Understanding Farmers’ Preferences Towards Insurance Schemes that Promote Biosecurity Best Management Practices

Abstract

Plant pest and disease outbreaks, which occur with increasing frequency and intensity, cause catastrophic losses and threaten food security in many areas around the world. These impacts are expected to be exacerbated by climate change. Tackling this challenge requires mechanisms that ensure the financial security of farmers while incentivizing private biosecurity efforts to prevent future outbreaks. This study explored crop producers’ preferences for a subsidized insurance scheme as an instrument to manage novel biotic risks. Specifically, we developed a choice experiment to evaluate Spanish growers’ willingness to pay for a crop insurance product that promotes compliance with best biosecurity management practices. Our results show that while growers are willing to pay more for high coverage products that increase the resilience of crops to potential catastrophic outbreaks, there is neither a strong demand nor widespread availability of such tools. Farmers required reductions in premiums before undertaking risk prevention measures; they are more willing to pay for schemes that link their eligibility to access to ad hoc funds in the eventuality of a catastrophic outbreak than they are to purchase insurance. Our findings also suggest that Spanish growers prefer expanding the eligible risks covered by insurance and envisage a role for insurance in offering biosecurity protection.

Keywords

Biosecurity protection / Choice experiment / Crop insurance / Pest risk / Spain / Subsidized insurance

References

[1] Agroseguro. 2015. Figures of the Spanish agricultural system 1980/2014 (El Sistema Español de Seguros Agrarios en cifras 1980/2014). https://agroseguro.es/fileadmin/propietario/Publicaciones/7_4_OTRAS_PUBLICACIONES/agroseguro__2015-05-18__baja.pdf. Accessed 15 Jul 2022 (in Spanish).

[2] Agúndez, D., S. Lawali, A. Mahamane, R. Alía, and M. Soliño. 2022. Development of agroforestry food resources in Niger: Are farmers’ preferences context specific? World Development 157: Article 105951.

[3] van Asseldonk MAPM, Meuwissen MPM, Huirne RBM, Wilkens E. Koontz SR, Hoag DL, Thilmany DD, Green JW, Grannis JL. Public and private schemes indemnifying epidemic livestock losses in the European Union: A review. The economics of livestock disease insurance: Concepts, issues and international case studies, 2006, Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing 115-125

[4] Bate, A.M., G. Jones, A. Kleczkowski, and J. Touza. 2021. Modelling the effectiveness of collaborative schemes for disease and pest outbreak prevention. Ecological Modelling 442: Article 109411.

[5] Bebber DP, Ramotowski MAT, Gurr SJ. Crop pests and pathogens move polewards in a warming world. Nature Climate Change, 2013, 3(11): 985-988

[6] Beckie, H.J., S.J. Smyth, M.D.K. Owen, and S. Gleim. 2019. Rewarding best pest management practices via reduced crop insurance premiums. International Journal of Agronomy 2019: Article 9390501.

[7] Bielza Díaz-Caneja, M., C.G. Conte, F.J. Gallego-Pinilla, J. Stroblmair, R. Catenaro, and C. Dittmann. 2009. Risk management and agricultural insurance schemes in Europe. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Protection and Security of the Citizen, Luxembourg.

[8] Budhathoki NK, Lassa JA, Pun S, Zander KK. Farmers’ interest and willingness-to-pay for index-based crop insurance in the lowlands of Nepal. Land Use Policy, 2019, 85: 1-10

[9] Bulut H. Managing catastrophic risk in agriculture through ex ante subsidised insurance or ex post disaster aid. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2017, 42(3): 406-426.

[10] Caparrós A, Oviedo JL, Campos P. Would you choose your preferred option? Comparing choice and recoded ranking experiments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2008, 90(3): 843-855

[11] ChoiceMetrics. 2012. Ngene 1.1.1 user manual & reference guide. Sydney: ChoiceMetrics.

[12] Christie M, Hanley N, Hynes S. Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods. Journal of Forest Economics, 2007, 13(2): 75-102

[13] Civic Consulting. 2006. Evaluation of the community animal health policy (CAHP) 1995–2004 and alternatives for the future. Final Report. Part II: Pre-feasibility study on options for harmonised cost sharing schemes for epidemic animal diseases. Brussels: European Commission, DG SANCO (Directorate-General for Health and Consumers).

[14] Cranford M, Mourato S. Credit-based payments for ecosystem services: Evidence from a choice experiment in Ecuador. World Development, 2014, 64: 503-520

[15] Doherty, E., S. Mellett, D. Norton, T.K.J. McDermott, D. O’Hora, and M. Ryan. 2021. A discrete choice experiment exploring farmer preferences for insurance against extreme weather events. Journal of Environmental Management 290: Article 112607.

[16] Epanchin-Niell RS. Economics of invasive species policy and management. Biological Invasions, 2017, 19(11): 3333-3354

[17] EPPO Global Database. 2015. First report of Tecia solanivora in Mainland Spain. https://gd.eppo.int/reporting/article-5149. Accessed 15 Jul 2022.

[18] Esuola A, Hoy M, Islam Z, Turvey CG. Evaluating the effects of asymmetric information in a model of crop insurance. Agricultural Finance Review, 2007, 67(2): 341-356

[19] European Commission. 2018. Study on risk management in EU agriculture. Case study no 2: How to enhance the participation of small-scale and non-specialized farms in crop insurance schemes? https://op.europa.eu/mt/publication-detail/-/publication/b1e7484b-af7c-11e8-99ee-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. Accessed 15 Jul 2022.

[20] Garrido A, Zilberman D. Revisiting the demand for agricultural insurance: The case of Spain. Agricultural Finance Review, 2008, 68(1): 43-66

[21] Goodwin BK. Problems with market insurance in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2001, 83(3): 643-649

[22] Goodwin BK, Vado LA. Public responses to agricultural disasters: Rethinking the role of government. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2007, 55(4): 399-417

[23] Greene W, Hensher D, Rose J. Scarpa R, Alberini A. Using classical simulation-based estimators to estimate individual WTP values. Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics, 2005, Dordrecht: Springer 17-34

[24] Haghani, M., M.C.J. Bliemer, J.M. Rose, H. Oppewal, E. Lancsar. 2021a. Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimaging. Journal of Choice Modelling 41: Article 100309.

[25] Haghani, M., M.C.J. Bliemer, J.M. Rose, H. Oppewal, E. Lancsar. 2021b. Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods. Journal of Choice Modelling 41: Article 100322.

[26] Hazell P, Pomareda C, Valdez A. Crop insurance for agricultural development: Issues and experience, 1986, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press

[27] Heikkilä J, Niemi JK, Heinola K, Liski E, Myyrä S. Anything left for animal disease insurance? A choice experiment approach. Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, 2016, 97(4): 237-249

[28] Hennessy DA. Economic aspects of agricultural and food biosecurity. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 2008, 6(1): 66-77

[29] Hess S. Conditional parameter estimates from Mixed Logit models: Distributional assumptions and a free software tool. Journal of Choice Modelling, 2010, 3(2): 134-152

[30] Huang Z, Zuo A, Sun J, Guo Y. Potato farmers’ preferences for agricultural insurance in China: An investigation using the choice experiment method. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2020, 19(4): 1137-1148

[31] Johnston RJ, Boyle KJ, Adamowicz V, Bennett J, Brouwer R, Cameron TA, Hanemann WM, Hanley N Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 2017, 4(2): 319-405

[32] Jørgensen, S.L., M. Termansen, and U. Pascual. 2020. Natural insurance as condition for market insurance: Climate change adaptation in agriculture. Ecological Economics 169: Article 106489.

[33] Ladenburg J, Olsen SB. Augmenting short cheap talk scripts with a repeated opt-out reminder in choice experiment surveys. Resource and Energy Economics, 2014, 37: 39-63

[34] Liesivaara P, Myyrä S. Willingness to pay for agricultural crop insurance in the northern EU. Agricultural Finance Review, 2014, 74(4): 539-554

[35] Liesivaara P, Myyrä S. Feasibility of an area-yield insurance scheme in the EU: Evidence from Finland. EuroChoices, 2015, 14(3): 28-33

[36] Liesivaara P, Myyrä S. The demand for public–private crop insurance and government disaster relief. Journal of Policy Modeling, 2017, 39(1): 19-34

[37] List JA, Gallet CA. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2001, 20(3): 241-254

[38] Mercadé, L., J.M. Gil, Z. Kallas, and J. Serra. 2009. A choice experiment method to assess vegetable producers’ preferences for crop insurance. Paper prepared for presentation at the 113th EAAE seminar A resilient European food industry and food chain in a challenging world, 3–6 September 2009, Chania, Crete, Greece. http://purl.umn.edu/58090. Accessed 15 Jul 2022.

[39] Miranda MJ, Glauber JW. Systemic risk, reinsurance, and the failure of crop insurance markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1997, 79(1): 206-215

[40] Murphy JJ, Stevens TH. Contingent valuation, hypothetical bias, and experimental economics. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 2004, 33(2): 182-192

[41] OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2011. The public-private insurance system in Spain. In Managing risk in agriculture: Policy assessment and design, 227–254. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264116146-11-en. Accessed 15 Jul 2022.

[42] Olsen SB, Meyerhoff J. Will the alphabet soup of design criteria affect discrete choice experiment results?. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 2016, 44(2): 309-336.

[43] Pejchar L, Mooney HA. Invasive species, ecosystem services and human well-being. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2009, 24(9): 497-504

[44] Perrings C. Options for managing the infectious animal and plant disease risks of international trade. Food Security, 2016, 8(1): 27-35

[45] Reyes, C.M., A.D. Agbon, C.D. Mina, and R.A.B. Gloria. 2017. Agricultural insurance program: Lessons from different country experiences. Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) Discussion Paper Series No. 2017-02. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/173579. Accessed 15 Jul 2022.

[46] Ristaino, J.B., P.K. Anderson, D.P. Bebber, K.A. Brauman, N.J. Cunniffe, N.V. Fedoroff, C. Finegold, K.A. Garrett, et al. 2021. The persistent threat of emerging plant disease pandemics to global food security. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 118(23): Article e2022239118.

[47] Rodriguez-Couso M, Teijido M, Álvarez CJ. Rural development programmes in Galicia (north-west Spain). Outlook on Agriculture, 2006, 35(3): 183-189

[48] Santeramo FG, Ramsey AF. Crop insurance in the EU: Lessons and caution from the US. EuroChoices, 2017, 16(3): 34-39

[49] Savary S, Willocquet L, Pethybridge SJ, Esker P, McRoberts N, Nelson A. The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 2019, 3(3): 430-439

[50] Scarpa R, Notaro S, Louviere J, Raffaelli R. Exploring scale effects of best/worst rank ordered choice data to estimate benefits of tourism in alpine grazing commons. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2011, 93(3): 813-828

[51] Smith VH, Glauber JW. Agricultural insurance in developed countries: Where have we been and where are we going?. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 2012, 34(3): 363-390

[52] Stoneham G, Hester SM, Li J, Zhou R, Chaudhry A. The boundary of the market for biosecurity risk. Risk Analysis, 2021, 41(8): 1447-1462

[53] Train KE. Discrete choice methods with simulation, 2009, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

[54] Varela E, Jacobsen JB, Soliño M. Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management in Southern Spain. Ecological Economics, 2014, 106: 91-104

[55] Vyas, S., T. Dalhaus, M. Kropff, P. Aggarwal, and M.P.M. Meuwissen. 2021. Mapping global research on agricultural insurance. Environmental Research Letters 16: Article 103003.

[56] Wright BD. Multiple peril crop insurance. Choices, 2014, 29(3): 1-5.

[57] Zandersen M., J.S. Oddershede, A.B. Pedersen, H.Ø. Nielsen, and M. Termansen. 2021. Nature based solutions for climate adaptation – Paying farmers for flood control. Ecological Economics 179: Article 106705.