Summary of Assumptions Used in the Impact Analysis Safeguarding Biodiversity CRC Bid

Prepared by Peter Chudleigh, Agtrans Research

A) Summary of Economic Impacts Analysed:

Impact 1: Impact 2: Impact 3: Impact 4: Impact 5: Impact 6: Impact 7: Impact 8: Impact 9: Reduced cost of threatened species programs due to genome storage capacity. Reduced cost of wildlife disease outbreak management. Reduced risk to humans & agriculture from wildlife vectored disease. Reduction in pest management costs using sustainable approaches. Ecosystem services provided to the economy by reintroduced species. Increased level of donations & willingness to volunteer to Biodiversity Conservation NGOs. More efficient & effective resourcing of Biodiversity Conservation. Reduced probability of species conservation status declining. Increased biodiversity on farms prevent economic losses to Australian agricultural Industries..

B) Specific assumptions for each impact follow in Tables below:

Impact 1: Reduced cost of threatened species programs due to genome storage capacity reducing dependence on expensive captive breeding. Captive breeding is currently the only insurance policy option available to conservation agencies when species face high likelihood of extinction. It is widely regarded as a worst case scenario and often criticised as too little too late and a lost cause. Despite this it is always used. These major limitations are the relatively small number of individuals that can be held and the high cost for many species due to special food or other requirements. Thus increased ability to store and use genomes relatively cheaply and for the long term would be a highly attractive alternative allowing fewer captive animals to be held in the living insurance population but many more, and their invaluable genetic diversity, to be held in the frozen/stored population for later use. In 2011here were about 20 captive breeding programs in Australia and New Zealand to which the new technology would be applicable. This increases by 2 per annum so that by 2018 there are 34 captive breeding programs applicable. The number of captive breeding programs in Australia and New Zealand after 2018 continues to increase by 2 programs per annum. Once the genome storage outputs are proven successful and are used, the impact assumed will have a high probability of being delivered. The impact consists of potential cost savings of $900,000 per species per annum for the same conservation outcome.

1|Page

Table 1. Key assumptions behind impacts regarding cost reduction in conservation due to the CRC investment Variable Without Program 1 Total cost of maintaining 500 animals to preserve genetic diversity Assumption $1,100,000 per annum per species. Based on fixed cost of $100,000 per annum plus variable costs of $100,000 per 50 animals $100,000 per annum Source John Clulow

With Program 1 Fixed cost of maintaining 50 animals to preserve genetic diversity Variable cost of maintaining 50 animals to preserve genetic diversity Total cost of maintaining 50 animals to preserve genetic diversity Cost of collection and storage of gametes Cost of reintroducing stored gamete Potential cost savings per species after subtracting additional costs ($1,100,000-$200,000$10,000) Number of captive breeding programs to which CRC outputs apply

John Clulow

$100,000 per annum

John Clulow

$200,000 per annum

John Clulow

$5,000 per species per annum $5,000 per species per annum $890,000 per annum

John Clulow Agtrans Research From above lines

20 in 2011 with an assumed increase of 2 per annum thereafter

Helen Robertson plus discussions with Workshop participants 17 May 2011 Agtrans Research

First year of benefits accruing Output probability Usage probability Impact probability given usage Any extra costs for usage?

Year 6 of CRC

Agtrans Research after discussions with Workshop participants 17 May 2011 and April 2-4, 2012

Yes, the costs of collection and storage of gametes and their use in reintroductions are included as additional usage costs ($10,000 per species per annum)

Agtrans Research

2|Page

Impact 2: Reduced cost of wildlife disease outbreak management due to new and better disease preparedness, surveillance and identification capacity replacing current ad hoc responses. There is a high probability that crisis management will be required in the future based on experience over at least the last two decades (e.g chytridiomycosis and Tasmanian Devils) and the growing biosecurity threat to biodiversity posed by ever greater globalisation of organisms through trade and mobility. One disease crisis management incident is assumed to occur each decade. The crisis management activities are based on those that have applied to the facial tumour disease for the Tasmanian Devil. Total research and management costs for the Tasmanian Devil crisis have been at least $6.2 m per annum for at least 7 years. The percentage of costs avoided per annum for five years due to the new tools and knowledge is estimated at 80%. Disease is by far the major biodiversity threat for which conservation organisations are least equipped to anticipate, manage and respond. Conservation organisations lack expertise and lack decision and response tools. The Biodiversity CRC will provide these resources and train organisations in their use. Once the product output are proven successful and are used, the impact assumed will have a high probability of being delivered. The cost reduction is assumed to occur in the period from year 7 to year 11 of the CRC.

Table 2: Reducing Conservation Crisis Management Costs through Improved Health and Disease Variable Conservation crisis research costs based on example of Tasmanian Devil Assumption Federal and Tasmanian government committed funding for research totalled roughly $47.5 million from 2003/4 to 2014/5 or approximately $4 m per annum for 12 years $2.2 million per annum Source Undisclosed

Insurance management costs

Total expenditure on research and management (separate to regular management agency costs and therefore does not double count Impact 7) Costs avoided for Tasmanian Devil due to Program Number of crisis management incidents avoided

$6.2 m per annum for at least 7 years

Australian Regional Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria From two lines above

Extra costs for application of CRC tools Net benefits Period assumed for one incident 3|Page

80% of $6.2 m or $4.96 million per annum (assumed for 7 years) 1 in lifetime of CRC (Based on 2 every 2 decades or 1 per decade Tassie Devil and chytrids in recent two decades) $1 m per annum during incident $3.96 million per annum Conservatively assumed from Year

80% by Agtrans Research Workshop 17 May 2011

Agtrans Research From above Agtrans Research

Output probability Usage probability Impact probability given usage Any extra costs for usage?

7 to Year 11 of CRC Agtrans Research after discussions with Workshop participants 17 May 2011 and April 2-4, 2012 Yes, included above to cover possible additional costs for application of new tools Agtrans Research

Impact 3: Reduced risk to human health and agriculture from wildlife vectored disease and improvement in the response to disease events. Biosecurity threats to agriculture and human health from native biodiversity as disease reservoirs or vectors is a threat for which biosecurity organisations are poorly equipped to manage and respond. For example: Slaughtering millions of kangaroos would presumably not be an acceptable control strategy in a high risk event. Organisations such as Biosecurity Australia and AQIS are highly skilled in risk management and decision support but lack expertise in wildlife disease itself and wildlife disease ecology. The Biodiversity CRC will provide these resources and train organisations in their use. Native vertebrate disease reservoirs that affect humans and livestock would include surra, rabies and TB. The impact valued here is a reduced probability (reduction of 0.2) of Surra establishing in Australia. The annual impact of surra on beef enterprises in Cape York, live cattle exports, horse meat exports and the commercial and recreational horse industry is estimated at $9.7 m per year, after allowing for a 2% annual probability of entry of the disease. It is estimated that there would be 10 diseases where the probability would be lowered in the same way; this does not include the many more disease mitigation impacts of the CRC through its lowering of the probability of status changes. Once the product outputs are proven successful and are used, the impact assumed will have a high probability of being delivered.

4|Page

Table 3: Reduced Risk of Native Vertebrate Disease Reservoirs Affecting Humans and Livestock Variable Example used is surra (also rabies and TB are candidates). It is estimated that if established an incursion of surra will impact on beef enterprises in Cape York, live cattle exports, horse meat exports; and the commercial and recreational horse industries. Assumption $9,713,531 per annum (assumes a 2% annual probability of surra entering Australia) Source Agtrans Research, 2008 Economic Assessment of Selected Investments by the Australian Biosecurity CRC for Emerging Infectious Diseases Unpublished report

Reduction in probability of surra establishing due to research Number of exotic diseases where probability lowered

First year of benefits accruing Output probability Usage probability Impact probability given usage Any extra costs for usage

0.5 without investment and 0.3 with investment 10 (not 100, as other 90 are Estimate by included as impacts in status Workshop change impact 8); also, this participants 17 current impact refers only to May 2011 spinoff benefits, not those to vertebrate biodiversity itself Year 7 of CRC Agtrans Research Agtrans Research after discussions with Workshop participants 17 May 2011 and April 2-4, 2012 Activities associated with Lee Skerratt use of existing tools will cover the costs of new tools in the case of Biosecurity Australia, Australian Wildlife Health Network and AUSVETPLAN. Some minor increased costs due to greater use of tools by some government departments (due to their increased effectiveness).

5|Page

Impact 4: Reduction in pest management costs due to application of more sustainable ecosystem-based approaches including reintroductions to restore lost or depleted native predator function. Introduced vertebrate predators (eg. fox and cat) have long been recognised in Australia as the main threat to many native vertebrates especially those less than 5kg in weight (or juvenile stages of larger species) which includes a large percentage of the native vertebrate fauna of Australia. The situation in New Zealand is similar but with a different and equally complex group of invasive species. Great improvements in the use of toxins have provided effective tools for intensive pest management but they are very expensive and ultimately of limited use at a landscape scale. Bio-control strategies have had success with only a few species. The next step is to better understand the intrinsic biology and ecology of native species and the extent to which the loss of native predators has exacerbated the impacts of the invasive species. Example of impact is a reduction of management costs of feral cats and foxes in a number of mainland conservation areas with some extension to private land. The total management costs of feral cats and foxes and other invasive species across Australia is estimated at $19.6 million per annum in $2011 terms. Biodiversity CRC research will provide this missing information and provide the capacity for the optimised landscape-scale pest control wanted by end users, which may include use of native predators to control invasive species. The reduction in the management cost with the reintroduction of top native predators is assumed to be 30% net of any additional costs. This impact does not include any improvement in biodiversity as this is accounted for in Impact 8 (increased probability of a declining status change avoided).

Table 4: Reintroduction of Top Predators to Control Cats and Foxes Variable Management cost impact of feral cats Management cost impact of foxes on mainland Assumption $1 million per annum $16 million per annum less $9 million (Tasmanian costs included in fox management costs) = $7 million $8 million per annum in 2004 terms ($9.78 million in 2011 $ terms) Same as foxes and cats =$9.78 m pa $19.6 million pa 30% of $19.6 m =$5.88 m pa Year 6 of CRC Year 8 of CRC (20% of maximum benefits) Source McLeod (2004) McLeod (2004)

Total management costs of foxes and cats

From above

Total management cost of second invasive

Total management costs addressed by introduction of top predators Reduction in control costs due to introduction of top predators First year of reintroductions First year of benefits accruing (lag due to existing control measures retained as insurance for two years) Year in which maximum benefits appear Output probability 6|Page

Agtrans Research after discussion with John Rodger $9.78 x2 Agtrans Research

Agtrans Research

Year 12 Agtrans Research Agtrans Research after discussions with

Usage probability Impact probability given usage Any extra costs for usage

Workshop participants 17 May 2011 and April 2-4, 2012 No; any extra costs of usage Agtrans Research are assumed to have been taken into account in the 30% net cost reduction Interaction with species status change impacts: Impact of cats and foxes on the environment (excluding management costs) is estimated at $144 million and $190 million respectively, however any reduction of environmental impacts is included in Impact 8 (increased probability of avoiding declining status changes)

Impact 5: Ecosystem services provided to the economy by reintroductions of lost species and their missing functions to landscapes The total value of the sandalwood industry is $13 million per annum and the probability of decline and loss of this value is reduced from 0.5 to 0.2 with the reintroduction of woylies. Much of the uncertainty in the impact is already accounted for in the relatively small change assumed in the probability of decline in the sandalwood industry (0.5 to 0.2) due to the reintroduction of woylies. It is assumed that there are five species reintroductions during the life of the CRC that are similar in impact to the woylie/sandalwood example. Given successful product outputs and that usage occurs, the impact is estimated as highly likely to occur. There are not likely to be other initiatives that would compete with the delivery of this impact. There are additional usage costs of $1.3 million per 35,000 sq km per annum costs for the control of predators in the reintroduction areas. This impact does not include any improvement in biodiversity per se as this is accounted for in Impact 8 (increased probability of avoiding a declining status change). Table 5: Bioengineering to Improve Ecosystem Services: Example of Reintroduction of Woylies into Native Sandalwood Areas Variable Sandalwood production Assumption 2,000 tonnes per annum Source Zorzetto and Chudleigh (1999); updated Zorzetto and Chudleigh (1999); updated From above lines Agtrans Research Agtrans Research Agtrans Research Agtrans Research Agtrans Research

Sandalwood Value

$6,500 per tonne

Total value Probability of decline of sandalwood industry to zero production without woylies Probability of decline of sandalwood industry to zero production with woylies Years in which predator control costs incurred Years of woylie releases Year of first impact occurs

$13 m per annum 0.50 0.20 Years 5 to 9 Years 6 to 9 Year 8 (25% of maximum benefits)

7|Page

Year in which maximum benefits appear Output probability Usage probability Impact probability given usage Number of ecosystems improved similar to reintroduction of woylies

Extra costs of usage: cost of predator control

Year 12 Agtrans Research Agtrans Research after discussions with Workshop participants 17 May 2011 and April 2-4, 2012 5 Agtrans Research after discussions with Helen Robertson $1.3 m per annum for Helen Robertson 35,000 sq km per annum and DAFF website (a)

(a)http://www.daff.gov.au/brs/land/feral-animals/aparp/managing_vertebrate_pests_foxes/2._baiting

Impact 6 a): Increased level of donations to Biodiversity Conservation NGOs by individuals, organisations and businesses through improved promotional strategies and policies There is a history of philanthropic donations to environmental organisations. The NGO not for profit conservation organisations are all critically dependent on these donations, both individual and corporate, for their survival. In the case of the land managing NGOs who are participants in the CRC this need is arguably even greater because they have the ongoing responsibility of managing through best practice the very large tracts of land they hold in perpetuity. Thus now and in the future they will likely make strenuous efforts to use any information they believe will increase the level of donations that they receive. CRC based information and strategies will be soundly grounded, high quality and provide a far more critical examination than conventional commercial market research. The existing level of donations in Australia and New Zealand to non-Government agencies dealing with vertebrate biodiversity in Australia and New Zealand is estimated at $159 million per annum. The improved strategies and policies are assumed to increase the existing level of donations by a maximum of 5% ($7.9 million per annum). The increase in impact between years 5 and 8 is due to the increase in the quantity and quality of outputs as well as feedback from monitoring and evaluation of changes made and their impact. The maximum estimated impact continues from years 9 to 15. Impact should be very high given that usage occurs. Impact 6b) Increased willingness to volunteer for Biodiversity Conservation actions by individuals, organisations and businesses through improved promotional strategies and policies. There is a strong history of volunteers contributing time to environmental organisation activities. The existing level of volunteering in conservation efforts in Australia and New Zealand is estimated at 506,000 people. The improved strategies and policies are assumed to increase the existing level of engagement by individuals resulting in a 5% increase in the number of volunteers, with each new volunteer contributing 50 hours per annum, valued at $20 per hour. There is only a small probability that the efforts of new volunteers will not result in improved conservation activities by the NGOs. CRC researchers have a strong track record in volunteerism research and extensive networks with organisations that rely on volunteers to deliver their outcomes. In addition the leading NGO that brokers connection between volunteers and conservation projects, Earthwatch Australia, is a Participant in the CRC. Similarly Zoos make extensive use of volunteers and four major zoos are CRC Participants. 8|Page

The increase in impact between years 5 and 8 is due to the increase in the quantity and quality of outputs as well as in improved application of strategies. The maximum estimated impact continues from years 9 to 15. Impact should be very high given that usage occurs.

Table 6: Key assumptions behind increased donations/volunteering (NGOs) due to the CRC investment (Impacts on Program 4) Variable DONATIONS Existing level of donations to nonGovernment agencies dealing with vertebrate biodiversity in Australia Existing level of donations to nonGovernment agencies dealing with vertebrate biodiversity in New Zealand Increase in donations in Australia and New Zealand due to the CRC First year of benefits accruing Year in which maximum benefits appear Output probability Usage probability Impact probability given usage Any extra costs for usage? Assumption $127 million per annum Source National Biodiversity Expenditure Scoping Study (2010) Based on one fifth of Australian level

$31.75 million per annum (20% of Australian level)

5% Year 5 of CRC (25% of maximum benefits) Year 8

Estimate by Workshop participants 17 May 2011 Agtrans Research Agtrans Research

Agtrans Research after discussions with Workshop participants 17 May 2011 and April 2-4, 2012 Assumes that improved promotions by NGOs will use existing promotional budgets that would have been spent anyway; however, Additional monitoring and evaluation is assumed by the NGOs in years 5, 6 and 7 that will incur an additional cost of $500,000 per annum. 86,000 17% Agtrans Research

VOLUNTEERS Existing number of volunteers in Greening Australia Greening Australia as % revenue generated by all environmental NGOs Estimate of number of total volunteers in conservation efforts in Australia Estimate of number of total volunteers in conservation efforts in new Zealand Hours worked per annum per volunteer 9|Page

505,882

Greening Australia Annual Report National Biodiversity Expenditure Scoping Study (2010) Calculated from above (86,000/0.17) Based on about one fifth of Australian volunteers Kevin Lyons

101,176

50

Opportunity cost of time Estimate of increase in volunteering due to CRC activities First year of benefits accruing Year in which maximum benefits appear Output probability Usage probability Impact probability given usage Any extra costs for usage?

$20 per hour 5% Year 5 of CRC (25% of maximum benefits) Year 8

Agtrans Research Agtrans Research Agtrans Research Agtrans Research

Agtrans Research after discussions with Workshop participants 17 May 2011 and April 2-4, 2012 No. Assumes that both existing volunteers will increase their time and new volunteers will make time available without extra costs Agtrans Research

Impact 7: More efficient and effective resourcing of Biodiversity Conservation through improved government and NGO research and management resource allocation and co-ordination. There are significant opportunities for greater coordination of effort between individual R&D efforts, between R&D and agency conservation efforts and between conservation agencies. There is a strong commitment and culture to improved policy and management outcomes by public and NGO managers and an increasing focus on cross jurisdictional approaches such as the ABCS 2010-2030 which belongs to all Australian governments and also seeks to embrace the non-government and corporate sectors. It is estimated that of the >$2.3 billion expended each year in Australia (FY 08-09) and New Zealand on conservation of terrestrial biodiversity (Steverson, 2010) 10% is expended on terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity. Further, 60% of terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity activity is potentially influenced by the CRC's activities, delivering an efficiency dividend of 10% each year. The improved coordination and communication between the members of the CRC leads to more effective priority setting and a more efficient use of existing resources expended on research and development and on agency management including that of NGOs. The probability of usage and impact is assessed as lower than some other categories because political, geographical and external issues and events may intervene and negatively affect the level of impact achieved. Impact is shared equally between research programs.

10 | P a g e

Table 7: Key assumptions behind improved resource allocation due to the CRC investment (Impacts on Programs 1 to 5) Variable Total expenditure on conservation of terrestrial biodiversity in Australia Assumption $2.3 billion per annum Source National Biodiversity Expenditure Scoping Study (2010) Estimated as 20% of Australian expenditure Estimate by Workshop participants 17 May 2011 Estimate by Workshop participants 17 May 2011

Total expenditure on conservation of terrestrial biodiversity in New Zealand Proportion of Australian expenditure on conservation of terrestrial biodiversity relevant to vertebrate biodiversity research and management Proportion of Australian and New Zealand research and management expenditure influenced by the CRC investment related to conservation of terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity Efficiency dividend due to CRC investment First year of benefits accruing Output probability Usage probability Impact probability given usage Any extra costs for usage?

$0.46 billion per annum 10%

60%

10% Agtrans Research Year 5 of CRC Agtrans Research Agtrans Research after discussions at Workshop 17 May 2011 and April 2-4, 2012 No; as efficiency dividend is considered a net of cost dividend Agtrans Research

11 | P a g e

Impact 8: Greater security of vertebrate biodiversity due to reduced probability of threatened species conservation status declining further. This impact is valued as an increased probability (25% to 50%) of avoiding a declining status shift occurring for 125 vertebrate species in Australia and New Zealand. The status shift was from unlisted to vulnerable (50 species) , vulnerable to endangered (30 species), endangered to critically endangered (30 species) or critically endangered to extinct (15 species). The downward shift is valued through a willingness to pay estimate by Australian households per species to avoid extinction of $0.89 per species per annum (van Beuren and Bennett, 2004; Lai, 2011). Given useful outputs are produced and used, the impact is likely to be high. The impact probability is high due to much of the uncertainty already having been accounted for in the small change assumed in the probability of avoiding a declining status change with (50%) and without (25%) the CRC investment. In addition the current trend is to greater community and political support for environmental issues including biodiversity. Other CRC outputs and usages such as increased donations and volunteerism, policy innovation will support this impact. This impact has been attributed equally to each of the research programs and critically dependent on know-how and tools developed and applied. Table 8a): Key assumptions behind estimating willingness to pay for avoiding declining species status changes (Impacts Programs 1 to 5)
Status change A. Value of a status change prevention1 ($ m) B. Number of species status changes affected by the CRC activities2 C. Change in probability of status change occurring due to the CRC activities3 D. Output Probability of Success4 E. Usage probability to enable impact to occur5 F. Probability of impact given usage has occurred6

Unlisted to vulnerable

$0.22 per annum per household $0.22 per annum per household $0.22 per annum per household $0.22 per annum per household $0.89 per annum per household

50

0.25

0.5

0.4

0.80

Vulnerable to endangered Endangered to critically endangered Critically endangered to extinct. Total

30

0.25

0.5

0.4

0.80

30

0.25

0.5

0.4

0.80

15

0.25

0.5

0.4

0.80

125

1 The $0.89 per species was derived from a willingness to pay estimate of $0.69 per household per annum (2001 $ terms) per species avoiding extinction. The resulting value for each year was divided evenly across four stages of status change.

12 | P a g e

2 The number of species changes affected by the CRC investment including both Australian and New Zealand species over the next 20 years, as estimated by CRC scientists and including an increase from 2011 due to disease and genetics. 3 The increase in the probability of avoiding a declining species status change due to the activities from the CRC investment; this may be, for example, from 0.25 to 0.50 or from 0.5 to 0.75. 4 The output probability takes into account the chance of the investment not producing the tools or knowledge that can contribute to the probability decline. 5 The usage probability takes into account that the tools or knowledge may not be incorporated into the actions to avoid change and therefore not contribute to the probability decline. 6 The impact probability is set high at 80% as the uncertainty in the impact is already partly accounted for in the probability estimate for the status change being affected by the CRC investment.

Table 8b): Other assumptions behind estimating willingness to pay for avoiding a species status change
Variable Assumption Source

Willingness to pay estimate Number of households in Australia Number of households in New Zealand Any extra costs for usage

$0.89 per household per annum commencing 2012/13 (2010/11 $ terms) 8.5 million in 2011 rising to 11 million by 2027 1.6 million in 2011 rising to 2 million 2027 No, as a willingness to pay (WTP) benefit where the WTP is based on the CRC investment delivering the increased probability of avoiding declining status changes.

Derived from van Beuren and Bennett, 2004 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010 Statistics New Zealand, 2011 Agtrans Research

The $0.22 per annum for each species status change was multiplied by the number of households, and the number of species expected to be impacted on by the CRC over 20 years for each status change. The total potential impact is then multiplied by the change in probability status to estimate the maximum annual benefit before the probabilities of output, usage and impact are applied. The benefits are estimated for 15 years from the first year of investment in the CRC 2013/14. Impact 9: Best practice interventions for increasing vertebrate biodiversity on farms enable the Global Sustainable Agricultural Initiative to be met preventing economic losses to Australian agriculture. The Dairy Working Group of the Global Sustainable Agriculture Initiative has published a set of Principles and Practices for Sustainable Dairy Farming including the maintenance or enhancement of biological diversity on farms. The Global initiative is serious as expressed by Unilever (see http://www.unilever.nl/Images/sd_Unilever_Sustainable_Agriculture_Code_2010_tcm164216557.pdf). The global milk product distribution system is dominated by companies such as Unilever. The Australian dairy industry is concerned that insufficient management information regarding terrestrial biodiversity is available to meet the global challenge. If these conditions are not met in the next 5-10 years, Australian dairy companies may be forced to cease collecting milk to manufacture products destined for overseas markets. Australian dairy processing companies will have no options but to have their suppliers abide by the sustainability principles and practices or stop receiving their milk. This impact it estimated through some producers having to switch from dairying to beef with associated loss of income. It is assumed that 10% of the 6,883 Australian dairy farms could forego losses in profits by having to change land use. It is assumed that the design of best management practices for increasing terrestrial animal biodiversity will prevent this loss of $23m per annum associated with the 13 | P a g e

$2.3 billion Australian dairy export industry. This impact is estimated through preventing 10% of 6,883 dairy farms switching land use to beef and will prevent loss of $23m p.a. associated with the dairy export industry. Table 9: Assumptions for CRC Impact on Dairy Industry Biodiversity Variable Average farm profit from dairy Average farm profit beef Average farm area dairy Average farm area beef Farm profit per ha dairy Farm profit per ha beef Number of dairy farms % dairy farms forced to switch to beef Number of dairy farms switching to beef Total profit foregone by the switch Output probability Usage probability Probability of impact given usage occurs Assumption Source

$44,000 per farm ABARES $33,000 per farm ABARES 236 ha ABARES 750 ha ABARES $186 per ha Calculated $44 per ha Calculated 6,833 Dairy Australia 10% Agtrans Research 688 Calculated $23,137,893 per annum Calculated Agtrans Research after discussions with Workshop participants April 2-4, 2012

14 | P a g e