IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0096611.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effectiveness of the International Phytosanitary Standard ISPM No. 15 on Reducing Wood Borer Infestation Rates in Wood Packaging Material Entering the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Robert A Haack
  • Kerry O Britton
  • Eckehard G Brockerhoff
  • Joseph F Cavey
  • Lynn J Garrett
  • Mark Kimberley
  • Frank Lowenstein
  • Amelia Nuding
  • Lars J Olson
  • James Turner
  • Kathryn N Vasilaky

Abstract

Numerous bark- and wood-infesting insects have been introduced to new countries by international trade where some have caused severe environmental and economic damage. Wood packaging material (WPM), such as pallets, is one of the high risk pathways for the introduction of wood pests. International recognition of this risk resulted in adoption of International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 15 (ISPM15) in 2002, which provides treatment standards for WPM used in international trade. ISPM15 was originally developed by members of the International Plant Protection Convention to “practically eliminate” the risk of international transport of most bark and wood pests via WPM. The United States (US) implemented ISPM15 in three phases during 2005–2006. We compared pest interception rates of WPM inspected at US ports before and after US implementation of ISPM15 using the US Department of Agriculture AQIM (Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Monitoring) database. Analyses of records from 2003–2009 indicated that WPM infestation rates declined 36–52% following ISPM15 implementation, with results varying in statistical significance depending on the selected starting parameters. Power analyses of the AQIM data indicated there was at least a 95% chance of detecting a statistically significant reduction in infestation rates if they dropped by 90% post-ISPM15, but the probability fell as the impact of ISPM15 lessened. We discuss several factors that could have reduced the apparent impact of ISPM15 on lowering WPM infestation levels, and suggest ways that ISPM15 could be improved. The paucity of international interception data impeded our ability to conduct more thorough analyses of the impact of ISPM15, and demonstrates the need for well-planned sampling programs before and after implementation of major phytosanitary policies so that their effectiveness can be assessed. We also present summary data for bark- and wood-boring insects intercepted on WPM at US ports during 1984–2008.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert A Haack & Kerry O Britton & Eckehard G Brockerhoff & Joseph F Cavey & Lynn J Garrett & Mark Kimberley & Frank Lowenstein & Amelia Nuding & Lars J Olson & James Turner & Kathryn N Vasilaky, 2014. "Effectiveness of the International Phytosanitary Standard ISPM No. 15 on Reducing Wood Borer Infestation Rates in Wood Packaging Material Entering the United States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-15, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0096611
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096611
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096611
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096611&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0096611?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. Christopher Costello & Carol McAusland, 2003. "Protectionism, Trade, and Measures of Damage from Exotic Species Introductions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 964-975.
    2. Olson, Lars J., 2006. "The Economics of Terrestrial Invasive Species: A Review of the Literature," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 178-194, April.
    3. Juliann E Aukema & Brian Leung & Kent Kovacs & Corey Chivers & Kerry O Britton & Jeffrey Englin & Susan J Frankel & Robert G Haight & Thomas P Holmes & Andrew M Liebhold & Deborah G McCullough & Betsy, 2011. "Economic Impacts of Non-Native Forest Insects in the Continental United States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-7, September.
    4. Strutt, Anna & Turner, James A. & Haack, Robert A. & Olson, Lars, 2013. "Evaluating the impacts of an international phytosanitary standard for wood packaging material: Global and United States trade implications," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 54-64.
    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. Warziniack, Travis W. & Finnoff, David & Shogren, Jason F., 2013. "Public economics of hitchhiking species and tourism-based risk to ecosystem services," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 277-294.
    2. Olson, Lars J. & Roy, Santanu, 2010. "Dynamic sanitary and phytosanitary trade policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 21-30, July.
    3. 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.
    4. McDermott, Shana M. & Finnoff, David C., 2016. "Impact of repeated human introductions and the Allee effect on invasive species spread," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 329(C), pages 100-111.
    5. Olson, Lars J., 2006. "The Economics of Terrestrial Invasive Species: A Review of the Literature," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 178-194, April.
    6. Haight, Robert G. & Polasky, Stephen, 2010. "Optimal control of an invasive species with imperfect information about the level of infestation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 519-533, November.
    7. Carrasco, L.R. & Mumford, J.D. & MacLeod, A. & Knight, J.D. & Baker, R.H.A., 2010. "Comprehensive bioeconomic modelling of multiple harmful non-indigenous species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1303-1312, April.
    8. Epanchin-Niell, Rebecca S. & Liebhold, Andrew M., 2015. "Benefits of invasion prevention: Effect of time lags, spread rates, and damage persistence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 146-153.
    9. Burnett, Kimberly & Kaiser, Brooks & Pitafi, Basharat A. & Roumasset, James, 2006. "Prevention, Eradication, and Containment of Invasive Species: Illustrations from Hawaii," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 63-77, April.
    10. Nartraphee Tancho & Thanaporn Sriyakul & Changjiang Tang, 2020. "Asymmetric Impacts of Macroeconomy on Environment Degradation in Thailand: A NARDL Approach," Contemporary Economics, University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw., vol. 14(4), December.
    11. Yemshanov, Denys & Haight, Robert G. & Koch, Frank H. & Lu, Bo & Venette, Robert & Fournier, Ronald E. & Turgeon, Jean J., 2017. "Robust Surveillance and Control of Invasive Species Using a Scenario Optimization Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 86-98.
    12. Cook, David & Carrasco, Luis Roman & Paini, Dean & Fraser, Rob, 2011. "Estimating the social welfare effects of New Zealand apple imports," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(4), pages 1-22.
    13. Inaba, Masaru & Nutahara, Kengo, 2009. "The role of investment wedges in the Carlstrom-Fuerst economy and business cycle accounting," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 200-203, December.
    14. Burnett, Kimberly M. & D'Evelyn, Sean & Kaiser, Brooks A. & Nantamanasikarn, Porntawee & Roumasset, James A., 2008. "Beyond the lamppost: Optimal prevention and control of the Brown Tree Snake in Hawaii," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 66-74, August.
    15. Batabyal, Amitrajeet A. & Beladi, Hamid, 2009. "Trade, the damage from alien species, and the effects of protectionism under alternate market structures," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 389-401, May.
    16. Kent Kovacs & Thomas Holmes & Jeffrey Englin & Janice Alexander, 2011. "The Dynamic Response of Housing Values to a Forest Invasive Disease: Evidence from a Sudden Oak Death Infestation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(3), pages 445-471, July.
    17. McDermott, Shana M. & Finnoff, David C. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kennedy, Chris J., 2021. "When does natural science uncertainty translate into economic uncertainty?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    18. 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).
    19. Olson, Lars J. & Roy, Santanu, 2003. "The Economics Of Controlling A Biological Invasion," Working Papers 28591, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    20. Davide Rassati & Massimo Faccoli & Robert A Haack & Robert J Rabaglia & Edoardo Petrucco Toffolo & Andrea Battisti & Lorenzo Marini, 2016. "Bark and Ambrosia Beetles Show Different Invasion Patterns in the USA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, July.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0096611. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.