1 / 17

E CONOMIC I MPACTS OF I NVASIVE S PECIES IN CA A GRICULTURE

E CONOMIC I MPACTS OF I NVASIVE S PECIES IN CA A GRICULTURE. Dr. Karen Klonsky Dept. of Ag. and Resource Economics University of CA, Davis. I NVASIVE S PECIES C ROP L OSSES AND R ELATED C ONTROL C OSTS. Source: Pimentel, et al., 2000. BioScience (50:1),. E CONOMIC C ONCEPTS.

thu
Télécharger la présentation

E CONOMIC I MPACTS OF I NVASIVE S PECIES IN CA A GRICULTURE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OFINVASIVE SPECIES INCAAGRICULTURE Dr. Karen Klonsky Dept. of Ag. and Resource Economics University of CA, Davis

  2. INVASIVE SPECIES CROP LOSSES AND RELATED CONTROL COSTS Source: Pimentel, et al., 2000. BioScience (50:1),

  3. ECONOMIC CONCEPTS • Public good – Consumption by one person does not preclude or make more expensive consumption by another. Example: national defense • External cost – Occurs when producers or consumers do not incur the full cost of their actions. • Example: Pesticide pollution of a stream

  4. MARKETVS. POLICY SOLUTIONS • Market solution – may be industry wide. Groups of individuals agree to change behavior for common good. • Public Policy Action – Public good characteristics point to market failure but not the appropriate form of government action. • Most pest management regulation of ag are related to environmental concerns.

  5. POLICY OPTIONS FORINVASIVES • Exclusion or border measures – prohibit entry into the country or a region of the country. • Containment – limit spread once the pest is established • Eradication – eliminate a pest from a region. • Monitoring – outbreaks and movement

  6. ANIMAL ANDPLANT INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS) • Charged with protecting the US against entry of new pests and diseases primarily of agricultural animals and plants. • Border rules for imported farm products • Control of accidental entry of farm pests brought to the US by travelers. • Pest eradication programs. • Now part of the Dept. of Homeland Security

  7. PRIVATE SECTOR MANAGEMENT OFESTABLISHED INFESTATIONS

  8. PARTIES IMPACTED BYINVASIVE SPECIES • Agricultural industries • Growers – lower income, higher costs, higher market price • Marketing sector – restrictions on exports • Input suppliers – demand for labor, fuel, seed, and other inputs may increase or decrease • Consumers – increase in price • Taxpayers – public funding for programs

  9. RESEARCH EXAMPLES Daniel Sumner, Editor.2000.Exotic Pests and Diseases, Iowa State Press. • “Risk assessment of plant - parasitic nematodes”, Ferris et al. • “A rational regulatory policy: the case of Karnal bunt”, Glauber and Narrod.

  10. RISK ASSESSMENT OFPLANT PARASITIC NEMATODES IN CA Major crops impacted: Grapes, nursery, lettuce, citrus, cotton, strawberries, alfalfa

  11. GROWER COSTS ANDBENEFITS OFERADICATING NEMATODES

  12. TOTAL COST OFWIDESPREAD NEMATODE ESTABLISHMENT1,000 ACRES

  13. KARNAL BUNT DISEASEBRIEF HISTORY 1982 – Wheat disease found in Mexico. 1988 – USDA risk assessment found risk to be high due to border proximity. 1991 – USDA assessment; recommends quarantine in the event of an introduction. 1996 – Detection in AZ. USDA emergency quarantine in AZ, CA, NM, and TX.

  14. IMPACT OFREDUCED EXPORTS FROMAN OUTBREAK OFKARNAL BUNT

  15. COSTS DUE TO KARNAL BUNTREGULATIONS

  16. QUARANTINE BENEFITS ANDCOSTS ($ MILLION)

  17. ADDITIONAL COSTS ANDBENEFITS OFALTERNATIVE QUARANTINE OPTIONS

More Related