Skip to main content Accessibility help

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

  • Erik Lichtenberg (a1) and Lori Lynch (a1)


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.



Hide All
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.
Anonymous. 2005a. “WTO SPS Committee Focuses on Regionalization, S&D.Bridges Weekly 9(9): 1 (March 16).
Anonymous. 2005b. “Regionalization Identified as Top Priority by ICPM.Bridges Trade BioRes 5(7): 8 (April 15).
Brown, C. Lynch, L. and Zilberman, D. 2002. “The Economics of Controlling Insect-Transmitted Plant Diseases.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(2): 279291.
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.
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): 475497.
Eiswerth, M.E. and Johnson, W.S. 2002. “Managing Nonindigenous Invasive Species: Insights from Dynamic Analysis.Environmental and Resource Economics 23(3): 319342.
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): 3032.
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): 13031310.
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): 954977.
Myers, J.H. Savoie, A. and van Randen, E. 1998. “Eradication and Pest Management.Annual Review of Entomology 43(1): 471491.
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.
Olson, L. and Roy, S. 2002. “Economics of Controlling a Stochastic Biological Invasion.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(5): 13111316.
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.
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): 377405.
Roberts, D. 1999. “Analyzing Technical Trade Barriers in Agricultural Markets: Challenges and Priorities.Agribusiness 15(3): 335354.
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): 1928.
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): 499506.
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.
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.



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed