Proposed Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines – Exhibited Animals Consultation Regulation Impact Statement March 2014

6.0 Evaluation and review strategy

• 
  officially adopted by the various government jurisdictions;
  
• 
  implemented by the exhibited animals industries;
  
• 
  accepted by the Australian community.
  

7.0 Conclusions and findings

1. 
   Animal exhibition facilities include zoos, wildlife or fauna parks, aquariums and museums with live exhibits.
   
2. 
   Based on an economic survey conducted for the former Australasian Regional Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria (now ZAA) in 2009, the total estimated production by Australian zoos is worth about $424 million per annum. This consists of annual operating expenditure of about $358 million and capital expenditure of about $66 million. Zoos employ about 5300 people, including 3700 full-time employees and 1600 part-time employees. International visitors to zoos are estimated to create an estimated net benefit to the Australian economy of about $58 million per annum in addition to their payments for admissions to zoos. Allowing for a multiplier of up to 2.0, this could convert to a total value of about $116 million per annum.
   
3. 
   There are specific risks to the welfare of captive animals. Non-domestic animals come from a variety of environments, with differing climates, geography, food sources and interactions. They may be solitary animals or part of complex social groups. Non-domestic animals have evolved to survive in a particular environment and are highly adapted to their environment. Because each animal has a different set of needs, some of which can be complex, risks to animal welfare may result.
   
4. 
   The purpose of the proposed national standards is to specify uniform standards that ensure the welfare and security of animals used for exhibition purposes across Australia. The standards are complemented by guidelines providing advice and/or recommendations to achieve desirable animal welfare and environmental security outcomes. The standards and guidelines apply to those people and industries responsible for the care and management of animals kept for exhibition purposes at facilities for animals temporarily removed from such facilities and to animals being transported to or from such facilities.
   
5. 
   The main problems underlying the development of the proposed national standards are those relating to a lack of national consistency and lack of clear and verifiable standards, leading to uncoordinated risk management. While the likelihood of these risks becoming problems may generally be low, the consequences could be high if adequate standards are not in place and enforced. These potential risks include:
   

• 
  risks to the welfare of exhibited animals; and
  
• 
  risks to the environment and agriculture from escaped animals becoming pests and/or spreading diseases.
  

6. 
   In relation to the proposed national standards the following overarching policy objective is identified:
   

7. 
   Market forces alone would not be expected to solve these problems and intervention in the form of regulated standards is necessary.
   
8. 
   The options assessed in terms of costs and benefits are:
   

• 
  Option A: converting the proposed national standards into national voluntary guidelines (the minimum intervention option);
  
• 
  Option B: the proposed national standards as currently drafted;
  
• 
  Option C: variations of the proposed national standards as follows:
  
  • 
    Option C1: amend proposed Macropod Standard S3.2 regarding fox-proof fencing to allow for alternative fox management measures such as baiting (records of measures to be kept by operator).
    
  • 
    Option C2: amend General Standard S3.28 to state a maximum period in a holding enclosure of 30 days without government approval instead of 90 days.
    

9. 
   The incremental costs and benefits of the options relative to the base case are summarised in the following Table:
   

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 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 selected as the preferred option and the most likely to achieve the objectives as discussed in Part 2.2 of this RIS.

10. 
    The incremental costs per business are unlikely to be large enough to create a barrier to entry; and such businesses would be equally affected by the same regulatory environment. Thus the proposed national standards would be unlikely to restrict competition.