A Policy Study on the Implementation Challenges of Phytosanitary Standards: The Case of ISPM 15 in Botswana, Cameroon, Kenya, and Mozambique

• Date: 01 June 2019
• Author: Luca Tasciotti,Elissaios Papyrakis
• DOI: 10.1177/1070496519836146
• Published date: 01 June 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

A Policy Study on the

Implementation

Challenges of

Phytosanitary Standards:

The Case of ISPM 15 in

Botswana, Cameroon,

Kenya, and Mozambique

Elissaios Papyrakis

1,2

and Luca Tasciotti

3

Abstract

The rise in international trade in recent decades has been accompanied by an

increase in the movement of wood packaging materials (WPMs). Recognizing the

associated threat of cross-border pest movement, the Commission on Phytosanitary

Measures, the governing body of the International Plant Protection Convention,

adopted the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 15 (ISPM 15;

guidelines for regulating WPM in international trade) for the treatment of WPMs.

The objective of this article is to raise awareness on the challenges four sub-Saharan

countries—Botswana, Cameroon, Kenya, and Mozambique—are facing when it

comes to implementation. During extensive fieldwork, we conducted inter views

with key stakeholders to understand their role in the setup and implementation of

the standard as well as their perceptions on relevant challenges. Addressing these

challenges is vital for achieving compliance and removing associated institutional and

economic barriers. The article can assist policy-makers and academics to design

future policies that tackle implementation problems, especially in the context of

developing countries.

Journal of Environment &

Development

2019, Vol. 28(2) 142–172

!The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1070496519836146

journals.sagepub.com/home/jed

1

International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Hague, the Netherlands

2

School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

3

School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, UK

Corresponding Author:

Luca Tasciotti, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Thornhaugh Street, Russell

Square, London WC1H 0XG, UK.

Email: lt20@soas.ac.uk

Keywords

trade, phytosanitary standard, sub-Saharan countries, implementation challenges,

alien species

The extent of globalization has dramatically increased the magnitude of inter-

national trade, with overall exports accounting nowadays for almost 50% of

global production (World Trade Organization, 2015). This has been accompa-

nied by a parallel increase in the use of wood packaging materials (WPMs),

which facilitates the cross-border movement of bark and wood-boring pests

(Roy et al., 2015). The correlation between the increase in the use of WPM

for trade and the introduction of new pests has been reported to be positive

and signif‌icant (Ciesla, 2004). As the European interception data for the period

1995–2004 suggest, WPMs account for 73% of the pathways by which pests are

introduced into new geographical areas.

While nonnative species introduced outside their natural habitats do not

necessarily cause problems in their new locations (Williamson, 1997), the major-

ity of newly introduced (and often invasive) species are now known to be highly

destructive for the environment and for the biodiversity of the hosting countries

(Jackson, 2015; Mack et al., 2000; Nghiem et al., 2013; Pimentel, 2011). The

economic impacts of pest spread include lost prof‌its to farmers, nonmarket costs

(such as the foregone prof‌it on the recreational use of forests and landscape),

and the irreversible damage caused to ecosystems (Aukema et al., 2010).

Anderson et al. (2004), for example, estimate that the preharvest pest and disease

damage in eight of the most important food and cash crops is valued globally at

300 billion U.S. dollars (USD). The study by Aukema et al. (2011) estimates the

more localized environmental damages caused by the invasive tree borers in the

United States to be about 2 million USD each year; the yearly damages in

Europe due to invasive alien species and the costs of control measures are

estimated to be even higher and close to 10 million USD (Kettunen et al.,

2009). Soliman et al. (2012) claim that, in the absence of any regulatory measures

in place, the cumulative cost of lost forest cover over a period of 22 years (from

2008 to 2030) would amount to 26 billion USD. Studies conducted in Australia,

Brazil, India, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 2001

(then repeated in 2005) computed the costs of newly introduced pests to be

approximately 256 USD per capita per year (Pimentel et al., 2001; Pimentel,

Zuniga, & Morrison, 2005). Assuming costs of similar magnitude are faced

worldwide, Pimentel et al. (2001) estimate that the global damage from pests

may amount to approximately 1.4 trillion USD per year, or nearly 5% of global

gross domestic product. The negative externalities can also extend to the human

health domain, with pests being vectors of diseases or causes of allergies

(Pimentel et al., 2005, f‌ind a higher mortality rate due to cardiovascular diseases

in areas infested with the Emerald ash borer).

Papyrakis and Tasciotti 143