The current national average level of traceability. The current level of traceability determines the benefits of achieving a given target level of traceability and costs of implementing Option 1. The feasible level of traceability provided by each option. Limited evidence exists to demonstrate feasible traceability under any option. The assumed feasible level of traceability determines the benefits of implementing each option, and the costs of implementing Option 1. The major sources of uncertainty associated with the costs of implementation are: EID tag prices. Tag costs are a significant portion of the costs of Options 2 and 3 and quoted retail prices vary between jurisdictions. Labour and infrastructure costs. Implementation costs of all options are based on previous estimates presented in CIE (2010), PWC (2010), and the PIMC Working Group (2012). Estimates vary across studies and the precise activities needed to achieve a given level of traceability under Option 1 are uncertain. The major sources of uncertainty associated with the benefits of implementation are: The benefits directly attributable to an increase in traceability. The benefits from an increase in traceability depend on the relationship between changes in traceability and the reduced costs of a disease outbreak. This relationship is uncertain. The size of likely consequences. The size of potential benefits would also depend on the magnitude of the total cost (or effect) of all pest and disease, food safety, animal welfare and any other effects that an improvement in traceability is thought to reduce. No reliable estimate of total expected cost exists that could be attributed to all these threats. Feedback received during the public consultation process (see Chapter 8) could not resolve the uncertainty around values for these factors. For this reason, a range of estimates reflecting the plausible range of values for these factors is presented in this report. The analysis in this Decision RIS is divided into two parts. The first part, the ‘standard’ analysis, estimates the costs, benefits and net benefits of each option under a standard set of assumptions. The standard assumptions incorporate variation in two key parameters: EID tag prices effect of increased traceability on FMD impacts The second part of the analysis, the sensitivity analysis, explores the implications of changing the remaining key assumptions: the feasible level of traceability under Option 1 the current level of traceability labour costs under Option 1 infrastructure and labour costs under options 2 and 3 impacts of an FMD outbreak
The current national average level of traceability. The current level of traceability determines the benefits of achieving a given target level of traceability and costs of implementing Option 1. The feasible level of traceability provided by each option. Limited evidence exists to demonstrate feasible traceability under any option. The assumed feasible level of traceability determines the benefits of implementing each option, and the costs of implementing Option 1. The major sources of uncertainty associated with the costs of implementation are: EID tag prices. Tag costs are a significant portion of the costs of Options 2 and 3 and quoted retail prices vary between jurisdictions. Labour and infrastructure costs. Implementation costs of all options are based on previous estimates presented in CIE (2010), PWC (2010), and the PIMC Working Group (2012). Estimates vary across studies and the precise activities needed to achieve a given level of traceability under Option 1 are uncertain. The major sources of uncertainty associated with the benefits of implementation are: The benefits directly attributable to an increase in traceability. The benefits from an increase in traceability depend on the relationship between changes in traceability and the reduced costs of a disease outbreak. This relationship is uncertain. The size of likely consequences. The size of potential benefits would also depend on the magnitude of the total cost (or effect) of all pest and disease, food safety, animal welfare and any other effects that an improvement in traceability is thought to reduce. No reliable estimate of total expected cost exists that could be attributed to all these threats. Feedback received during the public consultation process (see Chapter 8) could not resolve the uncertainty around values for these factors. For this reason, a range of estimates reflecting the plausible range of values for these factors is presented in this report. The analysis in this Decision RIS is divided into two parts. The first part, the ‘standard’ analysis, estimates the costs, benefits and net benefits of each option under a standard set of assumptions. The standard assumptions incorporate variation in two key parameters: EID tag prices effect of increased traceability on FMD impacts The second part of the analysis, the sensitivity analysis, explores the implications of changing the remaining key assumptions: the feasible level of traceability under Option 1 the current level of traceability labour costs under Option 1 infrastructure and labour costs under options 2 and 3 impacts of an FMD outbreak