Proposed Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines – Exhibited Animals Consultation Regulation Impact Statement March 2014
|
|  Yüklə 5.31 Mb.
|
4.4 Preferred optionComparing the costs and benefits against the base case is hindered by the inherent inability to quantify benefits to animal welfare, ecological benefits and consistency, and the difficulty in this case of quantifying some of the costs. The three evaluation criteria are:
The incremental costs and benefits of the options relative to the base case are summarised in Table 11. Table 11: Summary of relative costs93 and benefits (Options A, B, C1 and C2)
The above table shows that all options would provide greater benefits than the base case; but all options would, other than Option A, be more costly than the base case. Options B, C1 and C2 would provide greater benefits than Option A; but would also be more costly than Option A. Options C1 and C2 are not mutually exclusive. Option C1 (variation of taxon Standard S3.2 to enable baiting as an alternative to fox proof fencing), would not provide additional benefits as compared to Option B but would entail a higher cost than Option B if fox baiting is used. A sensitivity analysis at the 3% discount rate reveals that incremental cost of the taxon proposed standard S3.2 for fox proofing macropod enclosures increases from $861,178 under Option B to $1,003,221 under Option C1 (an increase of $142,043) (see Tables A4.43 and A4.45 in Appendix 4 for source of estimates). A sensitivity analysis at the 10% discount rate reveals that incremental cost of the taxon proposed standard S3.2 for fox proofing macropod enclosures increases from $780,092 under Option B to $866,563 under Option C1 (an increase of $86,471) (see Tables A4.43 and A4.45 in Appendix 4 for source of estimates). On the other hand, Option C2 (variation of the proposed general Standard S3.28 which allows a maximum period in a holding enclosure of 30 days without government approval instead of 90 days) is likely to provide additional animal welfare benefits under Criterion I, but with a slightly larger unquantifiable cost under Criterion III. The prevalence of Option C2 in Table 11 suggests that, in terms of ranking, this option is likely to achieve the highest net benefit. Therefore Option C2 is deemed to be the preferred option and the most likely to achieve the objectives as discussed in Part 2.2 of this RIS. 4.5 Breakeven analysis of the preferred optionThe quantifiable cost of the general standards under Option C2 is estimated at approximately $6.24m over 10 years in present value dollars. There are an estimated 255,807 animals exhibited by ZAA and non-ZAA members (i.e. 3.7994 times the 67,473 animals exhibited by ZAA members, as shown in Table 3 in this RIS). Assuming that welfare gains are possible for 5% of these animals, the break-even additional benefit required per animal at risk is $487.45 over 10 years. This would be equal to $48.75 per annum per animal at risk or the equivalent of 1.95 adult entry tickets (assuming the average price of an adult ticket of $25). The welfare of an exhibited animal is considered likely to be valued by the community at more than 1.95 adult entry tickets a year. With regard to the taxon standards under Option C2 the quantifiable costs are estimated to be $0.81m over 10 years in present value dollars. Estimating that there are 16,937 taxon animals and assuming that welfare gains are possible for 5% of these animals, the break-even benefit required per animal at risk is $959 over 10 years. Per annum per animal, this would be $95.89 or the equivalent of 3.84 adult tickets. The welfare of an exhibited taxon animal is considered likely to be valued by the community at more than 3.84 adult tickets. In conclusion, while welfare cannot be monetised, the welfare benefit of animals being derived from the Option C2 is likely to exceed the monetary cost and therefore, on breakeven grounds, is likely to provide a net benefit. |