IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aciias/47653.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic benefits to Papua New Guinea and Australia from the biological control of banana skipper (Erionota thrax)

Author

Listed:
  • Waterhouse, Doug F.
  • Dillon, Birribi
  • Vincent, David P.

Abstract

Larvae of the butterfly Erionota thrax, the banana skipper, destroy the leaves of bananas by eating them and forming massive protective rolls of leaf tissue. They were first observed in north-western Papua New Guinea in 1983 and over the next 6 years spread throughout the mainland at the rate of up to 500 km/year. E. thrax has also spread across the ocean to the east, to invade New Britain, Duke of York and New Ireland islands, and possibly Bougainville. As the banana skipper spread, it destroyed an average of some 60% of banana leaves, leading to both a serious delay in fruit maturation and reduced weight of banana bunches. Previous successful biological control of E. thrax when it invaded Mauritius, Hawaii, Guam and Saipan encouraged Papua New Guinea to launch an approach to ACIAR for funds. This was successful and a project was undertaken from 1988 to 1990. After careful tests to ensure that it was safe to do so, the larval parasite Cotesia erionotae was introduced and established, leading to a reduction in the estimated average leaf damage from about 60% to 5%. Using the estimated production value of bananas in Papua New Guinea to the year 2020, the losses due to banana skipper each year were calculated. Using a discount rate of 5%, the net present value of lost production amounts to approximately A$301.8 million. The value of damage prevented by biological control is estimated at $201.6 million. The reduction of banana skipper abundance by 90% in southern Papua New Guinea has correspondingly reduced the chance of adults invading not only Australian islands in the Torres Strait but also the Australian mainland. The successful biological control program in Papua New Guinea has therefore provided significant benefits to banana production in Australia. Assuming similar levels of damage in Australia as in Papua New Guinea, we estimate these benefits to be $223 million to the year 2020. The present value of total benefits from the ACIAR project equals $424.7 million ($201.6 million to Papua New Guinea and $223.1 million to Australia). This compares with the present value of the cost of the ACIAR project of $0.70 million, giving a benefit–cost ratio of 607 and an internal rate of return of 190%.

Suggested Citation

  • Waterhouse, Doug F. & Dillon, Birribi & Vincent, David P., 1998. "Economic benefits to Papua New Guinea and Australia from the biological control of banana skipper (Erionota thrax)," Impact Assessment Series (IAS) 47653, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aciias:47653
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.47653
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/47653/files/IAS12.PDF
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.47653?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. Waterhouse, Doug F. & Norris, K.R., 1989. "Biological Control Pacific Prospects - Supplement 1," Monographs, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, number 118040.
    2. Lubulwa, Godfrey & McMeniman, Susan, 1997. "An Economic Evaluation of Realised and Potential Impacts of 15 of ACIAR's Biological Control Projects (1983-1996): Some Preliminary Estimates," 1997 Conference (41st), January 22-24, 1997, Gold Coast, Australia 136244, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Unknown, 2006. "ACIAR and Public Funding of R&D: Submission to Productivity Commission Study on Public Support for Science and Innovation," Impact Assessment Series (IAS) 113247, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.
    2. Nordblom, T. L. & Smyth, M. J. & Swirepik, A. & Sheppard, A. W. & Briese, D. T., 2002. "Spatial economics of biological control: investing in new releases of insects for earlier limitation of Paterson's curse in Australia," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 403-424, November.
    3. De Groote, H. & Ajuonu, O. & Attignon, S. & Djessou, R. & Neuenschwander, P., 2003. "Economic impact of biological control of water hyacinth in Southern Benin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 105-117, April.

    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. Morris, Heather & Waterhouse, Doug F., 2001. "The Distribution and Importance of Arthropod Pests and Weeds of Agriculture in Myanmar," Monographs, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, number 114804.
    2. Li-ying, Li & Ren, Wang & Waterhouse, Doug F., 1997. "The Distribution and Importance of Arthropod Pests and Weeds of Agriculture and Forestry Plantations in Southern China," Monographs, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, number 117177.
    3. Waterhouse, Doug F., 1993. "The Major Arthropod Pests and Weeds of Agriculture in Southeast Asia: Distribution, Importance and Origin," Monographs, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, number 118695.

    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:aciias:47653. 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/aciarau.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.