overview
In FY2003, ERS initiated a new program of work to examine the economic
issues of managing invasive pests in increasingly global agricultural
markets.
“Invasive species” are defined broadly to include
any vertebrate, invertebrate, weed, fungi, plant disease, livestock
disease or other organism that:
• Is non-native, alien, or exotic to the ecosystem where
it exists or potentially could be introduced – including
agricultural, range, and forest ecosystems; and
• When introduced causes, or is likely to cause, economic
or environmental harm.
The scope of the new ERS program is limited to a national focus
on decision making concerning invasive species of agricultural significance
or affecting or affected by USDA programs.
Examples include Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly), citrus canker,
Asian longhorn beetle, Foot-and-Mouth Disease, Karnal bunt wheat
fungus, Exotic Newcastle Disease of poultry, and Leafy Spurge, each
of which highlights a concern about economic or environmental losses.
Many insect, disease and weed pests of food, fiber and nursery crops
and many nonnative animal pests and diseases pose threats to U.S.
agricultural production and exports.
Trade is essential to the U.S. agricultural sector, with earnings
from U.S. exports accounting for as much as 30 percent of total
farm receipts. Increased trade creates new invasive sepcies risks.
This research program assesses public sector measures for reducing
economic risks to U.S. agriculture from invasive species, while
preserving economic gains from trade and travel.
Important components of the invasive species
management research program include:
• Stakeholders and Incentives for Efficient Invasive
Species Program Management: Actions taken by private
sector agents – including commodity producers, commodity
traders, natural resource and conservation interest groups, and
even private individuals – are often critical to the success
or failure of public sector efforts to exclude, eradicate, or
manage invasive species. But public and private objectives may
not always be perfectly aligned in addressing invasive species
threats. Understanding the economic conditions that favor (or
hinder) coordinated public-private responses to invasive pests,
as well as understanding how private efforts can be corralled
for the public good – particularly where incentives exist
that encourage private agents to act in ways that counter public
efforts – are essential to the design and implementation
of cost effective programs and policies to address the threats
that invasive species pose to agriculture
• Practical Decision Tools for Invasive Species
Management: Economists have a wide array of tools and
techniques to assemble, process, and analyze data that can be
used to aid, guide, and inform USDA decisions and actions related
to invasive species. For example, multi-criteria decision frameworks
could help USDA balance different stakeholder interests and conflicting
program goals in a consistent and transparent manner. The tools
of spatial economics and geographic information systems could
be used to help understand and monitor the arrival and dispersion
of invasive species as well as manage the related economic impacts.
Applications of nonmarket valuation techniques could help value
the negative impacts of invasive species on the environmental
goods and services associated with agricultural and natural ecosystems.
Finally, a large quantity of data covering such things as past
eradication and control programs, international commodity flows,
commodity seizures, and location of commodity processing and transportation
infrastructure has been collected and needs to be made available
in forms and locations that can be easily accessed and analyzed.
• Trade and Invasive Species: Trade in
agricultural products has increased substantially in recent decades.
While trade generates significant economic benefits, it can also
increase the risks of introducing costly new invasive species
into domestic agricultural and natural ecosystems. International
trade agreements, such as the WTO and NAFTA, recognize the need
for countries to adopt sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures
to protect themselves from invasion by invasive species. In the
context of trade agreements, economics has much to contribute
with respect to designing SPS regulations that provide this protection
while minimizing their trade distorting aspects. For example,
economic analysis can estimate the potential magnitude and distribution
of both national and global impacts associated with the adoption
of alternative SPS strategies, assess the potential benefits and
costs of harmonizing SPS regulations across countries versus establishing
different but equivalent regulations, and measure the costs and
benefits of international public goods related to invasive species
control (e.g., pest and disease eradication). Finally, private
firms and individuals generally make the decisions affecting the
actual movement of agricultural products across borders. Rules
and procedures for importing plant and animal products differ
considerably depending on what is being imported and whom is doing
the importing. There is a real need to understand how alternative
rules and procedures for importing similar products by different
types of importers affects the invasive species risk related to
trade and the cost effectiveness of different exclusion and control
strategies.
for more information, contact:
Jan Lewandrowski and Donna
Roberts
web administration: webadmin@ers.usda.gov
page updated: February
11, 2004
|