1 / 8

The Benefits of Costs of Biosecurity: Optimal Quarantine and Surveillance

The Benefits of Costs of Biosecurity: Optimal Quarantine and Surveillance. Tom Kompas and R. Quentin Grafton Crawford School of Economics and Government Kevin Fox (UNSW) CERF Project/CERF Hub Presentation 20 May 2008 Acknowledgement: DEWHA. Motivation.

Download Presentation

The Benefits of Costs of Biosecurity: Optimal Quarantine and Surveillance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Benefits of Costs of Biosecurity: Optimal Quarantine and Surveillance Tom Kompas and R. Quentin Grafton Crawford School of Economics and Government Kevin Fox (UNSW) CERF Project/CERF Hub Presentation 20 May 2008 Acknowledgement: DEWHA

  2. Motivation • Combined with border quarantine measures, local surveillance programs provide an essential protection against the incursion and spread of dangerous exotic diseases and pests. • However quarantine and surveillance programs also impose costs (border quarantine and surveillance expenditures), along with the costs of disease management and eradication. • Problem: find the optimal amount of border quarantine and surveillance activities (or expenditures) to protect plant and animal health, as well as the environment.

  3. Research Design: Optimal Surveillance • Benefit: Surveillance ensures ‘early detection’, lowering economic and environmental losses and pest/disease management costs. • Tradeoff: The more early the detection the more expensive the surveillance measure. • Objective: minimize: • Economic losses (plant, animal, the environment) • Eradication and management costs of the pest/disease incursion • Surveillance expenditures (e.g. monitoring, the cost of setting and monitoring traps, etc.)

  4. Pest/Disease Incursion and Spread

  5. Surveillance Expenditure Function

  6. Example: Papua Fruit Fly in Australia • PPF attacks fruit (e.g. apples) and in early stages is difficult to detect by inspection. • Largest risk of entry: via the Torres Strait Islands and at ports of entry. • Current surveillance grid: 1 trap for every 6,200 km2 , 1,878 traps in total, Exp = $1,380,000 (including the programs fixed costs). • 1995 outbreak in QLD: $43m in eradication and management costs over a 13 month period.

  7. Optimal Surveillance Grid and Expenditures (PPF) Optimal: one trap per 2,000 km2 and E*(c) = $3m (AUS) Current: $1.38m: Current surveillance grid: 6,200 km2

  8. Future CERF work • Apply to several Red Imported Fire Ants and Yellow Crazy Ants in Australia. • Measure and include the benefits of biodiversity. • Construct spatial models of pest and disease surveillance.

More Related