Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:48:36.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exotic Pests and Trade: When Is Pest-Free Status Certification Worthwhile?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Erik Lichtenberg  and
Lori Lynch
Erik Lichtenberg
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland
Lori Lynch
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pest-free status certification is desirable if the demand-side impacts (increased export revenue) and supply-side impacts (lower pest damage and decreased ongoing control costs) exceed the compliance monitoring and eradication costs. Thus, eradication may be optimal without certification. Certification is more likely for regions facing costly treatment requirements (bans) or possessing geographic traits that lower monitoring costs and infestation probabilities than for those exporting higher-valued products. Certification benefits producers but hurts consumers. Thus, political feasibility may be greater if domestic consumption is a small share of the market and if the additional tax burden of certification programs is light.

Keywords

exotic pestsinvasive speciespest-free areaeradicationsanitary/phytosanitary regulations
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , April 2006 , pp. 52 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acquaye, A.K.A. Alston, J.M. Lee, H. and Sumner, D.A. 2005. “Hurricanes and Invasive Species: The Economics and Spatial Dynamics of Eradication Policies. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2005a. “WTO SPS Committee Focuses on Regionalization, S&D.” Bridges Weekly 9(9): 1 (March 16).Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2005b. “Regionalization Identified as Top Priority by ICPM.” Bridges Trade BioRes 5(7): 8 (April 15).Google Scholar
Brown, C. Lynch, L. and Zilberman, D. 2002. “The Economics of Controlling Insect-Transmitted Plant Diseases.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(2): 279–291.Google Scholar
Dawson, A. Hassenpflug, S. Sloan, J. and Yoshioka, I. 1998. “California Agricultural Trade: Combating the Medfly Menace.” Center for Trade and Commercial Diplomacy, Monterey Institute of International Studies, Monterey, California.Google Scholar
Dumas, C.F. and Goodhue, R.E. 1999. “The Cotton Acreage Effects of Boll Weevil Eradication: A County-Level Analysis.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 31(3): 475–497.Google Scholar
Eiswerth, M.E. and Johnson, W.S. 2002. “Managing Nonindigenous Invasive Species: Insights from Dynamic Analysis.” Environmental and Resource Economics 23(3): 319–342.Google Scholar
Gottwald, T.R. Hughes, G. Graham, J.H. Sun, X. and Riley, T. 2001. “The Citrus Canker Epidemic in Florida: The Scientific Basis of Regulatory/Eradication Policy for an Invasive Plant Pathogen.” Phytopathology 91(1): 30–32.Google Scholar
Horan, R.D. Perrings, C. Lupi, F. and Bulte, E.H. 2002. “Biological Pollution Prevention Strategies Under Ignorance: The Case of Invasive Species.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(5): 1303–1310.Google Scholar
McAusland, C. and Costello, C. 2004. “Avoiding Invasives: Trade-Related Policies for Controlling Unintentional Exotic Species Introductions.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 48(2): 954–977.Google Scholar
Myers, J.H. Savoie, A. and van Randen, E. 1998. “Eradication and Pest Management.” Annual Review of Entomology 43(1): 471–491.Google ScholarPubMed
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1993. “Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States.” Report No. OTA-F-565, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Olson, L. and Roy, S. 2002. “Economics of Controlling a Stochastic Biological Invasion.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(5): 1311–1316.Google Scholar
Olson, L. and Roy, S. 2003. “Economics of Controlling a Biological Invasion.” Working Paper No. 03-06, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, D. 1998. “Preliminary Assessment of the Effects of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Trade Regulations.” Journal of International Economic Law 1(3): 377–405.Google Scholar
Roberts, D. 1999. “Analyzing Technical Trade Barriers in Agricultural Markets: Challenges and Priorities.” Agribusiness 15(3): 335–354.Google Scholar
Taylor, C.R. Carlson, G.A. Cooke, F.T. Reichelderfer, K.H. and Starbird, I.R. 1983. “Aggregate Economic Effects of Alternative Boll Weevil Management Strategies.” Agricultural Economics Research 35(2): 19–28.Google Scholar
Tribble, C.M. Mcintosh, C.S. and Wetzstein, M.E. 1999. “Georgia Cotton Acreage Response to the Boll Weevil Eradication Program.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 31(3): 499–506.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1999. “Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement – 1999.” Marketing and Regulatory Programs, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1997. “Agricultural Inspection: Improvement Needed to Minimize Threat of Foreign Pests and Diseases.” Report No. GAO/RCED-97-102, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar