Invasive Alien Species

We have discussed a range of analytical tools that use information on the costs and benefits of invasive species and their management.  We want to gain more views and information on the strengths and weaknesses of these different approaches, in particular how useful they might be to support the national  implementation of actions to manage invasive species and their risks.
We have opened this new thread to encourage views of the strengths and weaknesses of:

Cost-benefit analysis
Cost-effectiveness analysis
Risk analysis (risk assessment, risk management and risk communication)

To help in this regard, we welcome views, but also encourage participants to post examples of the use of these methods into the table in Junko’s post #1373 which can be found in the Guidance for Participants thread

Regards

Pete

Hi Pete, Junko, et al.

Really interesting and useful conversation so far.  I've had a go at filling in the template for the risk analysis process we used in GB (including horizon scanning, risk assessment and risk management tools).

A key issue for us is with lots of species to consider (both established and on the horizon) and limited resources we need practical / pragmatic tools that can be used to help prioritise management (across the board, i.e. prevention, eradication and different forms of long term management). 

We have used a risk analysis approach that helps to both screen species relatively quickly and provide more detailed assessment where necessary.  Where we need more detail after this stage we would then consider cost-benefit / cost-effectiveness analysis for particular species. 

I'm sure we have a lot to learn from others on this front and I'd be particularly interested to hear how administrations prioritise when faced with large numbers of species and limited resources (which is presumably most of us!).

Thanks,

Olaf

Thanks Olaf
Good to see how you are tying together different processes to meet a national need.  It would be great to hear of other examples of how countries are applying these different methods.
Pete

Hi All

With regards to risk assessment/management A. pre and B. post border I hope I am not stating the obvious, but for weeds, where we have many to deal with, there have been standards for many years now:

A. Weed Risk Assessment Protocols (many published and largely adapted from Australia's WRA process) and the strengths and weaknesses are well documented:
- Accuracy heavily  affected by the invasion “base-rate”  (Smith et al  1999 & Caley et al. 2006)
- Poor inclusion of “uncertainty” in response (Caley et al.  2006)
Does not score  economic value (needs separate process) (Pheloung  et al 1999, Smith et al. 1999)
- Lacks post entry screening to test process for successful candidates (Cousens 2008)
- (Hulme 2012) 1) Impact is poorly defined as a basis for screening:
Range x abundance x per capita impact – hard to predict for weeds across complex landscapes/climates; Geographic distribution becomes a surrogate; Many widespread alien plants have little impact; Many of the selected traits have more to do with naturalisation than impact; 2) Complexity making prediction hard:  Nestedness –  between different biogeographic scales; Non-linear dynamics – different determinants of weed dynamics at different spatial scales; Positive feedbacks – impactful weeds alter environments to their benefits or those of other weeds; time lags – in both naturalisation  and spread; non-stationarity – past conditions not a predictor of future – changing climates, naturalization rates and genotypes post introduction; 3) Uncertainty and variability:  - variation in weediness across landscapes usually ignore or averaged; uncertainty hard to explicitly measure in data input, and only conceptual models used to assess impact and in scoring systems. 4) Data biases: Regional weed composition largely a function of species introduction history/effort; Need understanding of the effect of history/effort on the probability a particular invasion will occur. 5) Cost benefit: Need to compare benefits of preventing an introduction relevant to costs of not importing a valuable species (e.g. Biofuels). 6)Cognitive biases in  decision making, in hindsight events look more predictable than they were.
An ways to improve them: 1) Consistent hazard definition (Hulme 2012)
2) Incorporate multiple spatial scales of impact (Hulme 2012)
3) Incorporate uncertainty – increasingly incorporated into country WRAs  (e.g. Koop et al. 2012), 4) Better estimate base rates - information on failed introductions (Smith et al 1999), 5) Train assessors in cognitive biases (Burgman 2005), 6) Rigorously test the overriding influence of “weed elsewhere” and “matched climates” to make sure the rest is needed (Weber et al. 2009)
   
B. Post-border weed risk management for decision making around where management effort might lead to the greatest benefits for established species (again this started in Australia). This appears to quite accurate at predicting invaders, but is less good at deciding whether risks outstrip benefits for low risk plants.
(https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/biosecurity/weeds/strategy/nsw-weed-risk-management-system/background-information)
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235912801_National_Post-Border_Weed_Risk_Management_Protocol)
(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ddi.12053)


Some have argued that of the two it is perhaps more cost effective to focus on Post border Weed Risk Management where probability of transition from naturalisation to invasion are 100 time higher than from introduction to invasion
(https://search.proquest.com/docview/1242469558?pq-origsite=gscholar)
(https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xEiC1BZ_Ih8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA203&dq=Post+border+weed+risk+managment+Virtue+Johnson+Australia&ots=1F54WOHa7H&sig=q-ZKm_70BWnAZHRQilv30uHfBrM#v=onepage&q=Post%20border%20weed%20risk%20managment%20Virtue%20Johnson%20Australia&f=false)


Cheers

Andy

Thanks Andy
Good to see a description of a mature process of risk assessment and management from Australia.  For many countries thinking of developing their own new processes,  what are your thoughts on which mechanisms should be developed first?
Pete

Hello All,
Thanks for posting the examples. This forum is missing participation from veterinary community which is expected to regulate the moving location of animals together with environment sector.

To fill this participation gap, SCBD wishes to post an example of animal invasion risk analysis guidelines, as attached. Its usefulness and lessons learned are described in the form attached as well. The guidelines contain some consideration on the costs. Hope this is helpful for further discussion.

Best,
Junko

Apologies for the late engagement on this. It is great to see such interesting discussions.

I very much support the broadening out the discussion beyond strict ‘cost-benefit’ analysis to include tools that allow for non-financial benefits to be incorporated (cost-effectiveness, multi-criteria methods etc.). Based on the discussions they seem to be much more widely applied to support decision making in relation to IAS and pathways of introduction.

What I think may be a useful next step, would be to describe and map national approaches onto a framework that reflects the invasion process (including prevention). This could highlight for each approach which categories of costs and benefits (and their ‘currency of measurement’) are used, what stage in the invasion process is it applied to, the availability of data (linking to existing data sets and methods), and their pros/cons. IUCN presented a draft framework that may support this process at the IAS Expert Meeting in December 2017 (see below/attached) which could be used as starting point to do this?

I think it would be useful to come out of this process with an agreed classification scheme of the different types of costs and benefits (and their 'currencies'), an agreed understanding of best practices used globally and at what stage of the invasion process they are best applied. This may also highlight data and methodological gaps to prioritise.
Many thanks
Kevin

Thanks Junko
Its good to see input from the veterinary side and the paper from OIE is a particularly good summary of the use of risk analysis for invasives with a lot of parallels to the national systems recently described by Olaf and Andy.
Pete

Thanks Kevin
I agree, an exercise to compare and map the processes already in place in different states would seem a particularly useful approach. In discussions in the first stage of this forum we heard from a number of countries alluding to their own systems, it would be great to hear more details.
Pete

Dear all,
Broadening of methods is good. However, I think we should be aware that cost benefit analysis in environmental economic settings, is not necessarily restricted to financial effects only. In modern CBA, we also aim to include environmental effects - priced or non-priced. As an example, this is emphasised in the Norwegian official "Guidelines for Cost Benefit Analysis". These effects may be included as priced or non-priced effects. We often prefer to put a value (price tag) on these effecs, if that is possible. However, sometimes (quite often) not all effects on ecosystem services etc. can be priced. Still, they should be included (identified, and quantified and monetarised as far as possible). And there are methods developed to include these non-priced effects as well, specified in the CBA guidelines.

Good day

A system of risk assessment and permitting to regulate the importation of new alien species has been in place since 2014. Pre-border RA and cost benefit analysis frameworks has been widely used to determine cost-effective solutions to potential risks posed by invasive on the   economies and people’s livelihoods.

Attached is some of the studies that picked up the strengths and weaknesses of different methods for national implementation in SA.

Regards,
Ntaka

Thanks Kristin
Yes, you are of course correct, a range of approaches are available to incorporate non-monetory considerations into CBA. 
My observation on the current use of CBA in this field is that most examples I have seen are based on the detailed assessment of individual or a small number of species, often to support or justify expenditure on their management.  This is an important part of our response, but there is also a need to rapidly assess large numbers of species where the level of information available is limited.  In these situations, I think we need other methods which may also need to consider a range of non-economic considerations. 
There may be wider examples of the use of CBA to help with these choices that I have missed, it would be interesting to hear of these.
Pete

Pete

First step is I believe always to know what you have within your borders that are know IAS prioritize these using RA based on actual a potential impacts (this can be done separately for widely established and locally naturalized). We generally do this by organism type plants, vertebrates, invertebrates (sometimes subgroups within this), plant diseases & animal diseases (divided fungal, bacterial and viral). China have recently published a two volume book through Springer showing how they have done this). Then apply the post-border risk management approach to the top ranked species to define actions incorporating CBA, Cost effectiveness analysis and feasibility analysis based on what information is available to species focused response programs.

Second step is to develop and use an WRA approach (adapted by each country for their purposes and designed separately for different groups of organisms e.g. weeds, fish etc.) for over the horizon threats from non-indigenous species that are proposed for deliberate introduction (e.g. for trade) or species likely to hitchhike with trade. Of course this can be done in parallel with PBRM given it is a biosecurity trade compliance activity. For key high impact threats which have a high risk of accidental/deliberate entry like insecticide-resistant strains major disease vectoring mosquitoes a full quantitative risk assessment is best (we completed one for the proposed Target Malaria release of GM mosquitoes into Burkina Faso).

Third pathway risk analysis. Here we use the SOM (Self Organising Maps)  network analysis approach (Paini & Warner multiple refs in Google Scholar) to work out first which species we are concerned about  we don't have (mainly ag pests and diseases but environmental ones now too increasingly), that have the highest likelihood of establishment. Then define where these pests and diseases are most likely to come from (based on levels of trade in host commodities of identified threats with countries that have those threats). This then rolls into an RA for shipping and containers coming from those countries to target inspection efforts.

Does this answer your question?

Andy

Thanks Andy
Yes it does, a very useful description, thank you.
Pete

Hi All,

Very interesting discussion, Andy has precisely described the framework for IAS risk assessment/management in three steps. In addition, predicting the invasibility of new locations/environments to a threat would also help nations (particularly developing economies) identify global invasion hot spots, better prepare and develop pre-border risk assessment/management (Early et al. 2016). Developing countries where RAs are very basic or non-existent, are predicted to be under greater risk of invasions as compare to developed countries. For instance, Tuta absoluta and fall army worm, two devasting agricultural pests, are looming threats to Pakistan as both species have just arrived in the neighbours (Afghanistan and India) when there is extensive trade and transport in progress among these countries. In such situation, effective pre-/post border risk assessments are necessary.

Developing economies need an effective prioritization system and at the same time develop capacity to tackle the issue of IAS. Increasing populations, changing climate and limited resources and capacity will make the task difficult. However, partnerships and collaborations with developed countries, where well-defined RA protocols are in place, can greatly benefit both parties.

Thanks
Asad

Early, R., et al. (2016). "Global threats from invasive alien species in the twenty-first century and national response capacities." Nature Communications 7: 12485.

Very interesting discussion and learning.

Thanks Asad for highlighting the IAS management issues in developing economy. The problems in IAS is currently increasing rapidly in developing countries (thought it is increasing everywhere) because of diversification of trade and poor implementation of biosecurity laws. Many of these countries even do not have comprehensive list of IAS. In absence of such list, prioritization for management would be incomplete. In a country like Nepal, national level risk assessment and prioritization has not been done (though we have some information on prioritization by local communities; paper attached). Therefore, prioritization of species and ecosystem/habitat should be 'prioritized' for the management of IAS.

In addition, South Asian countries are sharing many IAS. A regional level risk assessment, prioritization and management strategy are very essential to address this problem in long term.

Bharat

Thank you Asad
Thats a very clear description of the problems faced by many countries and thank you for highlighting some of the approaches we all may need to make more of in future.  Do others agree with this position, and what methods are countries currently applying in these circumstances?
Pete

Thanks Bharat
Good to hear of the work in Nepal, and a very useful paper, interesting to see the application of prioritisation in this way with local communities.
Pete

Good day,

I’ve been too busy the last days to follow the discussion. I would like to share with our experience in ISA management in NENA region, North Africa and Tunisia. In those regions there’s nothing about the impact of ISA, but we have many successful stories in management of some IAS.

I a previous message here, the cost of the presence of the IAS should take in account the costs of economic, social, ecological, and also the cost of preventing introduction IAS. As an example of the success of the locust prevention system, let me explain to you the extent of the losses suffered by Tunisia following the 1987-1989 and 2003-2005 locust invasions. In fact, economic losses were estimated at 25.1 billion Dollars including 570 Million during the last invasion. While the total cost of surveillance and early control operations under the "EMPRES-RO" program does not exceed 3.3 million throughout the region. Thus, the cost of control operations ($ 570 million) carried out during the 2003-2005 invasions may cover the costs of 170 years of preventive control.

I agree with some colleagues that the cost of management one the species has been introduced is greater than the cost of prevention. In Morocco, the invasive cochineal Dactylopius opuntiae was reported for the first time in 2014. The government has cut and burned and burial more than 2000 km of cactus, and use pesticides and biological control on more than 500 km of cactus. The government has invested hundreds of millions to fight this insect (wreckage, burial, chemical treatment and biological control). This cochineal is still causing significant environmental impacts, which are difficult to value the $ benefits to environmental assets for most activities such as erosion and social effects (rangeland, logging).

Hello Mohamed,

I would be interested to know what are the 'environmental' damages caused by Dactylopius opunitiae in Morocco or in north Africa in general. As far as I know all Dactylopius species are confined to the family Cactaceae, in fact only the opuntioid cacti. So they should not pose no threat to native species, unless new impacts have been reported. I would like to know more.

Your message raises an important issue relevant to "strengths and weaknesses of different methods for national implementation" and this is the contradictory effects of biocontrol in different countries on the same continent. For instance Dactylopius opunitiae has been successfully released as a bioagent in Kenya in order to reduce the proliferation of invasive Opuntia sticta, while in other countries the chochineal predators have been released as bioagent to preserve Opuntia. So the release of cochineal predators in some countries in Africa or the Middle-East may negate the successful biological control of many invasive cacti in Africa.
The coordination between countries regarding the use of bioagents is an important issue if we are to prevent further chaos.

Hello Jean-Marc,

In Morocco, the prickly pear cactus grows occupies approximately 120,000 hectares in arid and semi-arid areas where it plays an essential role in the ecological system, preventing desertification and preserving biodiversity. The fruits are consumed as a food and cladodes as cattle feed. In Morocco, the prickly pear cactus (Opuntia ficus-indica) grows in arid and semi-arid areas where it plays an essential role preventing desertification and preserving biodiversity. Its fruits and cladodes are consumed for food and animal feed, respectively. Fruit are also used to produce dye and cosmetics. In September 2014, D. opuntiae was found in the region of Doukkala, and has now reached more than a 100 km radius around its first detection site and it ravaged nearly 50 thousands hectares.

Dactylopius opuntiae can be controlled using predators (Chamaemyiidae, Coccinellidae, Pyralidae, Syrphidae and Hemerobiidae). In Morocco 15 natural enemies species associated with Dactylopius opuntiae were found and identified  (ElAlaoui et al., 2019), from which The coccinellid, Hyperaspis campestris (Herbst, 1783) was a first record as a biological control agent of D. opuntiae In Morocco. This finding can be considered as part of an IPM program to control the wild cochineal cactus scale and reduce the pesticides used on this crop.

El Alaoui M., Bouharroud R., Sbaghi M., El Bouhssini M., Hilali L. and Dari N., 2019. Natural enemies associated with Dactylopius opuntiae (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae) in Morocco and their population fluctuations. Revue Marocaine des Sciences Agronomiques et Vétérinaires. online-ISSN: 2550-4401, print-ISSN: 2028-991X.
Bouharroud R., El Alaoui M., Boujghagh M., Hilali L., El Bouhssini M. and Sbaghi M., 2019. New record and predatory activity of Hyperaspis campestris (Herbst 1783) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) on Dactylopuis opuntiae (Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae) in Morocco. Entomological News, 128(2): 156-160.

ML Ben Jamaa

Good day,
In addition to what I post before, South Africa Working for Water programme is currently running a number of Invasive Alien Plants clearing projects since 2005. The working for programmes has been presenting opportunities for job creations, skills development for previously disadvantage communities more especially youth, women and people leaving with disabilities. This programmes also make use to use of biomasses to develop furniture, coffins and school desks. 
Please see attached natural resource management document

Ntaka

Hi All,

A careful selection of species for prioritization and risk assessment process is important. Local and regional conflict of interest may arise when some invasive alien species is prioritized for control, especially using classical biological control. Prickly pear, Opuntia ficus-indica is a classic example of such case. This plant is considered a weed in some countries while it is a useful food and fodder plant in others. I guess in case of prickly pear, benefits of this plant may outweigh harmful impacts in North Africa while it is opposite in South/Southern Africa. In Pakistan, this plant was introduced as fodder plant and was widely cultivated in semi-arid regions, but it was soon realized as a weed. This resulted in first ever release of any classical biological control agent (D. opuntiae) against this plant in the country. However, it is considered that agent did not establish in wild after its release.

In a similar way, there exist conflict of interest in case of mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) in Pakistan and I guess in other parts of the world. Mesquite was introduced as a shade-tree in arid parts of Indian sub-continent in 1800s but now it has become worse woody invader right from sea-level to high mountains in Pakistan and India. This plant has transformed the natural vegetation of many protected forests and declining the biodiversity. Further this plant is encroaching prime agricultural lands and considered a culprit for water table depletion. However, the same plant is considered as a fodder and food, as well as used to produce charcoal, so for some local people it is a useful plant but for others it is a worst weed. So, the economic benefits and losses would need to carefully be weighed before starting any risk assessment or management intervention. This is not only important locally but regionally as well. CBC agents released in a continent would likely reach to their hosts everywhere, sooner or later.

Now question arises do national risk assessments also consider regional conflict of interests?

Hi Pete, Junko, everyone,

Here is some information in the template on the Belgian approach to prioritisation of species and pathways including some more references.

Belgium has some very useful tools available to inform species prioritization for prevention and control. In practice, involving sufficient experts and mobilizing resources to actually use the protocols are scarce.

Initiatives are underway to better make use of available distribution data through software pipelines fostering more integrated, data-driven procedures for risk evaluation. Also, risk communication is an area which has not received a lot of attention in Belgium so interested to read these threads with regards to how others do it.

Tim

Dear Tim,
Many thanks for the post on Belgium's prioritization methods on both species and pathways. The Secretariat truly appreciates the comprehensive information on the methods and the information on lessons learned to feed into the AHTEG process.

Dear All,
Although the session schedule exists, if any additional tools and experiences useful for the AHTEG, the Secretariat keeps such information for the synthesis. Further posting will be accepted on the Forum.

Kindly note that moderators' responses would not always be available for the late posting due to his/her calendar, but we wish this Forum stays active in all topics. Finally, I thank Pete for his excellent moderation and summering the discussion in the earlier session on cost-effectiveness/benefit analysis, and all participants for actively posting the information and views. Let's keep up the good discussions with Christine in June. We have a good start. Thanks again.

Cheers,
Junko

Invasive Alien Species (IAS) is of a great concern in Ethiopia, posing particular problems on the Country’s Biodiversity with great Economic & Ecological consequences. IAS Clearly identified as one of the emerging problems facing the country. One of the Basic Principle of Ethiopian National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) is controlling the spread and introduction of invasive alien species. Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute (EBI) is responsible to Control & follow up the Negative Impacts of Invasive Alien Species  on the Country’s Biodiversity
 Ethiopia/EBI’s  actual practices on IAS  are
 Prioritizing IAS based on the greatest impact on Biodiversity    
 Conduct Study on the Impact, Status and Trend of Major IAS +  Newly Emerging Ones
 Control, Eradicate & Follow up the Negative Impacts of IAPS on the Country’s Biodiversity
 Identify Newly Emerging IAPS
 Put in place & Implement Measures to Regulate & Monitor IAPS + Newly Emerging IAPS
Majority of the identified Invasive Alien Species in Ethiopia are Plants. The Government has identified a number of Major IAPS in the Country & declared the need for their Control & Eradication. They are identified as the Major Established & Emerging Invasive Alien Plant Species (IAPS).
The Major Established Invasive Alien Plant Species in Ethiopia are:-
1. Parthenium hysterophorus
2. Prosopis juliflora
3. Eicchornia crassipes/Water hyacinth/
4. Lantana camara


Some of the Emerging Invasive Plant Species in Ethiopia are:-
1. Orobanche crenata
2. Cuscuta campestris
3. Cryptostegia grandiflora
4. Cirsium vulgare
5. Argemone ochroleuca
6. Parkinsonia aculeate
7. Nicotiana  glauca
8. Xanthium strumarium
9. Senna occidentalis
10. Opuntia stricta
11. Mimosa diplotricha
12. Agave americana
13. Striga hermonthica
14. Acacia drepanolobium
15. Calotropis procera
16. Mimosa  pigra
17. Xanthium spinosum
18. Senna didymobtrya
19. Echium plantagineum(Paterson`S Curse)
20. Ageratum conyzoides;
21. Gomphocarpus fruticosus,
22. Tithonia diversifolia
23. Alternanthera pungens etc

Dear all,

Apologies for sending this message only now. My contribution can fit into multiple sessions of this forum, I just hesitated until now because I work in academia and am less familiar with implementation strategies.

The first step in IAS management is correct and rapid identification of organisms, especially in the context of climate change which will lead to shifts in IAS distribution, pathways and impact on biodiversity and human well-being. Molecular tools have been used to detect/identify IAS for the last 15 years. Admittedly, it is a tool widely used by researchers working on IAS, less so by regulatory agencies. The reference databases are still incomplete (i.e., not all IAS have a DNA sequence in the online molecular databases) but they are relatively good for the worst IAS and work is still in progress. I mention DNA barcoding as a fast, reliable and cost-effective tool for specimen identification (i.e., assigning unknown specimens to known species). The work is still confined to molecular labs but great effort is being put into transferring the protocols directly into the field (e.g., border control points). Progress has been made on this front but, in my opinion, it is not cost-effective and error-free just yet – I’m just mentioning it here so the audience is aware of new developments (strengths and limitations) and future directions.
The International Barcode of Life (ibol.org) recently launched a major project to complete the molecular inventory of all animals, plants, and fungi in the next 7 years. It is an ambitious goal but, if completed on time, it will definitely help managers and practitioners involved in biodiversity conservation. All data is freely accessible online on the Barcode of Life Data Systems (boldsystems.org). At the moment, small-scale projects on IAS (country or region based) are using BOLD both as contributors and users but no global IAS barcoding project is ongoing (to my knowledge).
I am not going into the whole set of molecular tools and their applications, but it might be interesting to this audience to know that other tools than DNA barcoding are available for detecting the source of IAS (i.e., country/area of origin). Yet again, it is a research subject in academia rather than national implementation. However, my hope is that you will consider DNA technologies as a potential method (with its strengths and weaknesses) when it comes to future implementation of national plans for IAS management.

Best regards,
Adriana Radulovici, PhD
Research Scientist
iBOL Secretariat - Centre for Biodiversity Genomics
University of Guelph, Canada