Biosecurity in agriculture: an economic analysis of coexistence of professional and hobby production

One component of biosecurity is protection against invasive alien species, which are one of the most important threats worldwide to native biodiversity and economic profitability in various sectors, including agriculture. However, agricultural producers are not homogeneous. They may have different objectives and priorities, use different technologies, and occupy heterogeneous parcels of land. If the producers differ in terms of their attitude towards invasive pests and the damages they cause, there are probably external effects in the form of pest spread impacts and subsequent damages caused. We study such impacts in the case of two producer types: profit-seeking professional producers and utility-seeking hobby producers. We show that the hobby producer, having first set a breeding ground for the pest, under-invests in pest control. We also discuss potential policy instruments to correct this market failure and highlight the importance of considering different stakeholders and their heterogeneous incentives when designing policies to control invasive alien species.

Managing invasive alien species with professional and hobby farmers: insights from ecological-economic modelling

Biosecurity is a great challenge to policy-makers globally. Biosecurity policies aim to either prevent invasions before they occur or to eradicate and/or effectively manage the invasive species and diseases once an invasion has occurred. Such policies have traditionally been directed towards professional producers in natural resource based sectors, including agriculture. Given the wide scope of issues threatened by invasive species and diseases, it is important to account for several types of stakeholders that are involved. We investigate the problem of an invasive insect pest feeding on an agricultural crop with heterogeneous producers: profit-oriented professional farmers and utility-oriented hobby farmers. We start from an ecological-economic model conceptually similar to the one developed by Eiswerth and Johnson [Eiswerth, M.E. and Johnson, W.S., 2002. Managing nonindigenous invasive species: insights from dynamic analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics 23, 319-342.] and extend it in three ways. First, we make explicit the relationship between the invaded state carrying capacity and farmers' planting decisions. Second, we add another producer type into the framework and hence account for the existence of both professional and hobby fanners. Third, we provide a theoretical contribution by discussing two alternative types of equilibria. We also apply the model to an empirical case to extract a number of stylised facts and in particular to assess: a) under which circumstances the invasion is likely to be not controllable; and b) how extending control policies to hobby farmers could affect both types of producers. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Conceptual development of a harmonised method for tracking change and evaluating policy in the agri-environment: The Agri-environmental Footprint Index

An aggregated farm-level index, the Agri-environmental Footprint Index (AFI), based on multiple criteria methods and representing a harmonised approach to evaluation of EU agri-environmental schemes is described. The index uses a common framework for the design and evaluation of policy that can be customised to locally relevant agri-environmental issues and circumstances. Evaluation can be strictly policy-focused, or broader and more holistic in that context-relevant assessment criteria that are not necessarily considered in the evaluated policy can nevertheless be incorporated. The Index structure is flexible, and can respond to diverse local needs. The process of Index construction is interactive, engaging farmers and other relevant stakeholders in a transparent decision-making process that can ensure acceptance of the outcome, help to forge an improved understanding of local agri-environmental priorities and potentially increase awareness of the critical role of farmers in environmental management. The structure of the AFI facilitates post-evaluation analysis of relative performance in different dimensions of the agri-environment, permitting identification of current strengths and weaknesses, and enabling future improvement in policy design. Quantification of the environmental impact of agriculture beyond the stated aims of policy using an 'unweighted' form of the AFI has potential as the basis of an ongoing system of environmental audit within a specified agricultural context. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.