The Secretariat introduces with a great pleasure, Prof. Peter Robertson of Newcastle University, UK as our moderator in this session.

Thanks to Pete for taking this important role. He kindly provided us a message to all of you, and on behalf of our moderator, the message is attached.

Best,
Junko

Welcome to the Discussion Forum on the Costs and Benefits of IAS Management.  I will be acting as your moderator for these discussions throughout May and look forward to working with you all.

To get things moving, I have suggested five headings for our discussions and set up separate threads for each, with a brief introductory piece of text to provide context.

• What do we mean by cost-benefit?
• How can we classify the costs and benefits associated with IAS management?
• Examples of the use of cost and benefit analysis to support IAS management.
• What decisions are based on the analysis of management costs and benefits?
• Measurement and availability of data to support the analysis of the costs and benefits of IAS management

Please feel free to post messages and information in these streams or in the general discussion area.  We can also create new streams if needed, so please send in suggestions for further questions for consideration.

I look forward to working with you all and for a stimulating discussion.

Pete Robertson

Dear Pete, Junko and all,

Greetings from Teo and Megan from the Marine Biosafety team in the Marine Environment Division of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN specialized agency responsible for the regulation of international shipping.

Our comments are in the context of this remit and are overarching hence posted in this introductory thread rather than one of the five specific ones. Due to the nature of our mandate we don't expect to provide detailed input in this particular forum but rather this one intervention to highlight a couple of points that are very important for us. I am grateful to Bella from Israel for highlighting these two points already, and glad to see they were also touched upon by a couple of other participants, so I am just reinforcing them. They are:

- All discussions on IAS 'management' should adequately include *prevention* and not only response. In particular as this forum is about costs and benefits, the costs of prevention may be high but the benefits are incomparable because simply, as Bella correctly said, once established IAS are virtually impossible to eradicate (at least in marine/aquatic environments) so prevention is paramount. As IMO's mandate on this subject is entirely and exclusively on the prevention of the transfer of IAS (shipping being a pathway), this is a very important point for us, however we often see such discussion focusing much more heavily on response.

- The discussions should also give the appropriate (equal) attention to marine/aquatic IAS. Obviously we are raising this because that's where our mandate lies, but we do often also see in such discussion a very disproportionate emphasis on terrestrial biodiversity over marine. This may come naturally as this is where we live and what we see, but here is a link with some interesting points from UNESCO about the significance of marine biodiversity just for reference:
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/ioc-oceans/focus-areas/rio-20-ocean/blueprint-for-the-future-we-want/marine-biodiversity/facts-and-figures-on-marine-biodiversity/

As mentioned above, we would not be able to contribute much in the detailed 'technical' discussions in this forum, as our mandate and therefore expertise is purely regulatory, but we trust that the above two points will be kept in mind during the deliberations.

Best regards,
Teo

Apologies for having forgotten this in my previous post: In the welcoming note provided by Junko there was a reference to Article 8h of the Convention, which starts by mentioning the prevention of the introduction of IAS, as well as a subsequent statement that (inter alia) "marine/aquatic ecosystems are highly relevant to our discussion".

Very glad to see this and it also provides the context for the points I raised.

Best regards,
Teo

Thank you Teo
I think your points are well make and we will represent them in any outputs from this forum.
Pete

Posted on behalf of Bella Galil

Dear colleagues,

There is a glaring dichotomy between terrestrial/inland-water and marine IAS management.

This dichotomy is clearly apparent in the UNDP SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS (SDG).

SDG 15 LIFE ON LAND clearly states “By 2020, introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems and control and eradicate the priority species.”

In contrast, SDG 14 LIFE BELOW WATER lacks ANY reference to invasive alien species.

https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-14-life-below-water.html#targets

I ask colleagues responding to this discussion on IAS management to account for marine bioinvasions as well as those occurring in terrestrial and inland-waters.

Bella Galil

Hi Teo and other collegues!
In principle I agree with you that the discussion about cost/benefit should be balanced between terrestrial and aquatic environments. However, but this is difficult in practice because there are so few management options in marine Environments once an IAS has become established in the Environment. Prevention, prevention and extremely rapid and decisive fast response once the first IAS is spotted is pretty much the only option for managing IAS in marine environments. So naturally  our discussions will be mostly about terrestrial IAS and to some degree freshwater IAS.

Another difficulty in managing IAS in marine environments is that we know so little about the interactions of IAS with native biodiversity in the marine Environment. It is extremely difficult to predict what the costs to biodiversity will be further along.

So considering costs/benefits of an IAS  once it is established in a marine Environments is really a last resort, rather like admitting that if you cannot get rid of it, you may as well see the bright side of the catastrophe. 

A cost/benefit analysis of an IAS should be made prior to the arrival/introduction of the species, for the analysis to be of value for decision making of options how to deal with the species, since prevention is, in the majority of cases, the only realistic option. In the few cases where you have a real possibility for eradication, you must have the funds and action plans for dealing with the species already decided upon in order to be able to take immediate action.

With best regards
Melanie

Hi Melanie, Tatiani and all,

Taking the opportunity to address some points made over the last few days.

Melanie's message acknowledges the importance of prevention for marine IAS and the limitations of response, but appears to see this as reasoning for focusing on terrestrial IAS in this CBA discussion. This seems to follow an assumption that the CBA is only on response, whereas our very point was that IAS management (and therefore the CBA) should equally include prevention. Therefore, I understand that Melanie's points do make sense if it's assumed that the CBA is only about response options, but in our view that it shouldn't and when we talk about CBA we mean that of prevention options as well. (perhaps some clarity from Pete/Junko on the intended scope of this exercise would be helpful)

This brings me to another point made by Tatiani from Brazil in one of the other threads but I'm addressing it here as it's overarching, namely the lack of international regulation on biofouling. This is a very good point in light of the importance of prevention. In this regard I would note that for international shipping that we are dealing with (and this does include also offshore platforms and similar structures) there are at least guidelines. As such they are of course by definition voluntary and not 'regulation'. It's worth noting that our Biofouling Guidelines (whose objective is to minimise the transfer of IAS through ship's biofouling) are going to be reviewed over the next two years, with a primary objective of the review being to determine their efficacy.

We have also just started a major global project called GloFouling aiming to support the uptake and implementation of these guidelines around the world. And, while these IMO guidelines are only for shipping, the project will look at other marine sectors (including offshore oil/gas and renewables, ocean energy, aquaculture, etc.) and may catalyse the development of similar guidance in such sectors where it's currently lacking.

And of course we also have our Ballast Water Management Convention, which is obviously a mandatory global treaty and is in force since September 2017, addressing the other major shipping-related vector for IAS transfer (ballast water). It's all about prevention and, while these regulations do entail costs (primarily for the shipping industry), the benefit is invaluable in light of the aforementioned near-impossibility of an efficient response.

For reference here are some links on the Biofouling Guidelines, the GloFouling project and the BWM Convention:

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Biofouling/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/MajorProjects/Pages/GloFouling-Project.aspx

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/BallastWaterManagement/Pages/Default.aspx

Finally, a very good point also by Bella highlighting the discrepancy regarding IAS between SDGs 14 and 15. This is a problem we often come across in our work in various contexts and, if anything, it demonstrates that marine IAS have been somewhat overlooked so this is something that needs to start receiving more attention rather then being even further overlooked.

Best regards,
Teo

Thanks Teo

To clarify, I would see prevention, including that in the marine environment, as a key area for the application of cost-benefit and other prioritisation tools, and they should be part of this forum.

There are a range of studies that have explored the relative cost-effectiveness of prevention, or subsequent management of species, concluding that prevention is the most cost-effective approach (Leung et al 2002, Keller et al 2008).  A range of studies (Epanchin-Niell et al  2014, Mérel and Carter 2008, Springborn et al 2016)  have also used cost-benefit approaches to optimise surveillance at points of entry as part of prevention strategies.

It would be good to hear of other examples of the use of these approaches to guide prevention, particularly in marine habitats.

Pete 

Epanchin-Niell, R.S., Brockerhoff, E.G., Kean, J.M. and Turner, J.A., 2014. Designing cost‐efficient surveillance for early detection and control of multiple biological invaders. Ecological Applications, 24(6), pp.1258-1274.

Keller, R.P., Frang, K. and Lodge, D.M., 2008. Preventing the spread of invasive species: economic benefits of intervention guided by ecological predictions. Conservation Biology, 22(1), pp.80-88.

Leung, B., Lodge, D.M., Finnoff, D., Shogren, J.F., Lewis, M.A. and Lamberti, G., 2002. An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 269(1508), pp.2407-2413.

Mérel, P.R. and Carter, C.A., 2008. A second look at managing import risk from invasive species. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 56(3), pp.286-290.

Springborn M, Lindsay AR, Epanchin-Niell RS (2016) Harnessing enforcement leverage at the border to minimize biological risk from international live species trade. J Econ Behav Org 132(B):98–112

Many thanks Pete,

That's really great to hear!

I appreciate your assurance that prevention, including in the marine environment, is a key area for the application of CBA and should be part of this forum.

I am also very pleased to see studies concluding that prevention is the most cost-effective approach, thus confirming the value of the previous point.

Best wishes,
Teo

We don't need and RA or a CBA to know in marine systems prevention is the main target for investment. The lack of more than agreed guidelines for biofouling is the huge high residual risk.  The Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources has been using the crowd sourcing of innovative solutions (InnoCentive web network of over 400 subscribers attempting to solve the problem) to try and develop preventative technologies for marine biofouling. They focussed on contamination prevention (particularly for below waterline diesel engine cooling systems generally exposed to sea water behind protective grills) and cleaning technologies for cleaning these biofouled areas quickly on arrival in port. This has led to two areas the DAWR is funding to develop as preventative technologies. This is for the first time trying to address biofouling prevention for marine pests. For those interested contact me privately ([email protected]) and I will connect you to the DAWR team.

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the interesting post. While this crowd sourcing initiative on innovative solutions is indeed very interesting, as the main context here is the lack of regulation (i.e. mandatory requirements) for biofouling I think that what's even more pertinent is the currently ongoing consultation (also by DAWR) on the development of such regulation in Australia. I'm sure you're well aware of that but here's the link for anybody else who would be interested:

https://haveyoursay.agriculture.gov.au/biofouling-mgt-requirements

At present New Zealand is the only country in the world with biofouling regulation at the national level, as well as California in the US (both quite recently introduced). Both these regimes (and the intended Australian one) are largely mirroring IMO's Biofouling Guidelines, which bodes well for a reasonable level of similarity and consistency.

All this is expected to feed into the imminent review of the Biofouling Guidelines that I mentioned previously, on which there are ongoing informal intersessional discussions, led by Australia and NZ, with a view to coordinated input when the review takes place here at IMO.

Best,
Teo

Hi Teo

The DAWR response to this would be that the shipping industry discussions they have had around biofouling regulations are that without cost effective prevention technologies the costs of compliance are horrendous and DAWRs role is to regulate biosecurity but not stifle trade. There was a recent case of a biofouled ship arriving in NZ waters being refused going to Fiji to be cleaned where it was also refused the going to Singapore to be cleaned before coming back to NZ at a huge financial loss. Global regulation will only be agreed when cost-effective preventative treatments have been developed and commercialised, which is why DAWR is taking this initiative. You can’t  just weald the stick you have to also help find incentives.

Andy

Hi Andy,

Many thanks for your comments.

The shipping industry's views are very well known and represented in all maritime discussions and have a very tangible impact on the development of all relevant regulations.

I am very well aware of the case of the ship you mentioned and my only comment is that it's a very basic point in international shipping that ships must (a) be aware of the regulatory requirements in the countries they visit, (b) comply with them and (c) expect the repercussions if they don't. It's again all about prevention, the cost of which would have been a fraction of that of the response that was needed due to non-compliance (and we have not heard the shipping industry complain much about the cost of preventive/proactive biofouling management, which is the only prudent approach).

In fact the shipping industry is well on board the ongoing deliberations on biofouling management and there is indeed ample and multifaceted incentive for them, including both economic in the very significant fuel savings they have with a clean hull (as well as, in the case of some niche areas of the hull that are biofouling hotspots, the efficient operation of shipboard systems) and political in the corresponding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, which is easily the hottest topic the maritime world is dealing with at the moment and biofouling management is one of the main low-hanging fruits to address it.

Best,
Teo

Dear Teo,

Thank you for clarifying the IMO initiatives on biofouling and ballast water management.
In Brazil, we have experiences of biofouling management, especially in regard to oil/gas platforms and associated vessels. Recently, the federal environmental authority established the implementation of a Project on the Prevention and Control of Alien Species as a requirement for the issuance of Environmental Licenses for exploration, production, and disposal of oil and gas. This was a result of the National Sun Coral Control Plan.
In the same way, the development of a broader biofouling regulation was defined as a priority in the Brazilian National Strategy on Invasive Alien Species.
I am at your disposal to provide information and connect you with relevant staff in this regard. I believe it would be valuable for the review of the IMO Biofouling Guidelines.

Best regards,
Tatiani

Hi Tatiani,

Many thanks for your comments.

Indeed Brazil is among the active countries in the biofouling topic and in fact it is one of the 12 Lead Partnering Countries (LPCs) of the GloFouling Project that I mentioned previously.

Brazil is also taking part in the informal deliberations taking place in preparation for the review of the Biofouling Guidelines, and I'm sure that the development of the national biofouling regulation (which is great to hear, by the way) will inform Brazil's contribution to this process.

Best regards,
Teo

Examples of the use of cost and benefit analysis to support IAS management.

Two example from the Northwest U.S.

Economic Impacts of Invasive Species: Direct Costs Estimates and Economic Impacts for Washington State, January 2017
https://invasivespecies.wa.gov/council_projects/economic_impact/Invasive%20Species%20Economic%20Impacts%20Report%20Jan2017.pdf

Economic Impact From Selected Noxious Weeds in Oregon
https://www.oregon.gov/oda/shared/documents/publications/weeds/ornoxiousweedeconomicimpact.pdf

The cost benefit analysis it´s a metodology to study, evaluate and identify the best practice, comparing all the expenses versus the benefits of one or more actions or variables evaluated. This analysis is important in order to fundament our decitions.

As an example of economic impacts and management of an IAS, let me say that according with *Peter Jenkins, 2007 , the voracious Asian beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis) entered new York and Chicago in the 1990 decade in the wood packing materials imported from China. It develops inside hardwood trees, as a borer insect . The government has cut and burned more than 10,000 trees so far, in a still-unsuccessful attempt to eliminate the beetle. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has proposed a plan for its elimination that reaches a budget of $365 million USD, but funds may not be approved. Failure to act quickly could be catastrophic. The beetle could destroy one-third of the urban populated areas of trees in the country in about two decades. The cost of replacing these trees could be greater than $600 billion dollars.

Mexico is developing an economic study of the posible  impact of this insect in federal forest areas, despite of the fact it is still not present in our territory.  This information will help  the National Forest  Commission to make the best management decision for this species in case of entering the national territory.

Although it is an important element to make decisions in the management of public resources, the cost-benefit analysis requires both the knowledge of the evaluation methodology as well as the field data collection. Mexico on the particular topic of handling native, exotic or invasive pests; It does not have a database of net or approximate costs of the phytosanitary treatments that it carries out.

*Jenkins, P. 2007. Paying for Protection from Invasive Species. Universidad of Texas, Dallas

Mayra makes a valid point regarding the data that must be collected and analyzed for any cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis to be worthwhile and produce valuable results. Perhaps as a sub-point, others can share on how they have overcome such data challenges. Are there innovative ways to obtain such data or extrapolate from data from other countries or other situations? In some cases it can be cost prohibitive to get robust data.

We are pleased to see cost-benefit analysis as the first topics in the forum. Indeed, the cost-benefit of invasive alien species is the key driving force for the occurrence of invasive alien species. We must consider both the economic and social factors and the technical factors for the prevention and control of invasive alien species in order to find practical solutions. Here, we would like to introduce a study conducted by my colleagues in 2003-2005 on the assessment of the economic losses of invasive alien species in China. The study assessed direct and indirect economic losses caused by invasive alien species in the base year of 2000. The so-called direct economic losses are the impacts on national economic development, while the indirect losses are the impacts on the ecosystem. Among the direct economic losses, more than 200 invasive alien species cause losses of nearly 20 billion yuan per year in agriculture, forestry, husbandry, fishery, transportation, storage and postal industry, water environment and public facilities management, and human health; among the indirect losses, the indirect economic losses caused by ecosystems, species and genetic resources are 100 billion yuan per year. These two items totaled about 120 billion yuan per year, accounting for 1.37% of China's GDP in that year.

Greetings and thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this important forum.

Mayra Valdez.
National Forestry Commission
Mexico.


