{"id":3528,"date":"2022-08-17T18:58:31","date_gmt":"2022-08-17T18:58:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nivemnic.us\/?p=3528"},"modified":"2022-08-17T18:58:31","modified_gmt":"2022-08-17T18:58:31","slug":"invasive-species-costs-point-to-inadequate-effort-especially-prevention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nivemnic.us\/?p=3528","title":{"rendered":"Invasive Species Costs Point to Inadequate Effort – especially Prevention"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/a>
EAB-killed ash tree falls before it can be taken down; photo courtesy of former Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Concerned by growing impacts of bioinvasion and inadequate responses by national governments worldwide and by international bodies, a group of experts have attempted to determine how much invasive species are costing. They\u2019ve built the global database \u2013 InvaCost. See Daigne et al<\/em>. 2020 here<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several studies have been based on these data. In two earlier blogs, I summarized two of these articles, e.g., Cuthbert<\/a> et al<\/em>. on bioinvasion costs, generally, and Moodley<\/a> et al<\/em>. on invasive species costs in protected areas, specifically. Here, I look at two additional studies. Ahmed et al. <\/em>focusses on the \u201cworst\u201d 100 invasives affecting conservation — as determined by the International Union of Conservation and Nature (IUCN)<\/a>. The second, by Turbelin et al<\/em>., examines pathways of introduction. Full citations of all sources appear at the end of this blog.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is clear from all of these papers that the authors (and I!) are frustrated by the laxity with which virtually all governments respond to bioinvasions. Thus more robust actions are needed. The authors and I also agree that data on economic costs influence political decision-makers more than ecological concerns. However, InvaCost \u2013 while the best source in existence — is not yet comprehensive enough to generate the thoroughly-documented economic data about specific aspects of bioinvasion that would be most useful in supporting proposed strategies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scientists working with InvaCost recognize that the data are patchy. At the top level, these data demonstrate high losses and management costs imposed by bioinvasion. The global total \u2013 including both realized damage and management costs \u2013 is estimated at about $1.5 trillion since 1960. In fact, these overall costs are probably substantially underestimates (Cathbert et al<\/em>.). [For a summary of data gaps, go to the end of the blog.] Furthermore, they recognize that species imposing the highest economic costs might not cause the greatest ecological harm (Moodley et al<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
citrus longhorned beetle exit hole in bonsai tree; USDA APHIS photo<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Comparing estimated management costs to estimated damage, the authors conclude that countries invest too little in bioinvasion management efforts and — furthermore — that e<\/strong>xpenditures are squandered on the wrong \u201cend\u201d of bioinvasion<\/strong> \u2013 after introduction and even establishment, rather than in preventive efforts or rapid response upon initial detection of an invader. While I think this is true, these findings might be skewed by the fact that fewer than a third of countries reporting invasive species costs included data on specifically preventive actions. Cuthbert et al<\/em>. notes that failing to try to prevent introductions imposes an avoidable burden<\/strong> on resource management agencies. Ahmed et al<\/em>. developed a model they hope will overcome the perverse   incentives that lead decision-makers to either do nothing or delay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Why Decision-Makers Delay<\/strong><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Citing the InvaCost data, the participating experts reiterate the long-standing call for prioritizing investments at the earliest possible invasion stage. Ahmed et al.<\/em> found that this was the most effective practice even when costs accrue slowly. They ask, then, why decision-makers often delay initiating management. I welcome this attention because we need to find ways to rectify this situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    They conclude, first, that invasive species threats compete for resources with other threats to agriculture and natural systems. Second, Cuthbert et al<\/em>. and Ahmed et al<\/em>. both note that decision-makers find it difficult to justify expenditures before impacts are obvious and\/or stakeholders demand action. By that time, of course, management of invasions are extremely difficult and expensive \u2013 if possible at all. I appreciate the wording in Ahmed et al<\/em>.: bioinvasion costs can be<\/strong> deceitfully slow to accrue, <\/strong>so policy makers don\u2019t appreciate the urgency of taking action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Cuthbert et al<\/em>. also note that impacts are often imposed on other sectors, or in different regions, than those focused on by the decision-makers. Stakeholders\u2019 perceptions of whether an introduced species is causing a \u201cdetrimental\u201d impact also vary. Finally, when efficient proactive management succeeds \u2013 prevents any impact \u2013 it paradoxically undermines evidence of the value of this action!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ahmed et al<\/em>. point out that in many cases, biosecurity measures and other proactive approaches are even more cost effective when several species are managed simultaneously<\/strong>. They cite as examples airport quarantine and interception programs; Check Clean Dry campaigns encouraging boaters to avoid moving mussels and weeds; ballast water treatment systems; and transport legislation e.g.<\/em>, the international standard for wood packaging (ISPM#15<\/a>)<\/strong> [I have often discussed the weaknesses in ISPM#15 implementation; go to \u201cwood packaging\u201d under \u201cCategories\u201d (below the archive list)].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"<\/a>
    pallet “graveyard”; photo by Anand Prasad<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n