These case studies illustrate how costs caused by INNS increase depending on the stage of invasion that the species has reached (see Table 16.1). In situations where the species is in an early stage of invasion, the costs of eradication are relatively low. This is illustrated by
the Asian long-horned beetle, water primrose and carpet sea squirt. The costs of keeping a species out of Great Britain, or ensuring that any outbreaks are immediately eradicated are very low in comparison to the costs incurred in other countries where the species are fully established. The costs incurred in Great Britain for these species are mainly due to prevention and quarantine measures and localized eradications.
Table 16.1. Cost of intervention controls by species.
Species Control Stage Cost
Asian long-horned beetle
Anoplophora glabripennis
Early stage eradication £34,000 Late stage eradication £1,316,416,000 Carpet sea
squirt
Didemnum vexillum
Early stage eradication £2,356,000 Late stage eradication £927,608,000 Water primrose Ludwigia spp. Early stage eradication £73,000 Late stage eradication £241,908,000 Grey squirrel Sciurus
carolinensis
Early stage eradication £440,000 Late stage eradication £850,734,000
Coypu Myocastor
coypus
Mid stage eradication £4,700,000 Late stage eradication £18,800,000
However, when species become established and consolidate their presence in the country, the eradication costs increase considerably. All the case studies illustrate that the cost of late stage eradication vastly exceed eradication at an early stage of invasiveness. For example, the cost of eradicating water primrose at its present stage of invasiveness is less than 0.03%
of its potential eradication costs if the species is allowed to become fully established.
Figure 16.1. Average estimated eradication costs, depending on stage of invasiveness.
Prevention costs are on an annual basis, other costs are total.
Generally speaking, the costs increase exponentially if species are allowed to spread (Fig.
16.1). These case studies therefore show that early eradication is more cost-effective than long-term control or eradication of well-established INNS. They also demonstrate that even eradication of some well-established INNS could be more cost-effective that long-term control of the species as annual costs can quickly exceed eradication costs over a few years. These conclusions are in agreement with findings based on the other species and the general consensus on the best methods to deal with biological invasions (Wittenberg and Cock 2001). They are also supported by the fact that most attempts to eradicate well-established INNS have failed (Pimentel et al. 2001), emphasising that eradication at an early stage of invasion is the most cost-effective method of controlling an INNS.
Re fe re n c e s
Anon. (2002). Pour contrôler la prolifération des jussies (Ludwigia spp.) dans les zones humides méditerranéennes - guide technique. Technical report, Agence Méditerraneen de l’Environnement
Anon. (2006). Grey squirrels and England's woodlands: Policy and action Forestry Commission
Anon. (2007). Development of eradication strategies for Ludwigia species. Technical report, Defra PH0422
Anon. (2009). Water Primrose, or Floating Primrose Willow, Peconic Estuary Program
Baker S (2006). The eradication of coypus (Myocastor coypus) from Britain: the elements required for a successful campaign. In: Assessment and Control of Biological Invasion Risks. Shoukadoh Book Sellers, Kyoto, Japan and IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. pp. 142–
147
Bertolino S (2005). Myocastor coypus (mammal). Global Invasive Species Database
Bertolino S, Genovesi P (2003). Spread and attempted eradication of grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) in Italy, and consequences for the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in Eurasia. Biological Conservation 109: 351-358
Bertolino S, Ingegno B (2009) Modelling the distribution of an introduced species: The coypu Myocastor coypus (Mammalia, Rodentia) in Piedmont region, NW Italy.
Bertolino S, Piero G (2005). Aquatic alien mammals introduced into Italy: their impact and possibility of control. Biological Invasions in Inland Waters. Florence 5-7 May
Bertolino S, Viterbi R (2010). Long-term cost-effectiveness of coypu (Myocastor coypus) control in Piedmont (Italy) Biological Invasions (in press)
Bullard SF and Whitlatch RB (2009) In situ growth of the colonial ascidian Didemnum vexillum under different environmental conditions. Aquatic Invasions 4: 275-278
Culliney TW (2005). Benefits of classical biological control for managing invasive plants.
Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 24: 131–150
Dubos J-P (2005). Lutte contre les végétaux aquatiques envahissants - action du conseil général de loire atlantique. In: Coreve (ed.). Colloque sur la gestion des plantes exotiques envahissantes en cours d’eau et zones humides. pp. 36–38
Genillon A (2005). Présentation de l’expérience du département de maine et loire en matière de lutte contre les plantes aquatiques envahissantes. In: Coreve (ed.). Colloque sur la gestion des plantes exotiques envahissantes en cours d’eau et zones humides. pp.
39–41
Gosling LM (1989). Extinction to order. New Scientist 4 March 1989: 44–51
Gosling LM, Baker SJ, Clarke CN (1988). An attempt to remove coypus (Myocastor coypus) from a wetland habitat in East Anglia. Journal of Applied Ecology 25: 49–62
Herard F, Maspero M, Ramualde N, Jucker C, Coomobo M, Ciampitti M, Cavagna B (2009).
Anoplophora glabripennis - Eradication programme in Italy (April 2009). EPPO.
Holmes T, Aukema J, Von Holl B, Liebhold A, Sills E (2009). Economic Impacts of invasive species in forests. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1162: 18-38
Huxley L (2003). The grey squirrel review. ESI Dorset
Kelly A (2006). Removal of invasive floating pennywort Hydrocotyle ranunculoides from Gillingham Marshes, Suffolk, England. Conservation Evidence 3: 52-53
Macmillan D, Phillip S (2008). Consumptive and non-consumptive values of wild mammals.
Britain Mammal Review 38: 189-204
Meyer DA (1998). Asian longhorned beetle. Hardwood Research Bulletin 500.
McNabb TJ, Meisler J (2006). Two years of Ludwigia control in the laguna de Santa Rosa process and progress. In CAL-IPC Symposium, Rohnert Park, CA
Non-Native Species Secretariat Risk Assessment (undated) Didemnum vexillum
Norris JD (1967). A campaign against feral coypus (Myocastor coypus) in Great Britain.
Journal of Applied Ecology 4: 191–199
Oreska MPJ (2009). Assessing the economic aspects of aquatic invasive species in Great Britain. Master’s thesis, Cambridge University
Pannell A, Coutts ADM (2007). Treatment methods used to manage Didemnum vexillum in New Zealand. Technical report, Biosecurity New Zealand
Panzacchi M, Bertolino S, Cocchi R, Genovesi P (2007). Population control of coypu Myocastor coypus in Italy compared to eradication in UK: a cost-benefit analysis.
Wildlife Biology 13: 159–171
Pimentel D, McNair S, Janecka J, Wightman J, Simmonds C, O’Connell C, Wong E, Russel L, Zern J, Aquino A, Tsomondo T (2001). Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 84: 1–20
Roden DB, Haack RA, Keena MA, McKenny DW, Beall FD, Roden PM (2008). Potential northern distribution of Asian longhorned beetle in North America. 2008 USDA Forum on Invasive Species
Smith MT, Wu J (2008). Asian longhorned beetle: renewed threat to north-eastern USA and implications worldwide. International Pest Control 50: 311-316
Smith TM, Turgeon JJ, De Groot P, Gasman B (2009). Asian longhorned beetle Anoplophora glabripennis (Motschulsky): Lessons learned and opportunities to improve the process of eradication and management. American Entomologist 55: 21-25
Trocme M, Pipet N (2005). Maitrise de la colonisation et al prolifération des jussies dans le Marais Poitevin. In: Coreve (ed.). Colloque sur la gestion des plantes exotiques envahissantes en cours d’eau et zones humides. pp. 24–28
United States Geological Service (2009). Marine Nuisance Species. Woods Hole Science Center
Valentine PC, Carman MR, Blackwood DS, Heffron EJ (2007). Ecological observations on the ecological ascidian Didemnum sp. in a New England tide pool habitat. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 342: 109–121
Wittenberg R, Cock MJW (2001). Invasive alien species: A toolkit of best prevention and management practices. CAB International, Wallingford
Xu H, Ding H, Li M, Qiang S, Guo J, Han Z, Huang Z, Su H, He S, Wu H, Wan F (2006). The distribution and economic losses of alien species invasion to China. Biological Invasions 8: 1495–1500
17 Discussion
The total annual cost of INNS to the British economy, as estimated in this report, is
£1,678,434,000. Table 17.1 presents the costs by sector and country and reveals that the costs to the sectors are widespread and often significant. In most cases, the only costs that could be quantified are the direct market costs, such as the money spent on control measures or the reduction in productivity due to the presence of an INNS. Indirect costs constitute less than 1% of our total estimate and exclusion of the indirect costs from the estimate for better comparison with other studies reduces the estimate of the total cost to
£1,674,774,000.
Table 17.1 Estimated total costs of INNS to Great Britain by sector and country.
All Costs England Scotland Wales GB
Agriculture £839,189,000 £156,120,000 £71,110,000 £1,066,419,000 Forestry £45,780,000 £48,666,000 £14,950,000 £109,396,000 Quarantine and
Surveillance
£14,523,000 £1,287,000 £1,956,000 £17,766,000 Aquaculture £4,370,000 £722,000 £2,053,000 £7,145,000 Tourism and
Recreation
£78,920,000 £13,059,000 £5,759,000 £97,738,000 Construction,
Development, Infrastructure
£194,420,000 £6,870,000 £11,078,000 £212,368,000
Transport £62,894,000 £9,621,000 £8,768,000 £81,283,000 Utilities £8,515,000 £1,119,000 £483,000 £10,117,000
Research £17,387,000
Biodiversity and Conservation
£11,176,000 £5,802,000 £6,218,000 £40,583,000 Human Health
a
£37,844,000 £4,470,000 £5,816,000 £48,130,000 Subtotal £1,297,631,000 £247,736,000 £128,191,000 £1,708,332,000 Double count
a
£6,170,000 £3,268,000 £3,073,000 £29,898,000 Total costs
b
£1,291,461,000 £244,468,000 £125,118,000 £1,678,434,000
a The total cost for biodiversity does not equal the country totals, due to the inclusion of research costs, which are not divided by country. Similarly, the GB total does not equal the country totals.
B The double counting, removed to obtain the overall total cost estimate, relates to the £1,945,000 cost of quarantine and surveillance for forestry species that is included in the quarantine, forestry, and research sectors.
The £8,621,000 cost of rhododendron control is included in both the forestry and biodiversity sectors. Finally, the entire cost of research is included in the biodiversity and conservation sector, as all research carried out on INNS will be of benefit to biodiversity and conservation either directly or indirectly.
INNS have by far the largest effect on the agriculture and horticulture sector, amounting to just under two thirds of the total estimated cost (Table 17.1). These costs arise from a wide variety of species, from plant pathogens, insect pests and weeds to some of the most common mammalian species in Great Britain, such as rabbit. A further cost that can be considered to affect agriculture is the amount spent on quarantine and surveillance. While approximately £1.9 million of a total of approximately £18 million is spent on forestry quarantine, the remaining £16 million is spent on quarantine and surveillance measures for plant health, primarily agriculture. This emphasises the impact of INNS on the agricultural industry in Britain. The cost to construction, development and infrastructure is also considerable, but the costs in this sector arise from very few species, with Japanese knotweed being by far the most costly species, followed by the brown rat.
The majority of the costs are incurred by England, with far lower costs to Scotland and Wales. Based on the respective land areas, England has higher and Scotland lower costs than expected, and Wales roughly what one would expect if the costs were equally distributed over Great Britain. This is due to a number of factors. England has proportionally more agricultural land than Scotland and Wales and as this is the sector with the highest costs, a larger proportion of the costs are incurred in England. England also has more international transport links than the other two countries and is therefore more likely to be the entry point for any invasion. Consequently, more non-native species have become established in England and some species that are widespread in England only have a limited distribution in Scotland and Wales (e.g. grey squirrel).
Of those costs that could be directly attributed to a species or group of species, plants as a group inflict the highest costs to the economy, with mammals and plant pathogens also causing considerable costs across the sectors (Table 17.2). This is likely to be due to the large number of non-native plants in the country, compared to the number of non-native species in other taxa. Spending on INNS management in general, for example by conservation organisations on general land management where a portion of the cost relates to INNS, was not included in this summary table.
On an individual species level, rabbits and Japanese knotweed cause the highest cost (Table 17.3), reflecting their widespread distribution throughout the country, as well as their impact on a number of different sectors.
Table 17.2. The annual costs of species groups to the British economy.
Group Cost
Plants £483,030,000
Plant pathogens £403,063,000
Mammals £402,483,000
Insects £254,695,000
Birds £6,284,000
Total £1,563,127,000
Table 17.3. The annual cost of individual species or species groups to the British economy.
Species Cost
Rabbit £263,173,000
Japanese knotweed £165,609,000 Common field-speedwell/
wild oat
£100,000,000
Rat £62,162,000
Potato cyst nematodes £50,000,000 Non-native deer £34,907,000
Varroa mite £27,119,000
Floating pennywort £25,467,000
House Mouse £17,876,000
Grey squirrel £14,067,000
Rhododendron £8,621,000
Slipper limpet £5,514,000
Mink £4,797,000
Geese/swans £3,617,000
Green spruce aphid £3,569,000
Signal crayfish £2,689,000
Giant hogweed £2,362,000
Himalayan balsam £1,000,000
Buddleia £961,000
Edible dormouse £364,000
Great spruce bark beetle £163,000
Carpet sea squirt £107,000
Parakeets £38,000
Total £794,182,000
The difference in the estimated costs of species and species groups (Tables 17.2 and 17.3) reflects that the calculations for the cost of INNS to agriculture and due to plant pathogens are based on the treatment of all unwanted species in agricultural systems, and the portion of these species that are estimated to be non-native, and not on the treatment of individual species. Consequently, it can be seen that roughly one third of the total cost estimate is based on the more detailed calculations of the impact of individual species.
The results from this study demonstrate that the highest level of interest from stakeholders, both on a sector and a species level, is not necessarily in areas where INNS cause the most costs. The majority of respondents to the questionnaire worked in the biodiversity and conservation sector, even though costs were much higher in other sectors. Follow-up interviews with respondents from the biodiversity and conservation sector confirmed that, although people in this sector are mostly aware of the ecological impact, they were unable to put a monetary value on the damage or changes due to INNS. Oreska and Aldridge (2010) reported similar difficulties associated with the valuation of impact of INNS to ecosystems by stakeholders. This does not mean, however, that the costs of INNS are inconsiderable in this sector. Indeed, the true costs are likely to be higher than indicated in this report and the low cost estimate is due to the difficulties in placing a monetary value on the effects of INNS on the environment and ecosystems. This research has also revealed that the cost of control or perceived impact of INNS as a separate group is limited in various sectors, because all undesirable species are treated in the same manner, whether the species is native or non-native to Great Britain (e.g. insect pests in agriculture or hull-fouling). However, it was clear from interviews with people in those sectors that the lack of specific treatment is not due to a lack of awareness of the problems caused by INNS. For example, strict regulations exist in the shipping industry to prevent the introduction and spread of non-native species.
Furthermore, there is considerable spending on quarantine and surveillance, again indicating awareness of the problems caused by INNS, as both quarantine and surveillance measures help to prevent the introduction, establishment and spread of new non-native species.