area for customers they are all very basic in the building was good and
helped by the smoke accumulation working conditions, the and management. terms of architecture and construction was underway at
within the building from the solid buildings and associated features, and were without both sites to introduce new
fuel water heating hearth, heavy facilities are in relatively good exception in a poor state of production units of some form.
usage, and poor maintenance. condition. repair. All are a minimum Construction techniques varied
of 50 years old. depending on purpose, and
comprised bricks and mortar,
steel frame with cladding, or
wooden cabin
At xxx, the buildings are of xxx slaughterhouse is a newer The buildings at xxx abattoir xxx slaughterhouse, whilst The small urban poultry
modern concrete construction and and much smaller facility, are relatively small and old and outdated, and in slaughter operations were
purpose-built to house the modern designed in-house by a simple; condition is average. some aspects in poor repair, housed in long open fronted
slaughter and processing facilities. veterinarian to try an is at least visibly maintained building with low brick walls
Inside, the buildings are well alternative layout. It is built on to some degree, and it is between facilities and a basic
designed and have painted the same small site as the obvious that they have a roof.
finishes in the offices, whilst there previous facility so is very reasonable cleaning regime
is an abundance of ceramic tiles restricted in terms of space and repaint frequently.
and capacity. The facility is
essentially contained in one
integrated concrete building
which is inconspicuous as a
slaughterhouse
15
Text taken from LSWM study report, with facility names removed

Country 1 Country 2 Country 3 Country 4 Country 5
Whilst the buildings at xxx Poultry At xxx slaughterhouse, open The buildings at the private xxx slaughterhouse, whose The municipal slaughterhouses
Slaughter are inadequately sized, portal frame buildings with xxx abattoir are only 2-3 construction was completed visited were aged and in poor
particularly in the sticking/plucking tiled floors and open drains, years old and in good in 1997, is in a far better to very poor condition.
areas at the rear, the buildings are are in use, but at this facility condition state of repair than other Construction was of stone and
generally in a sound condition. A the buildings are generally in slaughterhouses visited in brick and in traditional style,
degree of wear and tear is evident poor condition, especially the the study area. Buildings with corrugated iron roofing.
as it seems that there is little roof and floors are constructed using a There is clearly little budget
attention paid to regular variety of techniques, but available to maintain the
maintenance of the floors, walls, steel frames, and concrete facilities as they were old and
and working surfaces block or lightweight decrepit. Some basic attempts
corrugated studwork are to patch up the walls and
employed widely. Roofing repaint were, however,
is either flat and felted, or observed.
angular and made of
corrugated steel.
The building at xxx Poultry xxx slaughterhouse is relatively xxx abattoir is not custom- The modern poultry facilities, In comparison, the slaughter
Slaughter is in good condition, small and has a cattle built but is a modern portal in common with xxx buildings at another
reflecting reasonably recent slaughter area, a small frame building with simple slaughterhouse, are all slaughterhouse could best be
construction and low utilisation of ruminant slaughter area, an internal modifications for the relatively new, and are described as temporary
the facility. offal processing area, and a slaughter of small-stock only reasonably well constructed structures only, consisting of
skin area, all in one compact and maintained. simple low walls with flat roofs
building. provided on columns, creating
shade but permitting
ventilation also.

Figure 5.16 – Examples of Slaughterhouse Building Exteriors

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.

Figure 5.18 – Examples of Basic Slaughterhouse Fittings & Equipment

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; • Hot water baths;
• Stun boxes and tongs; • A variety of stainless steel vessels and
tables (including rolling tables &
• Rotating bleed boxes;
cradles);
• Paunch collection systems;
• Knife sterilisers;
• Blood collection systems;
• Hand washing facilities;
• Hide pullers;
• Static and rising platforms; and
• Motorised winches;
• Waste pans and bins.
• Electric saws;
• Plucking machines;
Figure 5.18 – Manual Line Slaughterhall with no Additional Fittings & Equipment
Outside the slaughterhalls themselves, some facilities included ancillary equipment including:
• Pens; • Chillers;
• Incinerators • Boning and butchery room equipment
e.g. mincing and sausage machines;
• Paunch drying systems;
• Despatch ports; and
• Blood drying systems;
• Rendering systems.
• Screens;
• Waste Water Treatment Plants;
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.

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

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 middle-
income 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 Approximate Floor Area (m2/carcass)
Beef 0.8-1.0
Pig 0.3-0.6
Small-stock (goats & sheep) 0.15-0.3
Table 5.2 – Estimated Chiller Area Requirements

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

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 hides and skins;
o fifth quarter;
o blood;
o effluent treatment & disposal;
o 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 Average Number of Head Delivered Per Vehicle
(head/day) 5 10 15 20 25
25 5 3 2 1 1
50 10 5 3 3 2
100 20 10 7 5 4
500 100 50 33 25 20
1,000 200 100 67 50 40
2,000 400 200 133 100 80

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 Approximate Floor Area
(m2/head)
Cattle (loose) 2.3-2.8
Cattle (tied) 3.0-3.5
Small Pigs 0.5-0.7
Large Pigs 0.7-0.9
Sheep & Goats 0.7-0.9
Table 5.5 – Estimated Area Requirements for Holding Yards

Plant
Capacity Approximate Holding Yard Area Requirements (m2)
(head/day) Cattle Loose Cattle Tied Small Pigs Large Pigs Sheep & Goats
25 63 81 15 20 20
50 125 163 30 40 40
100 250 325 60 80 80
500 1,250 1,625 300 400 400
1,000 2,500 3,250 600 800 800
2,000 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 Minimum Water Availability
(m3/head)
Cattle 1.0-2.0
Pigs 0.3-0.4
Small-stock 0.2-0.3
16
Based on PAA; CSIRO; MLA/Mintrac industry data. 2009

Table 5.7 – Estimated Minimum Water Availability Requirement

Plant Capacity Approximate Water Availability Requirements (cubic metres/day)
(head/day) Beef Carcasses Pig Carcasses Small-stock Carcasses
25 38 9 6
50 75 18 13
100 150 35 25
500 750 175 125
1,000 1,500 350 250
2,000 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 Approximate Energy Availability Requirement in kWhr/day (MJ/day)
Beef Carcasses Pig Carcasses Small-Stock Carcasses
(head/day) (180kg) (65kg) (16kg)
25 450 (1,800) 163 (650) 40 (160)
50 900 (3,600) 325 (1,300) 80 (320)
100 1,800 (7,200) 650 (2,600) 160 (640)
500 9,000 (36,000) 3,250 (13,000) 800 (3,200)
1,000 18,000 (72,000) 6,500 (26,000) 1,600 (6,400)
2,000 36,000 (144,000) 13,000 (12,800) 3,200 (12,800)
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.
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.

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.

6 COMPARISON WITH CONDITIONS IN HIGH-INCOME COUNTRIES
6.1 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.

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.

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

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 Receiving and holding of animals.
o Drainage (at all locations at the site).
o 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.

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 Provision of water Cleaning program Cleaning materials
Suitable hoses / fittings Lighting Training Latrines and sanitation

Discouraging waste
Pest control Access to site Storage
pickers from sites
2) Areas where technologies/infrastructure are only applicable either with modifications or longer term
planning and preparation are as follows:
Treatment of sick Transport vehicles
Animal welfare issue Animal handling
animals (livestock and product)
Simple methods to
Materials in livestock Moving slaughter off-
Overcrowding assist slaughter &
markets / lairages site from markets
evisceration
Flooring in markets and Water access & Firmer inspection
Rendering
slaughterhouses effective use 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
Movement to user-pays More stringent
Drainage Traceability systems
fees veterinary checks
More mechanised More mechanised
stunning and / or carcass dressing
slaughter systems systems
The next Chapter of the report considers technologies which could conceivably be introduced in
developing country facilities and the merits or otherwise of each.

7 TECHNICAL OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING FACILITIES
7.1 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).
These conclusions are just as valid for other slaughter departments (wastewater treatment, offal
handling, etc.) as they are for the slaughter and dressing areas. When equipment and processes are
installed which are unsuited for the individual facility, or if generally appropriate items are installed
without providing adequate training to the workers, one or more of the following is likely to occur; the
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

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 by-
products 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.

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 Sticking and bleed area
o Hide/skin removal area
o Evisceration
o Inspection
o Cooling, drying; and chilling if applicable
o 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:

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
7.4.1 Livestock Markets

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;

• Provision of water, shade, pens, rails and ramps;

• Provision of competent veterinary health resources.
7.4.2 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.

The responsibilities of the establishment operator must include the following:

• Ensuring there is minimal opportunity for soiling and cross-contamination of animals with food-
borne 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 ante-
mortem 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.

From the flaying process onwards, carcasses must be kept separate from each other to avoid cross-
contamination 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 cross-
contamination 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.

Table 7.1 – Examples of Primary Deficiencies by Department
DEPARTMENT DEFICIENCIES
Ante mortem inspection Often hindered by overcrowded lairage capacity and inadequate or
procedures and facilities nil ante-mortem facilities.
Pre-slaughter animal handling Live animals in close proximity to dead animals and semi
processed carcasses.
External surface contamination of External surfaces of animals are highly contaminated with blood
skin prior to and during slaughter and faecal matter on the slaughter floor.
Bleeding and dressing 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.
Gut opening Intestinal parts, including the rumen, are opened and emptied
directly on the slaughter floor where they can cross-contaminate
edible products.
Hygienic dressing procedures Nil training for operators in hygienic procedures and no
standardisation of tasks and guidelines.
Post mortem inspection No method to identify carcasses with corresponding heads and
offal; inspection should occur concurrently to ensure all ‘at-risk’
items are located.
Contamination of equipment or Complete lack of procedures and facilities e.g. rinse booths, fresh
operators clothing for workers to recover from contamination episodes (spilt
intestinal content, effusive blood discharge, etc).
Personnel hygiene Personal and clothing hygiene level is inadequate: no
handwashing or sanitation facilities.
Standard procedures (and enforcement) are needed to ensure correct actions are taken for
routine and non-routine tasks
Pest, vermin and insect control Cross-contamination occurring due to lack of effective pest and
vermin control. Scavenging animals enter most sites.
Cleaning and plant sanitation Wholly inadequate; complete lack of sanitation.
Internal and external drainage 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.

Table 7.2 - General Areas for Infrastructure Assessment and Investment
AREA DEFICIENCIES
Roads and Access 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 Damage to doors, walls, frames, chiller panels if present; broken windows,
Fabric 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
(Carpentry, Metalwork, all equipment and parts and re-galvanisation if indicated.
Apertures, etc.)
General Building Chips, dents and other damage to tiles and wall surfaces are prime media for
Fabric bacteria. A tile height of at least 2m in all edible processing areas is recommended
(including edible fifth quarter areas), preferably with curved transitions.
(Tiling, Surfaces,
Many floor areas are dangerously slippery. Non-slip surfaces should be prepared.
Painting)
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 The building itself must be structurally sound, weather proof, vermin proof, and
have cleanable surfaces. Attention must be paid to areas of structural instability
(Assess structural (owing sometimes to drainage problems, see below), building damage, leaking
condition along with roofs and floor joints, and sustained moisture damage on walls and ceilings which
preparation of budget for render them unable to be cleaned.
repairs)
Plumbing The ability to meaningfully monitor and boost water through chlorination must be
achieved. There must be sufficient control over the system to ensure sufficient
(Water potability, residence time and appropriate levels of free chlorine.
pressure, and
Adequate clean water storage is required with a minimum of one day’s water
accessibility)
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.
Electrical Engineering 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 Lighting levels were generally non-existent or very poor. Replacement and upgrade
of lighting throughout the plant.
Ventilation Ventilation and panelling needs to ensure that the building is a hygienic envelope
and not accessible to birds and flying insects.
Drainage 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.
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.

Table 7.3 - Environmental Issues
AREA DEFICIENCIES
Odour 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.
Blood disposal 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.
Wastewater Most wastewater is disposed directly to sewer or watercourses without any
disposal primary or secondary treatment occurring such as screening or settlement
ponds.
Retention and Where condemned material / pathological waste is retained, it must not enter
disposal of the food chain. Provision must be made for destruction as storage will result in
condemned putrefaction and odour, and disposal to dumpsites often results in recycling
material / other into the food chain.
animal tissue
Disposal of paunch Intestinal contents are normally disposed directly into the municipal sewer or
and intestinal nearby watercourses which adds to quantities of suspended solids and nutrient
contents loads
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. Seal surface of roadways adjacent to lairage and
delivery site.
Repair doors, metal gratings, repair hoists and Repair floor, walls and roofs including preparation,
pulleys. surface coating, painting, windows and leaks to
maintain the existing structure.
Repair of plumbing faults; install new potable Supply and install replacement equipment in
water tank. chiller and perform maintenance on motor.
Renovation of electrical network. 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

CURRENT SITUATION PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT

Livestock Yards
Yard and lairage areas are too crowded for proper Increase the holding capacity of the livestock
ante-mortem inspection. There is no access to yards and improve lighting.
shade or to water for animals awaiting slaughter.
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 Provide or replace basic equipment e.g. Hoists and
replacement. rollers
Building perimeter has holes, access to vermin. Sealing of walls, joins etc, replacement of grates
and screens, and broken windows.
No hot water to kill floor; cold water pressure is Install or improve water reticulation network and
unsatisfactory or not present. make hot water available.
Severe damage noted to floor and wall tiles; Repair or replace interior finishing
chronically dirty.
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 Install an incinerator with appropriate fuel
state prior to disposal in a dump site. source18.
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.

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

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.

ProAnd Associates Australia 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.

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.

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

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. Approx. Approx. Approx

speed Slaughter Cost of Cost of Total
Slaughter Layout area kill area equipment Cost
Head/hr m2 $US $US $US
Simple smallstock line (A) 10 50 20,000 27,650 47,650
Line slaughter smallstock (B) 20-30 60 24,000 52,550 76,550
Line slaughter smallstock (C) 40-60 75 30,000 95,950 125,950
Classic booth bovine (D) 2-8 35 14,000 10,600 24,600
Classic booth bovine w cradle & rail (E) 10-15 160 64,000 61,900 125,900
Large static rail bovine (F) 15-20 240 96,000 141,750 237,750
Terraced pig slaughterline (G) 15-20 36 14,400 29,500 43,900
Modern pig slaughterline (H) 12+ 75 30,000 118,500 148,500
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%.

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.

Table 7.7 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Small-Stock Basic

Item Description Quantity Cost (US$)
Stunning Box 1 2,500
Stunning Gun Electrical 1 3,500
Landing / Sticking Table 1 1,350
Blood Collection Vessel 1 1,200
Rail system Galvanised 1 4,300
Stands 2 1,200
Sterilisers / Hand Washes 2 4,000
Hygiene Equipment - 2,300
Supports 1 1,000
Offal / Evisceration Vessels 3 1,800
Miscellaneous Equipment - 4,500
TOTAL 27,650
Table 7.8 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Small-Stock 20-30 head / hour
Stunning Gun Electrical - 3,500
Rail system Galvanised - Static 1 14,200
Stands - Galvanised 2 5,000
Skids and Gambrels 60 1,200
Supports 1 2,000
Shackle Change Over 1 2,200
Change over to Skid Hoists 1 2,200
TOTAL 52,550
Table 7.9 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Small-Stock 40-60 head / hour
Stunning Gun Electrical 1 3,500
Rail system Galvanised - Mechanised 1 32,400
Stands - Galvanised 2 5,000
Mechanical Hide Pulling 1 20,000
Supports 1 2,000
Shackle Change Over Hoist 1 2,200
Change over to Skid Hoists 1 2,200
Skids and Gambrels 120 2,400
Small Tools - 4,000
TOTAL 95,950

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
Bleed Hoist - Manual 1 700
Skinning Cradle - Galvanised 1 1,800
Spreader / Bleed support Bar - 1,100
Supports 1 1,000
TOTAL 10,600

Table 7.11 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Bovine 10-15 head / hour
Stunning Pistol 1 1,000
Bleed Hoist - Electric 1 2,900
Skinning Cradle - Galvanised 1 1,800
Flaying Hoist / Evisceration - Electric 1 2,900
Platforms - Galvanised 2 8,000
Hooks Gambrels 40 2,000
Supports 1 1,000
Quartering Equipment - 1,800
TOTAL 62,900
Table 7.12 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Bovine 15-20 head / hour
Stunning Pistol - 1,000
Rodding Tool and Steriliser 1 1,650
Hock Cutter 1 4,500
Electric Hoists 3 8,700
Change Over Station 1 800
Platforms Electric - Galvanised 2 16,000
Hooks and Shackles 40 2,000
Breastbone Saw - 6,500
Splitting Saw - 1,200
Head Wash Cabinet - 8,600
Evisceration Hoist / Rail - 3,100
Supports 1 1,000
Carcass Washing Cabinet - 7,700
Chutes - Racks - Tables - 6,500
Hooks Small Tools - 6,000
Quartering Equipment - 1,800
Hide Puller - 16,800
TOTAL 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

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

Electrical Tongs ( Imported) 1 3,500
Scalding Vat 1 4,000
Scraping Table 1 2,500
Supports 1 1,500
TOTAL 29,500
Table 7.14 - Cost Estimates for Slaughterhouse Designs – Pigs 12+ head / hr

Electrical Tongs ( Imported) 1 3,500
Electric Bleed Hoist 1 2,200
Scalding Vat 1 8,100
Dehairing Machine 1 45,000
Scraping Table 1 3,800
Platforms - Galvanised 2 8,000
Gambrel Up Hoist - 2,600
Supports 1 1,000
Electric Splitting Saw 1 8,000
Breastbone Saw 1 3,400
TOTAL 118,500
7.12 SUMMARY
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

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.
Process Control • Terminal entry for livestock i.e. slaughter only.

• Sufficient opportunity (time, room and facilities) for proper ante-mortem
inspection.
SLAUGHTERFLOOR
Infrastructure • 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.
Process Control • 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.

8 TOOLS FOR THE EVALUATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES
8.1 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

• 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.
8.2 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.

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

9 ANIMAL WELFARE IMPROVEMENTS
9.1 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

• 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

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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. A donor-approved audit of AWA performance should be required as proof of achieving
milestones within the project prior to receiving a funding instalment.
5. 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.
9.5.1 Animal Welfare Milestones

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

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
Animal Welfare Authority Regulations
Organisations
Training Standards and Guidelines Inspection Service
Staff, Ministry, Police Licensing Audit

etc
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.

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.

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.

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:
21
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”

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;

• 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.

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

Global Reconnaissance of Slaughter and Meat Processing in Developing Countries

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Global Reconnaissance of Slaughter and Meat Processing in Developing Countries

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

WORLD BANK STUDY - CONTRACT 7146842

DRAFT FINAL REPORT

Volume 1: Main Report

November 2009 Page i

November 2009 Page ii

DRAFT FINAL REPORT

2 Review of Available Literature and Data ............................................................................ 8

3 Finances, Regulations and Economics: Background ......................................................... 10

4 Review of Available Technologies ..................................................................................... 36

5 Conditions at Existing Facilities ........................................................................................ 51

6 Comparison with Conditions in High-Income Countries ................................................... 79

7 Technical Options for Improvement of Existing Facilities ................................................ 84

November 2009 Page iii

7.7 Action Plan to Address Deficiencies ..................................................................................93

8 Tools for the Evaluation of Existing Facilities ................................................................. 107

9 Animal Welfare Improvements ....................................................................................... 110

10 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 116

11 References ...................................................................................................................... 119

Annex A: Summary of Relevant Literature Resources

November 2009 Page iv

November 2009 Page v

Table 7.3 - Environmental Issues .................................................................................................. 93

November 2009 Page vi

November 2009 Page vii

AFTA ASEAN Free Trade Area

November 2009 Page viii

1.1 THE STUDY AND ITS OBJECTIVES

1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

1.2.1 Overview of Wider Issues and Project Need

November 2009 Page 1

1.2.2 Summary of Conclusions of the LSWM Study

November 2009 Page 2

November 2009 Page 3

Disease Control and Animal Health

November 2009 Page 4

1.3.2 Summary of LSWM Methodologies

November 2009 Page 5

1.3.3 Methodology for the Reconstruction Study

November 2009 Page 6

o Examine potential scenarios for disease outbreaks and environmental damage.

November 2009 Page 7

2 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE LITERATURE AND DATA

2.2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

November 2009 Page 8

November 2009 Page 9

3 FINANCES, REGULATIONS AND ECONOMICS: BACKGROUND

3.1 EXISTING REGULATIONS

In developing countries, legislation governing the management of livestock markets, slaughterhouses,

November 2009 Page 10

Table 3.2 – Summary of Legislative Coverage for Country 2

November 2009 Page 11

Table 3.4 – Summary of Legislative Coverage for Country 4

Table 3.5 – Summary of Legislative Coverage for Country 5

November 2009 Page 12

3.2 FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS

November 2009 Page 13

Table 3.6 – Slaughter Fee Structures in Country 1

Account segregation – coverage of recurrent costs/expenditures

November 2009 Page 14

Available municipal budgets for markets and processing

November 2009 Page 15

November 2009 Page 16

November 2009 Page 17

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