Research Article |
Corresponding author: Benjamin D. Hoffmann ( ben.hoffmann@csiro.au ) Academic editor: Philip Hulme
© 2016 Benjamin D. Hoffmann, Linda M. Broadhurst.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Hoffmann BD, Broadhurst LM (2016) The economic cost of managing invasive species in Australia. NeoBiota 31: 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.31.6960
|
Like most jurisdictions, Australia is managing a broad range of invasive alien species. Here, we provide the first holistic quantification of how much invasive species impact Australia’s economy, and how much Australia spends on their management. In the 01–02 financial year (June to July), the combined estimated cost (economic losses and control) of invasive species was $9.8 billion, rising to $13.6 billion in the 11–12 financial year. Approximately $726 million of grants funded through the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e. federal funding) was spent on invasive species management and research between 1996 to 2013. In 01–02, total national expenditure on invasive species was $2.31 billion, rising to $3.77 billion in 11–12. Agriculture accounted for more than 90% of the total cost. For 01–02 and 11–12, these expenditure figures equate to $123 and $197 per person per year respectively, as well as 0.32 and 0.29% of GDP respectively. All values provided here are most likely to be underestimates of the real values due to the significant constraints of the data obtainable. Invasive species are clearly a significant economic burden in Australia. Given the extent of the issue of invasive species globally, there is a clear need for better quantifications of both economic loss and expenditure in more jurisdictions, as well as in Australia.
cost, exotic, impact, invasion, economy
Australia is a world leader in biosecurity policy and management, having some of the world’s most stringent biosecurity. These controls are necessary to assist protecting Australia’s biodiversity, agriculture, and aesthetic values. But like most jurisdictions, Australia is managing a broad range of invasive alien species due to a legacy of both accidental and deliberate introductions. The impacts of many invasive species in Australia are some of the most dramatic and well known globally and include extreme seasonal plagues of rabbits (
Of the approximately 2700 exotic plants species now established within Australia, 429 have been declared noxious or are under some form of legislative control (
Surprisingly, given the extent of Australia’s issues with invasive species, and the global need to increase public awareness of the issue of invasive species, data of expenditure on invasive species management is difficult to obtain. However, this issue of poor data availability is not just restricted to Australia, and arises from both the difficult nature of costing the expense of invasive species as well as the lack of good data collection by agencies. As an example of a costing difficulty, most herbicides are broad spectrum and they are used to control both native and exotic weeds within the same crop making it difficult to cost the financial implications of exotic species alone. Where data exist they are largely estimates, predominantly associated with agriculture expenditure or loss, focused on individual taxa (e.g. weeds, vertebrates, invertebrates:
The largest single source of environmental funding within Australia is provided by the federal government and for the last 20 years has been primarily allocated through three programs: National Heritage Trust (NHT, 1997–2008), Caring for Our Country (CfOC, 2008–2013) and the Biodiversity Fund (2011 to current). Additionally there have been two more programs specifically targeting invasive species: Defeating the Weeds Menace (DtWM, 2004–2009) and the National Weeds and Productivity Research Program (NWPRP, 2010–2012). Although some analyses have been conducted to quantify expenditure on invasive species within these programs, for example against weeds for NHT (Martin and van Klinken 2006), the holistic figure of expenditure for all invasive species by these programs is not clear. Here, we provide the first holistic quantification of Australia’s economic loss and expenditure on invasive species in terrestrial and freshwater systems by examining data available from annual reports for these programs as well as that from other sources that calculate the economic loss imposed by, and expenditure on, invasive species. We envisage that these data will be useful globally to assist with raising general awareness of the importance of invasive species and biosecurity. Importantly our data do not include diseases or pathogens because management expenditure on these taxa largely do not come from competitive federal grants, and these taxa also cross into the human health arena which is outside of the focus of this study. Where possible we have excluded data for these taxa from cited publications. We also intentionally only conduct analyses at the national level to provide a broad overview of national expenditure for an international audience.
To provide a holistic picture of the economic loss imposed by, and expenditure on, invasive species within Australia we obtained financial data from accessible sources with a key focus on invasive species management or research within the 01–02 and 11–12 financial years (July to June). These reporting periods were used as they were the only years where documents reported some of these data. Data of estimates of economic loss imposed by invertebrates, vertebrates and weeds for 01–02 were sourced from
Data of economic loss and expenditure were also obtained and summarised for as many other global jurisdictions that we could find. Data were obtained for the USA in 2003 (
Annual reports and listings of approved projects within the five Australian federal government funding programs were sourced from each program’s respective website [NHT (http://nrmonline.nrm.gov.au/catalog), CfOC (www.nrm.gov.au/funding/approved/index.html), Biodiversity Fund (Round 1, 2011–12, www.environment.gov.au/cleanenergyfuture/biodiversity-fund/round-1/index.html#lists)], or reports obtained elsewhere [DtWM (
Additional inconsistencies within and among funding sources were encountered that limit the accuracy of the data. First, CfOC funding was allocated through multiple programs, but the allocation and reporting of funding in each program varied making it difficult to maintain a consistent approach to calculating expenditure. Second, was that CfOC adopted a new model with respect to how Commonwealth funds were devolved. In recognition of the regional and local roles that Australia’s 56 regional natural resource management organisations play, these were able to secure 3–5 years of funding (base-level funding) to work with local communities to identify and set local priorities for investment. Consequently, comparisons of pre- and post-2008 for base-level funding cannot be made. In subsequent years where base-level funding is included, these data are likely to be inflated as only a proportion would have been used directly for invasive species management. As such, and because base-level funding was often the greatest proportion of the overall funding, we report data with and without base-level funding.
Although we preferably would have analysed data down to numerous taxonomic levels (e.g. lifeform: plants/vertebrates/invertebrates or species-level: snakeweed/rabbits/fire ants), we were not able to provide accurate divisions for most data. For example, for the federal grants, there was no way to determine what the focal invasive species was if the name was not in the project title, and such level of discrimination was only possible in the oldest data (NHT). Additionally, funding allocation was problematic in the numerous instances where multiple invasive species were targeted simultaneously (e.g. crop spraying, woodland restoration). Therefore all invasive species are considered together. In addition to basic data summation, Australian data of economic cost and national expenditure were also expressed in some instances per person (Australian citizens) and as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP: national financial turnover). Australia’s population and GDP data were accessed from the Australian Bureau of Statistics website www.abs.gov.au (accessed 29 April 2014). Because population data were obtained only every five years, we calculated data for the other years by averaging data between census years. We present financial data along timeframes both as raw data, and adjusted for inflation to 2012 for total economic loss and expenditure, and to 2013 for federal expenditure. Data were adjusted for inflation using the Reserve Bank of Australia’s Inflation Calculator at: http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html.
In the 01–02 financial year, the combined estimated cost (economic loss and expenditure combined) of invasive species was $9.79 billion ($12.88 billion adjusted to 2012 values) (Table
Estimated economic loss and management expenditure for exotic species for numerous countries and timeframes. Data of different timeframes are not adjusted for inflation. For reports of individual countries except Australia only the most recent report was used. Reports are listed in order of the year that the data relate to.
Location | Data sources | Description of data used here and applicable year | Economic loss | Management expenditure | Management expenditure as % of economic loss | Economic loss and management expenditure as % of GDP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
USA, UK, India, South Africa, Australia, Brazil combined |
|
All data^, for approx. 1998 | USD$306 billion | USD$30 billion | 8.9 | _ |
Germany |
|
All data for 20 species, for approx. 2002 | EUR€113.4 million | EUR€53.7 million | Not calculated as data are only for a few species | Not calculated as data are only for a few species |
China |
|
Indirect costs only of forest insects and pathogens^ for 2000 | ¥15.44 billion | _ | _ | 0.01 |
China |
|
All data, for approx. 2000 | USD$14.45 billion** | _ | _ | 0.01 |
Canada |
|
16 species^, for approx. 2000 | CDN$34.5 billion** | _ | _ | Not calculated as data are only for a few species |
USA |
|
Species with data of both impact and control, excluding microbes and disease for approx. 2003 | USD$40.31 billion | $USD9.01 billion | 22.4 |
0.96 |
USA |
|
All data excluding microbes and disease for approximately 2003 | USD$88.64 billion | USD$12.03 billion | 13.6 | 1.96 |
Sweden |
|
All data for 12 species, excluding HIV, for 2006 | SEK1911.5 million | SEK852.5 million | Not calculated as data are only for a few species | Not calculated as data are only for a few species |
EU | Impact cost from Kettunen et al. 2009, management expenditure from |
25 species, for 2006 | EUR€20 billion | EUR€18.3 million* | Not calculated as data are only for a few species | Not calculated as data are only for a few species |
New Zealand |
|
All data, for 2008 | NZ$2454 million | NZ$836 million | 34.1 | 1.86 |
Great Britain |
|
All data^, for approx. 2010 | £1.68 billion** |
_ | _ | 0.07 |
Southeast Asia |
|
All data^, for 2011 | $USD33.5 billion** | _ | _ | 2.61## |
Australia |
|
All data, for 2001-2002 financial year | AUD$7.48 billion | AUD$2.31 billion | 30.9 | 1.37 |
Australia |
|
All data for 2011-2012 financial year | AUD$9.83 billion | AUD$3.77 billion | 38.4 | 0.92 |
Approximately $726 million was spent by the Australian federal government on invasive species between 1996 to 2013 in the five funding sources, but with base-level funding excluded this figure was reduced to $282 million (Figure
Total expenditure of federal grants per financial year for invasive species management with base-level funding included (black) and excluded (white) using A actual data, and B data adjusted for inflation to 2013 values.
Overall there was a trend of an increase in the number of projects and the average value of each project over time, with the patterns of value being consistent for raw data and data adjusted for inflation to 2013 values (Figure
Number (columns) and mean value (points) of projects funded per financial year including (black) and excluding (white) base-level allocations of funding using actual data (circles), and data adjusted for inflation to 2013 values (squares). Missing data could not be obtained.
Of the three funding sources that were not specific for invasive species (NHT, CFoC and Biodiversity Fund), the proportion of total expenditure on invasive species had a clear gradual increase with time (Figure
Percentage of total expenditure of federal grants per financial year used for invasive species management with base-level funding included (black) and excluded (white).
Funding (unadjusted for inflation) supplied to Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) for scientific research focused on invasive animals (black) and plants (white) per financial year. Note that much of the data are uniform across years because yearly data were calculated by averaging the total funding figure of each CRC over its lifespan.
In 01–02, total national expenditure on invasive species was $2.31 billion ($3.03 billion adjusted to 2012 values), rising to $3.77 billion in 11–12 (Table
Dealing with invasive species is clearly a significant expense to the Australian economy and environmental budgets. As far as we are aware, the only prior attempt to calculate the holistic cost of economic loss and management expenses for invasive species in Australia is
Clearly both federal government and total expenditure on invasive species increased over time, with the exception of a more recent decline, both in real terms and as a proportion against all measures (i.e. GDP, per capita, calculated impacts), rising to $3.77 billion in 11–12. But it remains unclear what drove the pattern of increasing expenditure, especially the notable increase post 2008 and then the subsequent decline. Was the increase a response to increasing numbers of invasive species and/or their impacts, new legislation such as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 which is the Australian Government’s central piece of environmental legislation to protect biodiversity of national and international significance, multiple government biosecurity reviews (
An aspect of the expenditure that remains unquantified is the outcome. Are management efforts reducing the influence and extent of invasive species, or are they merely slowing an inevitable spread and rise of impacts? This question has been queried for weed management funded by NHT grants, but it was found that it was not possible to assess program effectiveness due to inadequate reporting requirements, as well as the timing of management programs usually extending far beyond short-term funding arrangements (Martin and van Klinken 2006). Likewise we were unable to perform any such analyses here that quantify management success, value for money, or even progress towards mitigating invasive species impacts in Australia. There is no doubt that there are many localised successes that have mitigated an environmental issue by preventing incursions, successfully controlling an invasive population (
At the global scale, Australia was the jurisdiction with the highest expenditure relative to the estimated economic losses in 11–12 and among the highest is 01–02, but these data should be interpreted with caution because there is such data paucity that very few comparisons could be made. Importantly, most data available for comparison are approximately a decade older than the most recent data presented here, and all data have limited accuracies. In the only estimate of the cost of invasive species to the global economy,
In collating the data for Table
Our attempts to collate data for our analyses also highlighted some serious shortcomings globally of the recording and availability of data relating to invasive species, which then greatly hinders analyses that can be conducted. Inadequate data recording was particularly noticeable for Australia’s federal funding whereby in most instances we were not even able to obtain information on the focal species of individual projects, thereby preventing even the most basic species-level analysis. These data could be obtained for the oldest data (NHT: 1997–2002), but only if the species name was in the project titles, so any analysis would likely be under-reporting the reality. As such, we cannot even provide a basic analysis showing current relative expenditure on individual species to determine a hierarchy of focus. In turn, this prevents analyses that assess whether funding priorities reflect priorities of need (ie whether species estimated to have the greatest economic cost receive the greatest management and funding).
Given the extent of the issue of invasive species globally (
Overall, invasive species are a significant economic burden in Australia. The cost of managing invasive species is likely to increase due to more species arriving each year, more species already here becoming problematic and therefore requiring management, and because of problematic species continuing to enlarge their distributions. Better quantification of the cost of invasive species is required to help improve public and political awareness of the issue of invasive species, and to assist with decisions of how to respond appropriately to them, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness of management expenditure. Ultimately, the data support Australia’s use of stringent biosecurity measures to help reduce the arrival and subsequent establishment of new species (and pathogens).
We thank Rieks van Klinken, Andy Sheppard, John Mumford and David Cook for comments that improved the manuscript, as well as the CSIRO Biosecurity Flagship for providing appropriation funding to write this paper.