IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare09/47617.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

ACIAR’s 25 year investment in fruit-fly research

Author

Listed:
  • Lindner, Robert K.
  • McLeod, Paul

Abstract

Fruit flies are recognised as one of the major pests of fruit and vegetable crops worldwide. Potential benefits from fruit fly research include biosecurity benefits from better quarantine surveillance that reduces the costs of an incursion by a damaging exotic pest fruit fly; market access benefits by enabling new fruit exports; and field control benefits from better crop management. The Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)’s investment in fruitfly research goes back some 25 years to an initial project in Malaysia. Since that time, ACIAR’s continued investment has funded a total of 18 projects ranging across several areas of fruit-fly research, and covering Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Fiji Islands, Samoa, Tonga, Cook Islands, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Papua New Guinea, Bhutan, Vietnam, Laos, and Indonesia. In an impact assessment study of all 18 ACIAR projects, Lindner and McLeod (2008) calculated that the present value (PV) of the total direct investment in these projects by ACIAR and its partners has been A$50.76 million. The PV of total quantifiable realised and prospective benefits that can be attributed to the direct investment by ACIAR and its partners was estimated to exceed A$258.84 million. Of this total PV of quantifiable benefits, A$212.63 million was calculated to accrue to partner-countries. In this paper, the question of why many potential benefits to partner-countries have not been realised to date, and why some future prospective benefits are problematic is examined. While the total value of benefits generated from the investment by ACIAR and its partners is impressive, the pattern of benefits is variable by type of benefit and by country. One of the most important general lessons, widely known but reinforced by the results from this study, is that while successful research project outcomes may be necessary to enable potential benefits, they rarely are sufficient for benefits to be realised. In particular, potential benefits will only be realised if there is uptake of project outputs. While it is recognized that the conditions for uptake are typically well beyond the influence of the researchers both in time and scope, at the time of project formulation, the necessary conditions for adoption of project outputs often seem to receive insufficient attention. Notwithstanding some 20 years of research on the development of low-cost protein bait sprays from brewery waste, the benefits are still essentially prospective and it has not been conclusively demonstrated that the use of these sprays will be widely adopted as a cost-effective alternative to existing practices in developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Lindner, Robert K. & McLeod, Paul, 2009. "ACIAR’s 25 year investment in fruit-fly research," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 47617, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare09:47617
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.47617
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/47617/files/Lindner.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.47617?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Binder, Monika, 2002. "The Role of Risk and Cost-Benefit Analysis in Determining Quarantine Measures," Staff Research Papers 31911, Productivity Commission.
    2. Monika Binder, 2002. "The role of risk and cost-benefit analysis in determining quarantine measures," International Trade 0203002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Collins, B.A. & Collins, David J., 1998. "Fruit fly in Malaysia and Thailand 1985-1993," Impact Assessment Series (IAS) 47194, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tu, Anh Thuy & Beghin, John C., 2005. "Tariff Escalation and Invasive Species Risk," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19518, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Chengyan Yue & John C. Beghin, 2017. "Tariff Equivalent And Forgone Trade Effects Of Prohibitive Technical Barriers To Trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 8, pages 139-150, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Abrahamsen, Eirik Bjorheim & Abrahamsen, Håkon Bjorheim & Milazzo, Maria Francesca & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås, 2018. "Using the ALARP principle for safety management in the energy production sector of chemical industry," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 160-165.
    4. Annette Weier & Paul Loke, 2007. "Precaution and the Precautionary Principle: two Australian case studies," Staff Working Papers 0705, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia.
    5. Tu, Anh Thuy & Beghin, John & Gozlan, Estelle, 2008. "Tariff escalation and invasive species damages," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 619-629, November.
    6. David Adamson & David Cook, 2007. "Re-examining economic options for import risk assessments," Murray-Darling Program Working Papers WP3M07, Risk and Sustainable Management Group, University of Queensland.
    7. Leif Inge K. Sørskår & Eirik B. Abrahamsen, 2017. "On how to manage uncertainty when considering regulatory HSE interventions," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 5(1), pages 97-116, November.
    8. Tu, Anh T. & Beghin, John, 2004. "Intra-Industry Trade, Imperfect Competition, Trade Integration and Invasive Species Risk," Conference papers 331239, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    9. Lofgren, Hans & Robinson, Sherman, 2004. "Public Spending, Growth, and Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Dynamic General Equilibrium Analysis," Conference papers 331292, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    10. Damian Maye & Jacqui Dibden & Vaughan Higgins & Clive Potter, 2012. "Governing Biosecurity in a Neoliberal World: Comparative Perspectives from Australia and the United Kingdom," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(1), pages 150-168, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aare09:47617. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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.