Developing Stochastic Spreadsheet Models For Import Risk Analysis In Australia

Perry, G.H.
1*
, Hutchison, J.M.
1
, Beckett, S.D.
2
and Martin, R.G.
1
1
Department Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, PO Box 858, Canberra 2601,
Australia. Email: george.perry@affa.gov.au.
2
Broadleaf Capital International Pty Ltd, PO Box 921, Tamworth, NSW 2340,
Australia.
Summary
A stochastic simulation model, an Excel spreadsheet incorporating @Risk, was
developed for a generic import risk analysis of uncooked pig meat. It stored
quantitative, semi-quantitative and qualitative data for 26 porcine diseases. It
analysed and linked the release, exposure and consequence assessments. Using risk
management options, it provided unrestricted and restricted risk estimates of each of
the disease analysed. The model, which proved to be user-friendly, flexible and
functional, identified 10 diseases requiring risk management and suitable risk
management measures for these diseases.
Introduction
Import risk analysis (IRA) has in recent years been widely adopted as a tool
for assessing the disease risks associated with importing animals, animal products and
animal genetic material. IRAs associated with international trade are subject to the
disciplines of the SPS Agreement. In addition, recommendations in the OIE
Terrestrial Animal Health Code provide guidance on the conduct of IRAs. Although
very few IRAs have been published in peer reviewed literature, several have been
subject to rigorous scientific, political, public and legal reviews.
Most published IRAs addressed specific issues. Few were generic. The OIE
Code states that risk estimation consists of integrating the results from the release
assessment, exposure assessment, and consequence assessment to produce overall
measures of risks associated with the hazards identified at the outset. Many IRAs
provided detailed release and exposure assessments but very few included detailed
consequence assessments that were integrated with release and exposure assessments
to arrive at a final estimate of risk.
There has been considerable debate as to how consequence can be
quantitatively assessed (Disney, 2000). Further, there has been little attempt to link
the final risk estimate with the countrys appropriate level of protection (ALOP)
1
.
Specialist quantitative risk analysts prefer the final risk estimate be described
mathematically; however, the ALOP is best described as a societal value judgement,
an expression of government policy and a reflection of community expectations
(Wilson, 2000). For a risk assessment to be complete, it should logically link the final
risk estimate with the ALOP.
This paper describes the development of a risk analysis simulation model
for a generic risk analysis using the report Generic import risk analysis (IRA) for Pig

1
More specifically, the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection against risks to
human life or health, or to animal and plant life or health as defined in the SPS Agreement.

Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, 2003
Available at www.sciquest.org.nz
Meat: Draft Import Risk Analysis Report August 2003
2
as an example. The model
included the release, exposure and consequence assessments, all linked to provide a
final estimate of risk which is in turn assessed against Australias ALOP. The model
also facilitated evaluation of risk management measures.
The model
The model was a spreadsheet model programmed in Microsoft Excel and
incorporated Palisade Corporations @Risk software. The model comfortably fitted
into a single workbook with some worksheets being used solely as databases to store
data for the diseases being assessed. The model estimated risk for a disease of interest
by using Excels database function DGET to retrieve data for each disease being
assessed. Data were quantitative, semi-quantitative or qualitative.
The release pathway was relatively simple and variables included disease
prevalence in the source population, detection of disease during abattoir inspection
assuming the abattoir had standards equivalent to those of Australia, and the survival
of the pathogen as a result of carcass maturation and during storage and shipment.
The likelihood of imported pig meat being derived from an individual carcass
infected with each pathogenic agent under consideration was estimated.
The exposure pathway, on the other hand, was considerably more complex.
The report identified major exposure pathways for disease introduction through waste
from households and waste from food service establishments. Four groups of animals
that may be directly exposed to uncooked pig meat scraps were identified. They were
feral pigs, backyard pigs, pigs in small commercial enterprises and susceptible species
that eat meat (dogs, cats and rodents). Variables included the volume of pig carcasses
imported (kg); the proportion distributed directly to small goods manufacturers, food
service establishments and households; the proportion of pig meat ending up as
waste; the proportion of waste disposed of at refuse sites in cities, rural towns and
remote areas (all waste from small goods manufacturers was assumed to have been
used as pet food or rendered); the proportion of waste potentially consumed by feral
pigs at refuse sites and illegally fed to backyard pigs and pigs in small commercial
piggeries, and, where appropriate, to other susceptible species; and the infectivity of
the material consumed. The annual likelihood of release and exposure was estimated
and then described qualitatively.
Consequence was assessed in two parts. The first part consisted of
estimating the likelihood of discrete outbreak scenarios, including a no outbreak
scenario, occurring as a result of exposure. Spread to large commercial piggeries and
other susceptible animals such as horses and cattle were considered in one of the
discrete exposure scenario. The second part consisted of the qualitative estimation of
several factors relevant to the direct and indirect consequence of a disease, such as
animal health and production losses, consequences to the community in general,
surveillance and control costs, potential trade losses (domestic and international), and
adverse consequences to the environment. Each impact factor was ranked individually
and the overall impact was described by combining the ranking criteria using a
predetermined logical set of rules.

2
The report can be downloaded at: http://www.affa.gov.au/animalbiosecurity/.

Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, 2003
Available at www.sciquest.org.nz
The model used:
1. @Risk Monte Carlo simulation techniques to address uncertainty and
variability in the release and exposure assessment pathways to arrive at a
combined estimate for the likelihood of release and exposure;
2. Excel logical and conditional functions for combining the criteria rankings and
later for final estimation of unrestricted risk and its evaluation against the
ALOP; and
3. Excel array functions for integrating the two parts of the consequence
assessment to give an overall consequence assessment, and again for integrating
the overall consequence assessment with the estimate of the likelihood of
release and exposure.
A worksheet, a replica of the model database, was also set up to store risk
management variables for risk management option evaluation
3
. The model included
an option to include risk management variables for risk evaluation when selected.
Discussion
Full details of the model method are provided in Generic import risk
analysis (IRA) for Pig Meat: Draft Import Risk Analysis Report August 2003,
mentioned earlier. The model analysed 26 porcine diseases of which 10 were
identified as requiring risk management. An option evaluation identified appropriate
risk management measures for these 10 diseases. The draft IRA report was released
for public comment in August 2003 and can be downloaded from the website
www.affa.gov.au/animalbiosecurity.
The model was developed to aid decision-making. It integrated the release
and exposure assessments with consequence assessment to allow the final estimate of
risk, restricted or unrestricted (i.e., with or without risk management). Sensitivity
analysis using Palisade @Risk identified the most influential variables, and facilitated
the selection of risk management options. Although complex, the model remained
stable and provided information which greatly assisted decision-making. Most of the
release and exposure variables used standardised semi-quantitative terms, facilitating
consistency between diseases within the IRA and also with other IRAs being
conducted by Biosecurity Australia and adding to the robustness of the model.
Features of the model were the formal incorporation of consequence
assessment in the analysis, the inclusion of risk management options and its ability to
analyse a wide range of porcine diseases. Similar models have been developed for
analysing the risks of importing dogs and cats, horses, and semen of cattle sheep and
goats into Australia.
References
Disney T. (2000). Exploring the international controversy over the use of economics
in import risk assessments: what's acceptable, what's not, and what's left to
debate. Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium of Veterinary
Epidemiology and Economics. Beckenridge, Colorado.
Wilson D. (2000). The appropriate level of protection. Quarantine and Market
Access, Playing by WTO rules - Forum Proceedings. Canberra, Australia.

3
Option evaluation as defined in the OIE Code Article 1.3.2.6.
Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, 2003
Available at www.sciquest.org.nz