Compensation for quarantine breaches in plant health

Abstract

Compensation for quarantine breaches in plant health is less common than in animal or public health. Growers are often left to meet costs of control, even in containment and eradication programmes overseen by government. Where compensation is paid, it is generally limited to the period where outbreaks are under official control leading to eradication and does not usually extend to long term losses if eradication fails. Many compensation examples apply to individual farms or associated businesses, but can also operate through resource sharing agreements between government authorities. There are several purposes for which compensation could be paid: to encourage effective prevention or control responses; to prevent the collapse of strategic sectors; or as some recognition of a failure of responsibilities to prevent quarantine outbreaks. Significant counterarguments are that compensation might encourage moral hazard, inducing more outbreaks, and that the costs of outbreaks may be even more unfairly distributed. There is increasing interest in the concept of cost and responsibility sharing in plant health (and in animal health) and various models of compensation have been identified as part of the process of sharing. Payments could be made from government, possibly within preset limits, and/or payments could be made from independent or mutual insurers, with either capped or uncapped funds. Examples of each of these schemes exist, and they serve different purposes. It is unlikely that a universal compensation scheme would be appropriate to meet all objectives or circumstances. Compensation schemes should be planned before outbreaks to ensure clear responsibilities and funding.