IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/99615.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic and environmental impact assessment of proposed bark-free requirements for wood pallets in international trade

Author

Listed:
  • Ray, Charles
  • Janowiak, John
  • Michael, Judd
  • Bachev, Hrabrin

Abstract

In 2004 the European Commission issued Directive 2004/102/EC which, among other things, introduced the concept of requiring wood packaging materials to be “debarked.” While previous research has established that as many as one in five North American wood pallets contain at least one occurrence of bark, the process changes required to eliminate or segregate barky defects from pallets have not been adequately defined or quantified. Simulation-based findings as described in this paper indicate that the proposed EC regulation could add $2.7 billion over 10 years to the cost of U.S. pallets alone as they enter international trade markets, and depending on the degree of universal adoption of bark-free regulation, could result in as much as 16 billion additional board feet of lumber being consumed, again in U.S. pallet production alone. Labor, administration, and environmental costs dwarf the capital costs required to make this process transition. The largest potential cost, however, may come in the form of product substitution, as product manufacturers convert to alternative shipping platforms to avoid potential quarantine and return-of-product risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Ray, Charles & Janowiak, John & Michael, Judd & Bachev, Hrabrin, 2007. "Economic and environmental impact assessment of proposed bark-free requirements for wood pallets in international trade," MPRA Paper 99615, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:99615
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/99615/1/MPRA_paper_99615.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gaël Raballand & Enrique Aldaz‐Carroll, 2007. "How Do Differing Standards Increase Trade Costs? The Case of Pallets," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 685-702, April.
    2. J. D. Mumford, 2002. "Economic issues related to quarantine in international trade," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 29(3), pages 329-348, July.
    3. Unknown, 2005. "End Materials," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 20(1), pages 1-1.
    4. P. K. Rao, 2003. "The Economics of Transaction Costs," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-59768-6, October.
    5. Dasgupta, Partha, 1996. "The economics of the environment," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(4), pages 387-428, October.
    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. Lefeuvre, Anaële & Garnier, Sébastien & Jacquemin, Leslie & Pillain, Baptiste & Sonnemann, Guido, 2017. "Anticipating in-use stocks of carbon fiber reinforced polymers and related waste flows generated by the commercial aeronautical sector until 2050," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 264-272.
    2. Robert Deacon & Charles Kolstad & Allen Kneese & David Brookshire & David Scrogin & Anthony Fisher & Michael Ward & Kerry Smith & James Wilen, 1998. "Research Trends and Opportunities in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 383-397, April.
    3. Hao Zhang & Jiadong Jiang & Liwei Zheng & Xiangzhen Li, 2019. "The interaction between standards development and economic growth of China," International Journal of Quality Innovation, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Yu-Hsin Lin & Hsien-Ching Chen & Chen-Yu Chien & Chih-Hung Tsai & Min-Jer Lu, 2014. "A Study of Selecting Criteria for Material Substitution under Green Environmental Consideration," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 4(1), pages 459-473, January.
    5. Batabyal, Amitrajeet A., 1999. "Aspects of the optimal management of cyclical ecological-economic systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 285-292, August.
    6. Rohlin, Shawn M. & Batabyal, Amitrajeet A., 2005. "A theoretical perspective on managed rangelands and irreversible states," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 487-494.
    7. Sahu, Santosh, 2008. "Cost Benefit Analysis of Participatory Natural Resource Management: A study of watershed development initiative in Indian village," MPRA Paper 17134, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Batabyal, Amitrajeet A., 2005. "Necessary and sufficient conditions for the equivalence of economic and ecological criteria in range management," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 423-436, March.
    9. Gardner Brown, 2000. "Renewable Natural Resource Management and Use Without Markets," Working Papers 0025, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
    10. Harit, Aditya, 2024. "Economic Equilibrium Model for Pollution Management and Resource Generation in a District: A Block-Level Approach," MPRA Paper 122333, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Moreno-Miranda, Carlos & Dries, Liesbeth, 2022. "Integrating coordination mechanisms in the sustainability assessment of agri-food chains: From a structured literature review to a comprehensive framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    12. Valentová, Michaela & Horák, Martin & Dvořáček, Lukáš, 2020. "Why transaction costs do not decrease over time? A case study of energy efficiency programmes in Czechia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    13. Zhao, Qinghua & Chen, Ming, 2011. "A comparison of ELV recycling system in China and Japan and China's strategies," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 15-21.
    14. Batabyal, Amitrajeet A., 2000. "An interdisciplinary research agenda for the study of ecological-economic systems in the American West," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 69-75, June.
    15. Hezekiah Agwara & Philip Auerswald & Brian Higginbotham, 2013. "Algorithms and the Changing Frontier," NBER Chapters, in: The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy, pages 371-410, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Tu, Anh Thuy & Beghin, John & Gozlan, Estelle, 2008. "Tariff escalation and invasive species damages," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 619-629, November.
    17. Anh Tu & John C. Beghin & Estelle Gozlan, 2005. "Tariff Escalation and Invasive Species Risk," Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) Publications (archive only) 05-wp407, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    18. Valentová, Michaela & Lízal, Lubomír & Knápek, Jaroslav, 2018. "Designing energy efficiency subsidy programmes: The factors of transaction costs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 382-391.
    19. Paul Mwebaze & Jim Monaghan & Nicola Spence & Alan MacLeod & Martin Hare & Brian Revell, 2010. "Modelling the Risks Associated with the Increased Importation of Fresh Produce from Emerging Supply Sources Outside the EU to the UK," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 97-121, February.
    20. V. K. Shrotryia & Shashank Vikram Pratap Singh, 2020. "Measuring Progress Beyond GDP: A Theoretical Perspective," Emerging Economy Studies, International Management Institute, vol. 6(2), pages 143-165, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    pallets; phytosanitary regulation; bark-free; EU policies; transaction costs;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F2 - International Economics - - International Factor Movements and International Business
    • F4 - International Economics - - Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance
    • F42 - International Economics - - Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance - - - International Policy Coordination and Transmission
    • F5 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy
    • F53 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - International Agreements and Observance; International Organizations

    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:pra:mprapa:99615. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.