Umweltforschungsplan Des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit R+D Project 201 86 211 (UFOPLAN) Economic Impact of the Spread of Alien Species in Germany by Frank Reinhardt, Markus Herle, Finn Bastiansen and Bruno Streit J.W. Goethe-University Frankfurt/Main Biological and Computer Sciences Division Department of Ecology and Evolution Translation by Prof. Dr. Cort Anderson University of Idaho Funded by Federal Environmental Agency of Germany January 2003 Berichts-Kennblatt 1. Berichtsnummer 2. 3. UBA-FB 4. Titel des Berichtes: Ökonomische Folgen der Ausbreitung von Neobiota 5. Autoren 8. Abschlussdatum Dr. Frank Reinhardt, 31.12.2002 Dipl.-Volkswirt Markus Herle, Dipl.-Biologe Finn Bastiansen, 9. Veröffentlichungsdatum Prof. Dr. Bruno Streit 6. Durchführende Institution 10. UFOPLAN-Nr. Fachbereich Biologie und Informatik 201 86 211 Abteilung Ökologie und Evolution Siesmayerstrasse 70 11. Seitenzahl 60054 Frankfurt/Main 7. Fördernde Institution 12. Literaturangaben 278 Umweltbundesamt Postfach 33 00 22 13. Tabellen und Diagramme 29 14191 Berlin 14. Abbildungen 25 15. Zusätzliche Angaben 16. Zusammenfassung In der European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species T-PVS (2002) 8 werden verstärkte Forschungsaktivitäten der Mitgliedstaaten angeregt, die nicht nur auf den biologischen Bereich oder Bekämpfung invasiver Arten beschränkt bleiben, sondern auch die Bewertung der Auswirkungen auf Gesundheitswesen und Volkswirtschaft untersuchen sollen. Derartige Studien wurden bisher nur für die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika oder mit eher regionalen Charakter durchgeführt. Aus diesem Grunde wurden 20 Tiere und Pflanzen aus verschiedenen Problemgebieten (Gesundheitsgefährdende Arten, Schäden in Forst-, Land-, und Fischereiwirtschaft, im kommunalen Bereich, an aquatischen und terrestrischen Verkehrswegen sowie Kosten von Arten, die einheimische Spezies gefährden oder in der Empfehlung 77 der Berner Konvention aufgeführt sind) ausgewählt und beispielhaft für das Gebiet Deutschlands bearbeitet. Die entstehenden Kosten wurden in drei Kategorien aufgeschlüsselt: a) direkte ökonomische Schäden, beispielsweise durch Vorratsschädlinge, b) ökologische Schäden, verursacht durch Pflege und Schutz gefährdeter heimischer Arten, Biozönosen oder Ökosysteme und c) Kosten für Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung invasiver Arten. Es zeigte sich, dass auf Grund der Datenlage sowie der unterschiedlichen Biologie und Ökologie der invasiven Arten jeweils individuelle Ansätze notwendig waren. Die hier ermittelten Kosten unterscheiden sich stark von Art zu Art. Nicht alle untersuchten Arten verursachen ökonomische Schäden. Eine differenzierte Betrachtung von Neobiota ist dementsprechend erforderlich. Die Monetisierung von ökologischen Schäden gelang hierbei nur in wenigen Fällen. Weitergehende, mehrjährige Studien sollten willingness to pay-Analysen einbeziehen, um offen gebliebene Fragen zu beantworten. 17. Schlagwörter Neobiota, invasive Arten, Ökonomie, Kosten, Deutschland 18. Preis 19. 20. Berichts-Kennblatt 06/2000 Report Cover Sheet Report No. 2. 3. UBA-FB 4. Report Title Economic Impact of the Spread of Alien Species in Germany 5. Autors 8. Report Date Dr. Frank Reinhardt, 31.12.2002 Dipl.-Volkswirt Markus Herle, Dipl.-Biologe Finn Bastiansen, 9. Publication Date Prof. Dr. Bruno Streit 6. Performing Organisation 10. UFOPLAN-Ref. No. Biological and Computer Sciences Division 201 86 211 Dept. of Ecology and Evolution Siesmayerstrasse 70 11. No. of Pages 60054 Frankfurt/Main 7. Funding Agency 12. No. of Reference 278 Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt) Postfach 33 00 22 13. No. of Tables, Diagrams 29 14191 Berlin Germany 14. No. of Figures 25 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract The European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species T-PWS(2002) 8 mandates intensified research by member nations on invasive species. This research will not be restricted solely to the biology and remediation of invasive species, but will also evaluate their adverse health effects and economic impact. Previous studies of these issues have only been carried out in the Unites States of America, or in a limited, regional manner. Consequently, 20 plant and animal species from various problem areas (species which pose a threat to public health; losses to agriculture, fisheries, and forestry; damage to public roads and waterways; costs associated with the protection of native species threatened by non-native species as mandated by Recommendation 77 of the Bern Convention were assessed in Germany nation-wide. The accruing costs were sorted into 3 categories: a) direct economic losses, such as those caused by destructive pest species; b) ecological costs, in the form of extra care and protection of native taxa, biotopes, or ecosystems threatened by invasive species; c) costs of measures to combat invasive species. Because of the nature of available data, as well as the different biology and ecology of the invasive species, each had to be treated individually, and the associated costs vary greatly from species to species. Moreover, not all of the species investigated cause economic losses. Accordingly, a nuanced approach to alien species is essential. Cost assessment of losses deriving from ecological damage was only possible in a few cases. Ongoing, multi-year studies incorporating cost/benefit analysis will be necessary to resolve remaining issues. 17. Keywords Neobiota, invasive species, economy, cost, Germany 18. Price 19. 20. Report Cover Sheet 06/2000 Economic Impact of Alien Species 1 Table of Contents List of Abbreviations 3 List of Figures and Tables 4 1 Introduction 6 2 Methods 8 3 Economic Consequences in Selected Problem Areas 19 3.1 Species dangerous to health 19 3.1.1 Introduction 19 3.1.2 Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Ragweed 19 3.1.3 Heracleum mantegazzianum, Giant Hogweed 23 3.1.4 Species which pose a threat to public health, summary of results 28 3.1.5 Other noteworth species 29 3.2 Damages to forestry and silviculture 30 3.2.1 Introduction 30 3.2.2 Quercus rubra, Red Oak 30 3.2.3 Prunus serotina, Black Cherry 33 3.2.4 Summary of results from commercial forestry 40 3.2.5 Additional forest pests 40 3.3 Damages to agriculture 43 3.3.1 Introduction 43 3.3.2 Oryzaephilus surinamensis, Sawtoothed grain beetle and 43 Rhyzopertha dominica, Lesser grain borer 3.3.3 Ephestia kuehniella, Flour moth 47 3.3.4 Galinsoga ciliata, Hairy galinsoga 50 3.3.5 Summary of results from agriculture 53 3.3.6 Additional significant species 53 3.4 Damages to fisheries and aquaculture 55 3.4.1 Introduction 55 3.4.2 Ondatra zibethicus, Muskrat 55 3.4.3 Orconectes limosus, American Crayfish 61 3.4.5 Summary of results from fisheries and aquaculture 64 3.4.5 Additional significant species 64 3.5 Negative effects on communities 66 3.5.1 Introduction 66 3.5.2 Cameraria ohridella, Chestnut leaf-miner moth 66 3.5.3 Ceratocystis ulmi, Dutch elm disease 70 3.5.4 Summary of results on communities 72 3.5.5 Additional noteworthy species 73 3.6 Alien species that damage waterways and watercourses 75 3.6.1 Introduction 75 3.6.2 Dreissena polymorpha, Zebra mussel 75 3.6.3 Neophytic Knotweeds and Knot grasses (Polygonaceae) 79 3.6.4 Summary of results 84 3.6.5 Additional noteworthy species 85 Economic Impact of Alien Species 2 3.7 Alien species which cause increased maintenance costs by disrupting land 86 routes 3.7.1 Introduction 86 3.7.2 Senecio inaequidens, Narrow-leaved ragweed 86 3.7.3 Buddleja davidii, Butterfly bush 89 3.7.4 Summary of results 91 3.7.5 Additional noteworthy species 92 3.8 Threats to native species from invasive species 94 3.8.1 Introduction 94 3.8.2 Dikerogammarus villosus 94 3.8.3 Lupinus polyphyllus, Many-leaved lupine, garden lupine 98 3.8.4 Summary of results 100 3.8.5 Further signifcant species 101 3.9 Alien species that are listed under Recommendation 77 (1999) of the Bern 102 Convention 3.9.1 Introduction 102 3.9.2 Mustela vison, Mink 102 3.9.3 Rana catesbeiana, Bullfrog 107 3.9.4 Summary of results 111 3.9.5 Other significant species 113 3.10 Summary of problem areas 115 4 National strategy to stem the spread of neobiota 118 4.1 Introduction 118 4.2 Costs of habitat improvement 118 4.3 „Coordinator for environmental issues“ 123 5 Discussion 131 6 Recommended measures 147 7 Literatur 149 Summary Report 169 Annex: Guiding principles for the prevention, introduction and migration of 185 impacts of alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species (Decision VI/23) Economic Impact of Alien Species 3 List of Abbreviations BArtSchV Federal Species Protection Ordinance BBA Federal Biological Research Centre BfN German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation BLE Federal Agency for Agriculture and Food BNatSchG Federal Nature Conservation Act BUND Friends of the Earth in Germany (Alliance for the Environment and Wildlife Conservation) CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species FFH Fauna-Flora-Habitat (EU Directive) HGON Hessian Society for Ornithology and Wildlife Conservation LfU Regional Office for the Environment Mulf Ministry of Environment, Agriculture, and Forests NABU German Alliance for Wildlife Conservation ONB Nature protection administration (several Districts) UBA Federal Environmental Agency UNB Regional Conservation Office (District) WSA Office of Water and Waterways WTP Willingness to pay Economic Impact of Alien Species 4 List of Figures and Tables Figure 1: Ragweed. Photo: Floraweb (1998). Figure 2: Distribution of ragweed (FloraWeb, 1998). Figure 3: Giant hogweed. Photo: Henning Haeupler. Figure 4: Distribution of Giant hogweed (FloraWeb, 1998). Figure 5: Leaves and acorns of red oak. Photo: Oskar Angerer. Figure 6: Flowers of black cherry. Photo: Thomas Muer. Figure 7: Distribution of black cherry (FloraWeb, 1998). Figure 8: Flour moth. Figure 9: Hairy galinsoga. Photo: Thomas Muer. Figure 10: Muskrat. Photo: Pforr in (Ludwig et al., 2000) Figure 11: American Crayfish. Photo: G. Haas Figure 12: Zebra mussel. Photo: Guido Haas Figure 13: Leaves and Flowers of F. japonica. Photo: Thomas Muer. Figure 14: Narrow-leaved ragweed. Photo: Henning Haeupler Figure 15: Distribution of narrow-leaved ragweed (FloraWeb, 1998). Figure 16: Butterfly bush. Photo: Thomas Muer. Figure 17: Distribution of butterfly bush (FloraWeb, 1998). Figure 18: Dikerogammarus villosus. Figure 19: Distribution of D. villosus. Figure 20: Many-leaved lupine. Photo: Thomas Muer. Figure 21: Mink. Photo: Reinhard in: Ludwig et al. (2000) Figure 22: Distribution of mink in Germany. Figure 23: Bullfrog. Photo: König in Ludwig et al. (2000). Figure 24: Costs of the eradication of bullfrog, when starting in the future. Figure 25: Organisations, which are targets for better coordination. Figure 26: Tasks, targets, activities and implementation of the “environmental coordinator”. Table 1: Summary of annual costs incurred by ragweed infestation in Germany. Data from national and international publications, and medical specialists. Cost in €. Table 2: Summary of annual costs incurred by giant hogweed infestation in Germany. Numbers are based upon results of several surveys, and extrapolated to obtain nation-wide estimates. Costs in €. Table 3: Summary of public health costs arising from ragweed, muskrat, and giant hogweed. Costs in €. Table 4: Summary of annual costs arising from red oak in Germany. Data from Hesse, extrapolated to include all of Germany. Upper and lowers limits represent 1 standard deviation from mean value. Costs in €. Table 5: Summary of annual costs arising from average problem areas in Germany containing dense stands of black cherry. Data for projections from soil type, land use, and statements from affected forest districts. Upper and lower limits are one standard deviation from mean value. Costs in €. Table 6: Summary of annual costs to forestry entailed by red oak and black cherry in Germany. Costs in €. Table 7: Summary of annual costs arising from sawtoothed grain beetle and lesser grain borer infestations in Germany. Calculations based upon information from BBA-Berlin abd BLE, likewise grain production figures for 2001 (BBA-Bonn). Upper and lower limits are one standard deviation from mean value. Costs in €. Table 8: Summary of annual costs arising from flour moth infestation in Germany. Projections based upon information from exterminators, and data from the Federal Office of Biology (BBA-Berlin) on grain production. Upper and lower limits are estimated, all costs in €. Table 9: Summary of annual costs arising from the listed non-native species in German agriculture. Costs in €. Table 10: Summary of annual costs arising from muskrat in Germany. Data for projections from published sources and results of surveys. Upper and lower limits are 1 standard deviation from mean value. Costs in €. Economic Impact of Alien Species 5 Table 12: Summary of annual costs in fisheries and aquaculture arising from muskrat and American crayfish. Cost in €. Table 13: Summary of costs arising from the chestnut leaf-miner moth in Germany. Data from published survey results from 5 major urban centers. Upper and lower limits are 1 standard deviation from mean value. Costs in €. Table 14: Summary of annual costs arising from Dutch elm disease in Germany. Upper and lower limits are 1 standard deviation from mean value. Costs in €. Table 15: Summary of annual costs arising from selected species in German communities. Costs in €. Table 16: Summary of annual costs arising from knotweed in Germany. Cost projection based on data from the West Southwest Water Authority. Upper and lower limits are one standard deviation from mean value. Cost is €. Table 17: Summary of annual costs arising from selected species in waterways and watercourses in Germany. Costs in €. Table 18: Summary of annual costs for roadways in Germany arising from selected species. Costs from German Rail are real expense, and have no upper or lower estimated limits. Upper and lower limits for costs caused by hogweed to German Rail could not be ascertained, and are estimated. Upper and lower limits for knotweed are estimated at one standard deviation from a mean value. Costs in €. Table 19: Summary of costs arising from Dikerogammarus spp. in Germany. Costs in €. Table 20: Summary of annual costs arising from the presence of lupine in Germany. Calculations are based upon survey results. Consequently, this analysis lacks upper and lower bounds. Costs in €. Table 21: Summary of annual costs arising from displacement of native species by Dikerogammarus and lupin in Germany. Table 22: Summary of annual costs arising from the American mink in Germany. Calculations based upon survey results and published figures. Upper and lower limits are 1 standard deviation from mean value. Costs in €. Table 23: Summary of annual costs arising from the presence of the bullfrog in Germany. Data for cost projections from surveys and published data. Upper and lower limits are 1 standard deviation from mean value. Costs in €. Table 24: Summary of annual costs arising from control efforts for mink and bullfrog in Germany, as mandated by recommendation 77 of the Bern Convention. Costs in €. Table 25: Summary of costs arising annually from 20 selected neobiotic species in Germany. Costs in €. Tabelle 26: Summary of the annually costs in selected problem areas. Table 27: Total costs of habitat improvement in Germany. Table 28: Distribution of costs according to Pimentel et al. (1999), excluding archaeobiota, as well as HIV and influenza. Category Others incorporates forest pests. Costs in US$. See text below for further explanation of categories. Economic Impact of Alien Species 6 1 Introduction In the Stuttgart Thesis of 1996, “neozoa” are defined as “animal species which arrived in a particular region after the year 1492, directly or indirectly through human intervention, and which are now free-living (Anonymous, 1996). A similar definition was formulated for “neophyta” (alien plant species). This expression was first used after the beginning of the 20th Century (Schroeder, 1969; Rikli, 1903-4). In 2001, the term “Neobiota” was coined, to describe both nonnative plant and animal species (Kowarik and Starfinger, 2001), species established prior to 1492 are referred to as “archeozoa” and “archeophyta”, referring respectively to nonnative animal and plant species. In addition to these terms many more have been defined, and the expressions “alien species” and “invasive (alien) species” have gained currency. The term “alien species” is defined in the “Guiding Principles for the prevention, introduction and mitigation of impacts of alien species that threaten(s) ecosystems, habitats or species” (Decision VI/23 of the Convention on Biological Diversity) as follows: “alien species” refers to a species, subspecies or lower taxon, introduced outside its natural past or present distribution; includes any part, gametes, seeds, eggs, or propagules of such species that might survive and subsequently reproduce”. An “invasive alien species” means an alien species whose introduction and/or spread threaten biological diversity”. Following the input of the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention the draft of the European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species (in the framework of the Bern Convention) specifically excludes from this definition genetically modified organisms (contra Pimentel et al., 1999). Against the background of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), already in the year 2001 this European strategy was initiated to combat invasive alien species (T- PVS (2002) 8). This strategy combines the existing regulations established under the Bern Convention in 1979 and its subsequent extensions, e.g. recommendation 77 of 1999, and offers signatory states many possibilities to deal with the problem of alien species. The guidelines of the draft of the European strategy are meant to foster adherent strategies in participating countries, and provide for information management Economic Impact of Alien Species 7 and dissemination, legal and institutional guidelines, provisions for regional responsibility and coordination, early warning and rapid response systems, and mitigation. Member nations will respond to this initiative by early 2003, with compliance expected in December of that year. The German Federal Nature Conservation Act has already been amended to improve cooperation: Art. 41, paragraph 2 requires that the German Federal states take “… appropriate measures to preclude any risks of adulterating fauna or flora of the [EU] member states. …” Likewise, the European Strategy on invasive alien Species (T-PVS (2002) 8) calls for increased research in member nations, research which should assess public health and economic consequences of those species, in addition to addressing the biological and control issues. A study of this kind was carried out in the Unites States of America in 1999 (Pimentel et al., 1999), which estimates the annual cost of invasive species in that country at 138 billion US-dollars (see chapter 5 for further details). Similar studies for Europe are lacking, although neobiotic species have long been recognized as causing problems. In Germany alone, there are currently 262 established non-indigenous animal species, and a further 431 whose status is unclear (Geiter et al., 2001). Moreover, there are a further 275 neophytic and 412 archeophytic species among some 12,000 imported plant species (Kowarik and Starfinger, 2001). Because of time constraints, a total of 20 species was selected, which represent the range of problems resulting from alien species: public health issues, losses to silviculture, agriculture, and aquaculture, municipal concerns, land and water traffic, as well as costs accruing from the rescue or protection of endangered native species, or listed species, per Recommendation 77 of the Bern Convention.