Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Options for managing the infectious animal and plant disease risks of international trade

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Food Security Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Infectious animal and plant diseases introduced through international trade in goods and services are a classic example of market externality. The potential harm they do is visited on people other than those engaged in their export or import, and is not taken into account in reaching export or import decisions. The use of economic instruments to internalize market externalities has been shown to yield substantial benefits in many areas of economic activity. By confronting decision-makers with the expected damage they cause, instruments of this kind have forced decision-makers to take the wider costs of their actions into account. This paper reviews the arguments for extending the range of instruments currently used to manage trade-related pest and pathogen risks, and assesses the options for deploying new instruments in the existing regulatory environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Phytophthora alni, Phytophthora quercina, Phytophthora ramorum, Phytophthora kernoviae and Phytophthora ilicis.

  2. In the language of game theory, the subgame perfect equilibrium will be characterized by full specialization (Buchholz and Konrad 1995).

References

  • Anderson, I. (2008). Foot and mouth disease 2007: A review and lessons learned. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. K., Cunningham, A. A., Patel, N. G., Morales, F. J., Epstein, P. R., & Daszak, P. (2004). Emerging infectious diseases of plants: pathogen pollution, climate change and agrotechnology drivers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19, 535–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arriagada, R., & Perrings, C. (2011). Paying for international environmental public goods. Ambio, 40, 798–806.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barbier, E. B., Knowler, D., Gwatipedza, J., Reichard, S. H., & Hodges, A. R. (2013). Implementing policies to control invasive plant species. BioScience, 63, 132–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, I., Brownlie, J., Peckham, C., Pickett, J., Stewart, W., Waage, J., Wilson, P., & Woolhouse, M. (2006). Foresight: Infectious Diseases—Preparing for the Future. London: Office of Science and Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brasier, C. M. (2008). The biosecurity threat to the UK and global environment from international trade in plants. Plant Pathology, 57, 792–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruckner, G. K. (2011). Managing the risks of disease transmission through trade: a commodities-based approach? Scientific and Technical Review International Office of Epizootics, 30, 289–96.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Buchholz, W., & Konrad, K. A. (1995). Strategic transfers and private provision of public goods. Journal of Public Economics, 57, 489–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassey, P., Blackburn, T. M., Russel, G. J., Jones, K. E., & Lockwood, J. L. (2004). Influences on the transport and establishment of exotic bird species: an analysis of the parrots (Psittaciformes) of the world. Global Change Biology, 10, 417–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalmazzone, S. (2000). Economic factors affecting vulnerability to biological invasions. In C. Perrings, M. Williamson, & S. Dalmazzone (Eds.), The Economics of Biological Invasions (pp. 17–30). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Holdenrieder, O., Jeger, M. J., & Pautasso, M. (2010). Structural change in the international horticultural industry: some implications for plant health. Scientia Horticulturae, 125, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Nardo, A., Knowles, N. J., & Paton, D. J. (2011). Combining livestock trade patterns with phylogenetics to help understand the spread of foot and mouth disease in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Scientific and Technical Review International Office of Epizootics, 30, 63–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew, T. W. (2011). The emergence and evolution of swine viral diseases: to what extent have husbandry systems and global trade contributed to their distribution and diversity? Scientific and Technical Review International Office of Epizootics, 30, 95–106.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eisworth, M. E., & Johnson, W. S. (2002). Managing nonindigenous invasive species: insights from dynamic analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 23, 319–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerton, L., & Howard, G. (2008). A toolkit for the economic analysis of invasive species. Nairobi: Global Invasive Species Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro, P., & Kiss, A. (2007). Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science, 298, 1718–1719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fevre, E. M., Bronsvoort, B., Hamilton, K. A., & Cleaveland, S. (2006). Animal movements and the spread of infectious diseases. Trends in Microbiology, 14, 125–131.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gren, I.-M. (2008). Economics of alien invasive species management - choices of targets and policies. Boreal Environmental Research, 13, 17–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirshleifer, J. (1983). From weakest-link to best-shot: the voluntary provision of public goods. Public Choice, 41, 371–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horan, R. D., Perrings, C., Lupi, F., & Bulte, E. H. (2002). Biological pollution prevention strategies under ignorance: the case of invasive species. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84, 1303–1310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Monetary Fund (2013) Global Prospects and Policies. IMF, Washington D.C.

  • Jaffee, S. M., & Henson, S. (2005). Agro-food exports from developing countries: the challenges posed by standards. In M. A. Aksoy and J. C. Beghin (Eds.), Global Agricultural Trade and Developing Countries (pp. 91–114). Washington, DC: World Bank.

  • Jung, T., Schumacher, J., Leonhard, S., Hartmann, G. & Cech, T. (2009) Wide-spread Phytophthora Infestations of Nurseries in Germany and Austria and their Role as Primary Pathway of Phytophthora Disease of Trees. Phytophthoras in Forests and Natural Ecosystems, Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) Working Party S07.02.09, pp. 140-142. USDA, Washington D.C.

  • Karesh, W., Cook, R. A., Bennett, E. L., & Newcomb, J. (2005). Wildlife trade and global disease emergence. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 11, 1000–1002.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, R. P., & Perrings, C. (2011). International policy options for reducing the environmental impacts of invasive species. Bioscience, 61, 1005–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, D. A., Peckham, C., Waage, J. K., Brownlie, J., & Woolhouse, M. E. J. (2006). Infectious diseases: preparing for the future. Science, 313, 1392–1393.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kinzig, A. P., Perrings, C., Chapin, F. S., Polasky, S., Smith, V. K., Tilman, D., & Turner, B. L. (2011). Paying for ecosystem services: promise and peril. Science, 334, 603–604.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Knight-Jones, T. J. D., & Rushton, J. (2013). The economic impacts of foot and mouth disease – What are they, how big are they and where do they occur? Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 112, 161–173.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liebhold, A. M., Brockerhoff, E. G., Garrett, L. J., Parke, J. L., & Britton, K. O. (2012). Live plant imports: the major pathway for forest insect and pathogen invasions of the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10, 135–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDiarmid, T. R. (2011). The spread of pathogens through international trade. Scientific and Technical Review International Office of Epizootics, 30, 13–17.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mur, L., Martinez-Lopez, B., & Sanchez-Vizcaino, J. M. (2012). Risk of African swine fever introduction into the European Union through transport-associated routes: returning trucks and waste from international ships and planes. BMC Veterinary Research, 8, 149.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ochao, R. (2005). Invasive Plant-Feeding Mite Species (Acari: Prostigmata). Available at: http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/acari/content/invasivespecies.html. Accessed 2013.

  • Olson, L. J. (2006). The economics of terrestrial invasive species: a review of the literature. Review of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 35, 178–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattanayak, S. K., Wunder, S., & Ferraro, P. J. (2010). Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 4, 254–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlin, B., Schloegel, L. M., & Daszak, P. (2009). Risk of importing zoonotic diseases through wildlife trade, United States. Emerging Infectious Disease, 15, 1721–1726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pendell, D. L., Leatherman, J., Schroeder, T. C., & Alward, G. S. (2007). The economic impacts of a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak: a regional analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 39, 19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennisi, E. (2010). Armed and Dangerous. Science, 327, 804–805.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perrings, C. (2014). Our Uncommon Heritage: Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Human Wellbeing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Perrings, C., Williamson, M., Barbier, E.B., Delfino, D., Dalmazzone, S., Shogren, J., Simmons, P. & Watkinson, A. (2002). Biological invasion risks and the public good: an economic perspective. Conservation Ecology, 6, http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art1.

  • Perrings, C., Mooney, H., Lonsdale, M., & Burgeil, S. (2010a). Globalization and invasive species: Policy and management options. In C. Perrings, H. Mooney, & M. Williamson (Eds.), Bioinvasions and Globalization: Ecology, Economics, Management and Policy (pp. 235–250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrings, C., Burgiel, S., Lonsdale, W. M., Mooney, H., & Williamson, M. (2010b). International cooperation in the solution to trade-related invasive species risks. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1195, 198–212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., & Morrison, D. (2000). Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience, 50, 53–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D., McNair, S., Janecka, S., Wightman, J., Simmonds, C., O’Connell, C., Wong, E., Russel, L., Zern, C., Aquino, T., & Tsomondo, T. (2001). Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal and microbe invasions. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 84, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., & Morrison, D. (2005). Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics, 52, 273–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rangi, D. K. (2004). Invasive alien species: Agriculture and development. Nairobi: UNEP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratananakorn, L., & Wilson, D. (2011). Zoning and compartmentalisation as risk mitigation measures: an example from poultry production. Scientific and Technical Review International Office of Epizootics, 30, 297–307.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rweyemamu, M. M., & Astudillo, V. M. (2002). Global perspective for foot and mouth disease control. Revue Scientifique Et Technique De L Office International Des Epizooties, 21, 765–773.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, T. (2004). Global Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, T. & Arce M, D.G. (2002) A conceptual framework for understanding global and transnational public goods for health. Fiscal Studies, 23, 195–222.

  • Semmens, B. X., Buhle, E. R., Salomon, A. K., & Pattengill-Semmens, C. V. (2004). A hotspot of non-native marine fishes: evidence for the aquarium trade as an invasion pathway. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 266, 239–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. F., Behrens, M., Schloegel, L. M., Marano, N., Burgiel, S., & Daszak, P. (2009). Reducing the risks of the wildlife trade. Science, 324, 594–595.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stavins, R. N. (2003). Experience with Market-Based Environmental Policy Instruments. In K.-G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Economics (pp. 355–435). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugiura, K., & Murray, N. (2011). Risk analysis and its link with standards of the World Organisation for Animal Health. Scientific and Technical Review International Office of Epizootics, 30, 281–288.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tatem, A. J. (2009). The worldwide airline network and the dispersal of exotic species: 2007–2010. Ecography, 34, 94–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tatem, A. J., Rogers, D. J., & Hay, S. I. (2006a). Global transport networks and infectious disease spread. Advances in Parasitology, 62, 293–343.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tatem, A. J., Hay, S. S., & Rogers, D. J. (2006b). Global traffic and disease vector dispersal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 6242–6247.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D., Muriel, P., Russell, D., Osborne, P., Bromley, A., Rowland, M., Creigh-Tyte, S., & Brown, C. (2002). Economic costs of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom in 2001. Scientific and Technical Review International Office of Epizootics, 21, 675–87.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Touza, J., & Perrings, C. (2011). Strategic behavior and the scope for unilateral provision of transboundary ecosystem services that are international environmental public goods. Strategic Behavior and the Environment, 1, 89–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vicary, S. (1990). Transfers and the weakest-link. Journal of Public Economics, 43, 375–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vila, M., & Pujadas, J. (2001). Land-use and socio-economic correlates of plant invasions in European and North African countries. Biological Conservation, 100, 397–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waage, J. K., & Mumford, J. D. (2008). Agricultural biosecurity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 363, 863–876.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Waage, J. K., Woodhall, J. W., Bishop, S. J., Smith, J. J., Jones, D. R., & Spence, N. J. (2009). Patterns of plant pest introductions in Europe and Africa. Agricultural Systems, 99, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Trade Organization. (1995). The WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). Geneva: World Trade Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Trade Organization (2013). International Trade Statistics. Available at: http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2012_e/its12_appendix_e.htm. Accessed 2013.

  • Wunder, S. (2008). Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence. Environment and Development Economics, 13, 279–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work reported in this paper was funded by NSF grant 1414374 as part of the joint NSF-NIH-USDA Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases program, and by UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council grant BB/M008894/1. Preparation and presentation of the paper at the International Conference on Global Plant Health and Consequences: Linking science, economics and policy, Fera, York, UK October 27–28 2014, was funded by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Co-operative Research Programme on Biological Resource Management for Sustainable Agricultural Systems whose financial support made it possible for most of the invited speakers to participate in the Conference. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the OECD or of the governments of its member countries.

This paper has benefitted from the contributions made by members of the research team to the development of the grant. I am particularly indebted to Richard Horan, Peter Dazsak, Piran White, Eli Fenichel, David Finnoff, Gerardo Chowell, Glyn Jones, Michael Springborn, Julia Touza, Ben Morin, and Adam Kleczkowski.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles Perrings.

Appendix

Appendix

To see the trade-offs involved when imports carry an acknowledged disease risk, consider a risk-neutral importer in country k (for k = 1,…,n). The economic problem to be solved is the following:

$$ \underset{M_{ij}^k}{max}{\pi}^k={\displaystyle \sum_i{\displaystyle \sum_j\left[{p}_i^k{M}_{ij}^k\left(1-{\rho}_{ij}^k\left({m}_{ij}^k,{M}_{ij}^k\right)\right)-{z}_{ij}^k{m}_{ij}^k{M}_{ij}^k-{c}_{ij}^k\left({M}_{ij}^k\right)\right]}} $$

That is, the importer chooses how much of commodity i to import from country j, denoted M k ij , to maximize expected profits, π k. If there are no disease risks, the importer would expect to sell commodity i at price p k i . If there are disease risks, they would expect reduced revenues, where ρ k ij (⋅) represents the expected rate of loss due to infection. The expected rate of loss might be increasing in import levels and decreasing in inspection levels, m k ij . That is, inspections increase the cost of trade, with z k ij being the unit cost to the importer of inspections of commodity i imported from country j (whether due to inspection fees or the cost of delays). c k ij (M k ij ) is the landed cost of commodity i sourced from country j.

The importers simultaneously select the commodities to import, the suppliers of those commodities, and the volume of imports—given differences in the acknowledged risks associated with different commodities and different suppliers. Each choice M k ij > 0 satisfies the condition

$$ {p}_i^k-{z}_{ij}^k{m}_{ij}^k-\frac{\partial {c}_{ij}^k}{\partial {M}_{ij}^k}={\rho}_{ij}^k\left({m}_{ij}^k,{M}_{ij}^k\right){p}_i^k+\frac{\partial {\rho}_{ij}^k\left({m}_{ij}^k,{M}_{ij}^k\right)}{\partial {M}_{ij}^k}{p}_i^k $$

which balances the marginal net private benefit of imports (the left hand side) with the marginal expected private cost of trade-related disease introduction (the right hand side). The expected marginal private disease cost curve is upward sloping if ∂ρ k ij (m k ij , M k ij )/∂M k ij  > 0 for some M k ij . The privately optimal level of disease risk is then determined by the intersection of the marginal net private benefit and expected marginal disease cost curves.

Given the risk landscape created by private import decisions, the problem confronting local and national animal and plant health inspection authorities in country k is then to design and implement a control strategy that minimizes the expected social cost of disease outbreaks. This includes the external costs of animal and plant disease outbreaks after the pathogen has been imported, the cost of biosecurity measures, and the cost of the inspection and interception strategy applied, as well as the expected losses to importers:

$$ \underset{m_{ij}^k}{ \min }{C}^k={\displaystyle \sum_i{\displaystyle \sum_j\left[{D}_i^k\left({\displaystyle \sum_j{M}_{ij}^k{\tau}_{ij}^k\left({m}_{ij}^k,{M}_{ij}^k\right)}\right)+{p}_i^k{M}_{ij}^k{\rho}_{ij}^k\left({m}_{ij}^k,{M}_{ij}^k\right)+{c}_{ij}^k\left({M}_{ij}^k\right)+{Z}_{ij}^k{m}_{ij}^k{M}_{ij}^k\right]}} $$

where D k i represents the expected external social costs of an outbreak associated with commodity i, τ k ij (m k ij , M k ij ) is the probability that an infection is not detected (with ∂τ k ij /∂m k ij  < 0), and Z k ij is the sum of the private and public cost of inspection.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Perrings, C. Options for managing the infectious animal and plant disease risks of international trade. Food Sec. 8, 27–35 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0523-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0523-0

Keywords

Navigation