Search

This study evaluates the economic potential for Area Wide Management (AWM) of the Queensland fruit fly (Qfly) using the Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) through three case studies across endemic and Pest-Free Areas (PFA) in south-east Australia. The cost of Qfly needs to be identified before the potential benefit of AWM and SIT can be evaluated. We use results from grower workshops and expert elicitation to identify the financial cost of Qfly to growers (the baseline) and the potential impact of AWM as a precursor to SIT (scenarios). Results show a net benefit from maintaining PFA status. In endemic regions, the potential financial benefits to growers of are low. Avoided adjustment costs that contribute to a net benefit in PFA's are sunk in endemic regions. The low threshold for Qfly in markets and on-farm, and availability of cost-effective management options, implies limited benefits from avoided management costs. Market access is uncertain and AWM and SIT alone are not sufficient to access these benefits. Although there may be exceptions, we find limited grower benefits from AWM and SIT in Qfly endemic growing regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fruit flies are a biosecurity threat to international trade of horticultural produce around the world. Area-wide management (AWM) of fruit flies offers a promising solution to coordinate farmers' activities to fight against the spread of this pest. The incorporation of the sterile insect technique (SIT) may increase the effectiveness of AWM and lead to greater suppression and possible eradication of the fruit fly pest. This article presents findings from a choice experiment survey to ascertain the willingness to pay (WTP) for the benefits of a suite of AWM features and SIT. These features include the benefits from (1) coordinated fruit fly monitoring, (2) coordinated on-farm male annihilation of fruit flies, (3) management of fruit fly in residential areas, and (4) coordinated release of sterile flies. This is the first study of its kind to assess the WTP for AWM and SIT in a developed country. Results suggest that growers are willing to pay for SIT and coordinated fruit fly management in residential areas but are not willing to pay for other coordinated services that they are already practicing on their farms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]