Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits

Abstract

International commerce in live organisms presents a policy challenge for trade globalization; sales of live organisms create wealth, but some nonindigenous species cause harm. To reduce damage, some countries have implemented species screening to limit the introduction of damaging species. Adoption of new risk assessment (RA) technologies has been slowed, however, by concerns that RA accuracy remains insufficient to produce positive net economic benefits. This concern arises because only a small proportion of all introduced species escape, spread, and cause harm (i.e., become invasive), so a RA will exclude many noninvasive species (which provide a net economic benefit) for every invasive species correctly identified. Here, we develop a simple cost:benefit bioeconomic framework to quantify the net benefits from applying species prescreening. Because invasive species are rarely eradicated, and their damages must therefore be borne for long periods, we have projected the value of RA over a suitable range of policy time horizons (10 -500 years). We apply the model to the Australian plant quarantine program and show that this RA program produces positive net economic benefits over the range of reasonable assumptions. Because we use low estimates of the financial damage caused by invasive species and high estimates of the value of species in the ornamental trade, our results underestimate the net benefit of the Australian plant quarantine program. In addition, because plants have relatively low rates of invasion, applying screening protocols to animals would likely demonstrate even greater benefits.invasion pathways ͉ species screening ͉ economics ͉ quarantine ͉ cost-benefit

Impacts of biological invasions: what's what and the way forward

“…For instance, the Australian plant quarantine program provides savings by screening out putative invaders. Even after accounting for lost revenue from the few non-weeds that might be excluded, screening could save the Australian economy US$1.67 billion over 50 years [47].…”

Biological invasions, ecological resilience and adaptive governance

“…Invasive speciesdnon-native species that geographically spread and increase in abundance following initial establishment (Lodge et al, 2006)dby affecting ecological processes (Gandhi and Herms, 2010), engineering ecosystem structure (Crooks, 2002) or affecting community dynamics (Yurkonis et al, 2005), can significantly alter ecosystem structure and function that may result in a significant alteration in the provision of ecosystem services. Although there has been a recent shift toward prevention of invasions (Cook et al, 2010;Simberloff, 2013), traditional approaches to managing invasions have been largely reactionary in nature, with a focus on control through mitigation and eradication (Keller et al, 2007;Foxcroft and McGeoch, 2011). This control approach grew out of a dominant narrative that invasions are ecologically, economically and culturally undesirable, and has been reinforced by many documented cases of detrimental, and often highly visible, impacts (Keller et al, 2007).…”

“…Although there has been a recent shift toward prevention of invasions (Cook et al, 2010;Simberloff, 2013), traditional approaches to managing invasions have been largely reactionary in nature, with a focus on control through mitigation and eradication (Keller et al, 2007;Foxcroft and McGeoch, 2011). This control approach grew out of a dominant narrative that invasions are ecologically, economically and culturally undesirable, and has been reinforced by many documented cases of detrimental, and often highly visible, impacts (Keller et al, 2007).…”

Economics of invasive species policy and management

“…Studies have found positive net benefits from using pest risk assessments to inform exclusion decisions across a range of contexts, including plant, bird, and reptile imports (Keller et al 2007;Springborn et al 2011Springborn et al , 2015Schmidt et al 2012). Additionally, economists have developed an economically and statistically rigorous approach for screening nonindigenous species imports in a way that efficiently trades off the benefits of excluding potential invaders with the costs to consumers of unnecessarily rejecting species that will not become invasive (Springborn et al 2011(Springborn et al , 2015Lieli and Springborn 2012;Schmidt et al 2012).…”

“…This approach assesses whether the benefits of a project outweigh its costs to determine if it is a worthwhile investment (e.g., Keller et al 2007;Zavaleta 2000). The assessment requires estimates of benefits and costs, measured in the same units (generally monetary).…”