IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v35y2006i01p52-62_01.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Lichtenberg, Erik
  • Lynch, Lori

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Lichtenberg, Erik & Lynch, Lori, 2006. "Exotic Pests and Trade: When Is Pest-Free Status Certification Worthwhile?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 52-62, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:35:y:2006:i:01:p:52-62_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1068280500010054/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Florec, Veronique & Sadler, Rohan J. & White, Ben & Dominiak, Bernie C., 2013. "Choosing the battles: The economics of area wide pest management for Queensland fruit fly," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 203-213.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:35:y:2006:i:01:p:52-62_01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/age .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.