Session I Application of trading zones when managing livestock disease outbreaks has the potential to markedly reduce the economic impact of trade restrictions placed on countries. This involves establishing areas within a country, which are considered of negligible risk of transmitting disease through livestock and livestock product shipments to other areas of the country or internationally. The objective of this study was to estimate the economic benefits of trading zones as part of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) control measures for limited duration outbreaks in Australia.

1. EuFMD
OS22
Reducing Producer Losses in
an FMD Outbreak through
Implementing Trading Zones
AH Seitzinger, A Hafi , MG Garner, D Addai, AC Breed,
R Bradhurst, C Miller, S Tapsuwan and T Capon
CSIRO, Australian Department of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Centre of Excellence for
Biosecurity Risk Analysis, School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne

2. #OS22
Digitalization and innovation applied to the prevention and control of
foot-and-mouth and similar transboundary animal diseases (FAST) OS22
Background
● Loss of market access in an FMD outbreak causes series economic losses for
producers
● Application of trading zones potential to markedly reduce the economic impact
● Containment zone option available under OIE FMD code (Article 8.8.6).
○ Depends on importers accepting and following guidelines
Aim
● To estimate the potential economic benefits of trading zones for limited
duration FMD outbreaks in Australia.
2

3. #OS22
Digitalization and innovation applied to the prevention and control of
foot-and-mouth and similar transboundary animal diseases (FAST) OS22
• Areas within a country, (outside the containment zone) able to maintain
FMD-free status
Key questions:
1. Defining trading zone boundaries?
• Disease control areas OR
• Political boundaries coinciding with data availability, usually much larger than
disease control areas
2. What is the trade recovery timeline?
Trading zones

4. #OS22
Digitalization and innovation applied to the prevention and control of
foot-and-mouth and similar transboundary animal diseases (FAST) OS22
Approach
● Compare simulated outbreaks with and without trading zones
● Epidemiological modelling (AADIS) - potential geographic extent, number of
infected animals and duration of outbreaks
● Analysis of trade data – estimate share of exports that could be embargoed and
time out of markets
● Partial equilibrium modelling (AgEmissions) – market impacts of export
embargoes
4

5. #OS22
Digitalization and innovation applied to the prevention and control of
foot-and-mouth and similar transboundary animal diseases (FAST) OS22
Scenarios
● 11 incursion scenarios
(government and industry
consultation)
● Control (movement controls,
stamping out, surveillance
and tracing)
● 500 simulations per scenario
● Focus on 75th percentile
5

6. #OS22
Digitalization and innovation applied to the prevention and control of
foot-and-mouth and similar transboundary animal diseases (FAST) OS22
Trading zone boundary
Phase 1
● Initial 14-day national embargo (includes 3-day national livestock standstill)
Phase 2
● Whole of affected state(s)
○ spatial extent of outbreaks (75th percentile)
○ conservative approach (larger areas)
○ legislative responsibility for animal disease control
● Remain in place from day 15 to day of last cull plus 90 days (OIE)
6

7. #OS22
Digitalization and innovation applied to the prevention and control of
foot-and-mouth and similar transboundary animal diseases (FAST) OS22
Small outbreaks trade zoning option – Initial national trade
embargo moves down to single state level embargo
7
Phase 1: days 1 to 14 Phase 2: days 15 to last day of cull plus 90 days

8. #OS22
Digitalization and innovation applied to the prevention and control of
foot-and-mouth and similar transboundary animal diseases (FAST) OS22
Context
8

9. #OS22
Digitalization and innovation applied to the prevention and control of
foot-and-mouth and similar transboundary animal diseases (FAST) OS22
Trade recovery timeline
● For small outbreaks – OIE disease freedom recognition criteria
○ i.e. 3 months after last case is culled
AND
● Historical export sales value recovery
○ data analysis of FMD affected exporting countries
○ relationship between outbreak duration and export recovery
○ relevant for large outbreaks

10. #OS22
Digitalization and innovation applied to the prevention and control of
foot-and-mouth and similar transboundary animal diseases (FAST) OS22
Results
● Outbreaks tended to be small and readily contained with available resources
○ Day of last cull < 6 weeks at 75th percentile
○ All but one scenario outbreak contained to single state (Qld-3 scenario
starting close to NSW border)
● National embargo producer losses AUD 7-13 billion
● Effective implementation of trading zones reduced producer revenue losses by
AUD 3-9 billion (Present value terms over 10 years at 7% discount rate)
10

11. #OS22
Digitalization and innovation applied to the prevention and control of
foot-and-mouth and similar transboundary animal diseases (FAST) OS22
Conclusions
● FMD outbreak in Australia - large costs to government and industry
● Substantial reductions in producer losses from adoption/acceptance of trading
zones (AUD 3-9 billion)
● Benefits concentrated on non-infected states
● Making case for zoning will incur costs and require additional resources
● Uncertainty over trading partner attitudes, but increasing acceptance of zoning
● Focus here on smaller outbreaks – easier to make case plus conservative
approach
○ Further work on larger outbreaks – including vaccination
11

12. #OS22
Digitalization and innovation applied to the prevention and control of
foot-and-mouth and similar transboundary animal diseases (FAST) OS22
Acknowlegments
This project was supported by Meat and Livestock Australia under the FMD Ready
Project, through funding from the Australian Government Department of
Agriculture, Water Resources and the Environment as part of its Rural R&D for
Profit program, and by producer levies from Australian FMD-susceptible livestock
(cattle, sheep, goats and pigs) industries and Charles Sturt University (CSU)
12

13. Thank you !..
michael.garner@fao.org