An Assessment of the Impacts of a Domestic Phytosanitary Treatment Regulation for Wood Packaging Material Manufacturers

Abstract

The results of a mail survey undertaken in mid-2008 to determine the response of wood packaging material (WPM) manufacturers to a universal treatment requirement, similar to ISPM 15 “Guidelines for Regulating Wood Packaging Material in International Trade,” are described. Reactions to a universal requirement were positive (nearly 60% in favor), with larger companies tending to be more positive. Less than 9 percent of respondents indicated they would cease WPM manufacturing. Impacts on pallet pricing were most prevalent at or in excess of $1.00 per unit, with nearly two-thirds of respondents indicating that their customers would accept the true cost of treatment. While only 36 percent would like to see the universal requirement implemented sooner rather than later, these companies were heavily involved in custom heat-treating services and are therefore anticipating the associated marketplace opportunities. The accompanying capital investment in new or additional heat-treating equipment would benefit equipment manufacturers. As the process to create and implement a universal treatment requirement in the United States evolves, policymakers should take into account the current state of the economy, and the WPM industry in particular, and how a change of this magnitude would impact the businesses comprising this industry sector.

Sustainable Packaging

“…In recent times, significant pressures borne out of environmental concerns have risen from external sources including consumers and pressure groups, upstream and downstream supply chains, especially industrial customers and packaging producers, and the government (Corey and Bone, 1992;Kassaye and Verma, 1992;Labatt, 1997;Matthews, 2004;Verghese and Lewis, 2007;Dharmadhikari, 2012). The complexity of packaging decisions for industrial products have been further exacerbated by having to contend with legislation that decrees the packaging that is required for particular categories of products, such as explosives, fissile materials and foodstuffs, and even by the need to contend with subjects such as the elimination of pests and insects from wooden packaging materials (Molina-Murillo et al 2005;Slahor et al 2005;Chen et al 2006).…”

Potencial de otimização da operação de inspeção federal agropecuária em embalagens e suportes de madeira no Aeroporto Internacional de Goiânia

“…Não obstante a sua imprescindibilidade, a operacionalização do controle de medidas fitossanitárias podem impor problemas não somente ao MAPA, mas também a outros participantes envolvidos na atividade -cita-se, por exemplo, custos financeiros aos importadores (Hassler, Grushecky, Slahor, & Turk, 2010;Strutt, Turner, Haack & Olson, 2013;Leung, Springborn, Turner & Brockerhoff, 2014). Um componente destes custos é o custo de armazenagem do produto, e sua respectiva embalagem, em recintos alfandegados enquanto se aguarda o despacho aduaneiro pelos órgãos anuentes, dentre eles o MAPA.…”

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

“…Some of the major challenges relate to the lack of technical expertise and appropriate technologies, limited financial resources, the existence of incompatible production systems, and logistical problems (Henson, Brouder, & Mitullah, 2000). A case study by Hassler, Grushecky, Slahor, and Turk (2010) found that the implementation of ISPM 15 increased, on average, the cost of a single wood pallet by approximately 0.60 USD (with this amount varying across countries, depending on the technology and type of treatment adopted). The rise in the price of treated WPM (varying from country to country) increases the cost of traded goods and may change the set of comparative advantages a country has in particular sectors, hence creating winners and losers in international markets (Beghin & Bureau, 2001).…”