TABLE 4.
Summary of parameter estimates and assumptions.
| Parameter | Improved exclusion, surveillance, eradication, and containment (ESEC) | Integrated crop and disease management (ICDM) | Conventional breeding of FWB resistant banana cultivars (CBRC) | Genetically modified FWB resistant banana cultivars (GMRC) |
| Change in yield (%) = avoided yield loss | 100 | 80 | 100 | 100 |
| Production cost change (%) | 1 | 20 | NA | NA |
| R&D costs (US$ million)1 | 16.2 | 30.5 | 47.7 | 8.5 |
| Dissemination costs (US$ha of new adoption) | 50 | 80 | 50 | 50 |
| Additional costs | Establishing quarantine system2 : US$50/ha Maintaining quarantine system: US$5/ha/year prior to Foc arrival and US$10/ha/year with Foc | NA | NA | NA |
| Adoption ceiling (% of target domain) | 1003 | 30–50 | 80 | 40 |
| Adoption ceiling (% of total national production area) | 2–51 | 0.3–25 | 0.8–41 | 0.1–18 |
| Research lag (years) | 8 | 10 | 17 | 12 |
| Time between first adoption and adoption ceiling (years) | 10 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| Chance of research success (%) | 80 | 90 | 60 | 40 |
| Chance of national uptake4 (%) | 80 | 25, 50, or 755 | 90 | 70 |
1Matched 1:1 with additional costs expected to occur at the national level for the cost-benefit analysis. 2In year 5 for countries with high importance of banana and in year 10 for countries with low importance of banana. 3Given that quarantine and surveillance measures are executed at the national level, we assumed that all farmers “adopt” or benefit from the technology once the country implements the quarantine scheme, i.e., “adoption” is 100% of the target domain. 4Probability of successful up-take of the technology by national level (extension) agencies to enable adoption. 5Depending on the importance of banana to national public policy and national research and extension investments.