Key information for interpreting the estimates
Approach & data: Level / range of costs at the national level are based on the data from the NOBANIS network and ten (10) NOBANIS network countries. The national level costs include running costs of IEWS (e.g. personnel and equipment costs, including overheads), costs of developing and updating national inventories, coordinating and gathering data from monitoring / surveillance activities at national level (i.e. costs of ‘on the ground’ monitoring excluded) and external assistance (e.g. for IT expertise). Note: information on the costs of IEWS related research activities and carrying out risk assessments at national level were also collected but to avoid overlaps this data was used in sections 6.3 and 6.10 below. See Annex 5 for more detailed information on these estimates. The information on the costs at the EU / European level are based on an earlier analysis carried out by Genovesi et al. in 2010. These costs include the overall budget needed to establish IEWS technical structure (e.g. network, an observatory, an agency, etc.) with the declared task to coordinate the activities and facilitate the flow of information between the concerned actors and institutions. As such, the calculation of the costs for such a technical structure didn't include specific ‘on-the-ground’ monitoring activities and risk assessment related work.
Robustness & limitations: Regarding the national data, the number of countries that provided information via the questionnaire is partial (37 per cent of EU-27). Therefore, the results and the related extrapolations are indicative only, reflecting the perceptions of the Member States responding to the survey. Regarding the EU level analysis (Genovesi et al. 2010), the costs of different IEWS options can be regarded as tentative estimates that have been developed on the basis of similar existing structures and expert analyses in the context of the DAISIE project.
Overlaps with other estimates: The estimated IEWS costs should not, in principle, overlap with other cost estimated presented in this Chapter. The costs of EU and national level RAs, foreseen to be integrated into the IEWS systems as appropriate (e.g. if the EU IAS strategy will include some kind of formal regulation of trade) are considered separately in section 6.3 below.
171 Possible cost-savings: See 6.3 below.
The baseline analysis shows that this type of system does exist for some EU sectors, namely animal and plant health. At the pan-European level, in the plant health sector, EPPO operates as a central authority, developing reference lists, collecting information on new incursions and notifying member countries of the presence in their territory of new plant pests that need to be managed. To run such a system EPPO has a central headquarters, a permanent secretariat and a small permanent staff dedicated to reporting. Outside these two sectors, there are no dedicated networks of competent authorities in Europe to support early detection and surveillance of other IAS.
The development of a European or EU-wide system could build on a number of valuable decision support tools that are already available. For example, IAS inventories such as DAISIE (en EU-funded FP6 project) and the NOBANIS network319 exist at the regional level.
Making the best use of such existing databases and other tools is foreseen to limit the investments necessary to establish an information and early warning system for the EU. It is acknowledged that other database and inventories exists at the global level (see Genovesi et al. 2010), however their utility in this context is considered to be limited as they are not European focused and some might not be freely available to users.
The estimates presented in this section on the costs for implementing an early warning and information system(s) in the EU, are based on the figures reported in Genovesi et al. (2010) and the data provided by a number of Member States in reply to a dedicated questionnaire circulated in June 2010. Considering the limited number of countries that provided information via the questionnaire (37 per cent of EU-27) the results and the relative extrapolations must be considered indicative only. On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that some of the respondent countries made a special effort in assessing the potential costs of a framework which is currently being tested by just a few countries in Europe and the world (i.e. the baseline information is limited). As a consequence, the figures collected reflect the assessments made by the single countries and their ‘subjective’
perception of the IAS problem and of the resources / level of ambition needed to deal with it.
Based on the survey carried out in the context of this study, it appears that several European countries are developing national information systems and/or coordinated programmes for IAS. These systems and programmes are based on inventories of alien species, development of decision support tools such as alarm lists and establishment of technical panels and rapid response working groups. In fact, the actual costs currently paid by some MS to implement elements of an information and early warning system in their territory, as revealed from the responses by the countries which replied to the questionnaire, show that the level of resources currently invested varies widely, from a minimum of only 2500 EUR / year (Lithuania: simple maintenance of a national database) to 625 000 EUR / year (Netherlands: a comprehensive national programme for early warning) (Table 6.2). On average the current expenditure of each MS (calculated on the figures
319 NOBANIS network maintains and constantly updates a list of alien species for countries participating in the network.
172
provided by 10 countries) amount to over 122 000 EUR / year. Such figure could be even higher if we consider the need for implementing risk assessment (RA) related activities which are currently fully integrated on the IEWS framework of measures on a sub-sample of four countries only, e.g. ranging from 10 800 EUR / year in the case of Sweden up to 225 000 EUR / year for the Netherlands (Note: these RA costs are not included in Table 6.2 below as they are considered in section 6.3 below). Thus, based on the information available, the efforts to establish and maintain their national information systems seem to be taking a considerable amount of MS resources.
Based on the information in Table 6.2 below, the costs of national IEWS could significantly rise in the future close to 450 000 EUR / MS, according to the data provided by a six countries on the estimated costs related to develop a basic national information system on IAS. On the basis of this average figure, the total costs that the EU-27 would spend if each MS is expected to undertake measures to implement its own basic early warning and information systems (e.g. without the central coordination of a EU technical structure) would be extrapolated in around 12 million EUR / year. Again, such figure would not be inclusive of the costs for risk assessment related activities considered in section 6.3 below.
The information compiled was used to carry out a preliminary assessment of the benefits and costs for developing a centralised information system (i.e. potential cost savings). The comparison is based on the assumption that a centralised system could reduce the complexity of individual national systems by carrying out some of their functions and optimising synergies. It is assumed, for example that with a fully operational European information system, individual countries will only need to provide simple inventories of alien species recorded in their territories whilst the centralised system would produce information at the EU level, e.g. robust EU-level alarm lists and expansion models. Also, it is assumed that if no centralised system were developed, individual countries would eventually need to establish complex structures for data handling with significant costs for the national authorities (i.e. as already developed in the Great Britain and the Netherlands).
Assuming that the establishment of an effective information system at the EU level would limit the investment in MS to the development and maintenance of a basic national databases these costs, according to the data provided by a subsample of six countries only, would range from 2500 EUR / year in the case of Latvia, to 55 000 EUR / year for Austria. On the basis of such figures, on average the costs for each MS would be around 26 000 EUR / year / Member State (Table 6-2).
Given urgency to set up IEWS system(s) to promptly and effectively respond to the threat of biological invasions, it is very likely that in an absence of a centralised EU IEWS system MS would soon need to develop their own independent and fully operational IEWS at national level. On the basis of the response provided by a subsample of eight countries, the implementation of a fully operational independent national IEWS would require an average budget of around 1.35 million EUR / year / Member State, ranging from 25 500 EUR / year for Latvia to 9.5 million EUR / year for Sweden. On the basis of this average, the extrapolation of the total expenditure for the EU-27 would amount to over 36 million EUR / year. It therefore appears that the establishment of a European centralised IEWS may reduce the overall required investment at the national level (See Annex 4 for more detailed
173
information on these estimates). Again, these figures do not include the costs for foreseen risk assessment considered in section 6.3 below.
Regarding the estimated costs of a pan-European framework based on a central information system, a previous assessment by Genovesi et al. (2010) has shown that establishing a coordinated early warning and rapid response framework the EU (and extending it also to the pan-European region) would require between a minimum of 300 000 EUR / year up to a maximum of 6 million EUR / year depending on the levels of commitment by EU institution and MS, e.g. differing budgetary and personnel needs. For example, a dedicated structure could take the form of a scientific panel, an observatory, or a centralised agency which would cost respectively 300-500 000 EUR/ year, 1,5-2 million EUR / year, and 3-6 million EUR / year. At the most comprehensive level, it has been estimated that the development of a dedicated and comprehensive European biosecurity policy would require a budget in the order of magnitude of 10 billion EUR / year. A more detailed description of the alternative architectures proposed for developing a European framework is given in section 7.4.
174
Table 6-2 Examples of the current & estimated levels of costs related to IAS information and early warning systems at national level (EUR / year). Information presented in this table is based on the questionnaire to the NOBANIS network member countries, see Annex 4 for more information. Austria (EUR / year) Denmark (EUR / year) Finland (EUR / year) Ireland (EUR / year) Latvia (EUR / year) Lithuania (EUR / year)
The Netherlands (EUR / year) Spain (EUR / year) Sweden (EUR / year) UK (EUR / year) AVERAGE (EUR / year) Present level of expenditure 5.000 7.500 17.000 36.552 2.500 2.500 625.000 33.000 329.800 170.000 122.885 Estimated costs for collecting information only (literature search, experts networking, etc) 55.000 7.500 50.000 28.486 2.500 12.500 Not available Not available Not available Not available 25.997 Estimate costs for developing a basic national system on IAS 112.000 100.000 Not available Not available 6.000 30.000 Not available 14.000 2.410.000 Not available 445.333 Estimated costs for developing a fully operational national information system 240.000 200.000 500.000 110.500 25.500 55.000 Not available Not available 9.500.000 170.000 1.350.125
175