A new report prepared for the
Oregon Invasive Species Council
concludes that the state needs
to more strongly consider the
economic consequences of
addressing invasive species and
not just focus attention on the
biology and ecology.
Written by Chris Cusack and
Michael Harte of Oregon State
University, the report says
economics "provides us with many
of the tools we need to
understand and tackle the
invasive species problem."
"Invasive species already cost
Oregon hundreds of millions of
dollars each year in lost
agricultural production and
control, yet we still tend to
think of them as biological
issues, not economic ones," said
Harte, who directs the Marine
Resource Management Program at
OSU. "Over the next 20 years,
the economic impact of invasive
species will be as big, if not
bigger in Oregon than the
impacts of global warming.
"Not until we make that shift in
people's minds will we get
traction on the issue and begin
more serious efforts at
prevention," Harte added.
The authors say the best general
estimate for direct and indirect
impacts of invasive species
nationally is about $140 billion
a year. Although no total figure
is available for Oregon,
estimates for some invasive
species control projects
include:
-- $120 million a year for 21
species of noxious weeds,
resulting in agricultural
production losses, fire damage
and control costs;
-- $7 million a year to control
the outbreak of Sudden Oak Death
– a total which could jump to
$79 million to $304 million
annually through nursery
production losses if the disease
becomes established;
-- $25 million a year maintain
13 hydropower facilities if
zebra mussels gain a foothold in
Oregon waterways;
-- $10 million to $31 million a
year to remove invasive plants
from Portland and replace them
with native species over a
five-year period;
--- $6 million in 2006-07 to
eradicate an illegally
introduced fish (Tui Chub)
responsible for food chain
impacts that led to dangerous
levels of toxic cyanobacteria
blooms in Diamond Lake;
--- $22.7 million invested by
the Oregon Watershed Enhancement
Board on invasive species
projects since 1999. A portion
of this investment went to
restoration projects after
control of the invasive species.
These estimates don't even begin
to address less measurable
economic costs related to
invasive species, Harte pointed
out. The Australasian burrowing
isopod has been discovered in
both Coos Bay and Newport's
Yaquina Bay – and billions of
burrows created by this invader
"made Swiss cheese of estuarine
shorelines, leading to massive
erosion and loss of pasture and
wildlife habitat."
"There also is a cost to human
health associated with invasive
species, such as the Asimminea
parasitological snail, which is
the primary intermediate host
for human lung flukes discovered
last year in Coos Bay," said Sam
Chan, an invasive species
specialist and educator with the
Oregon Sea Grant program at OSU.
Another example was the E-coli
epidemic in 2006 associated with
eating raw spinach that was
linked to contamination by feral
pigs roaming the fields.
"It can be very hard to put a
dollar figure on things like
that," Harte pointed out.
Sudden Oak Death provides a good
case study for the economic
impacts of invasive species, the
authors say. The disease was
first reported in Oregon in
2001, and the state began an
intensive program to eradicate
it by cutting and burning host
plants. This invasive pathogen
kills not only oaks, but
rhododendrons and horticultural
plants and is a major threat to
southwestern Oregon timber sales
should it spread.
Despite the eradication efforts,
Sudden Oak Death has continued
to appear in new locations in
Oregon and earlier this year,
the quarantine area in Curry
County was increased to 162
square miles, Harte said.
The early detection and
eradication program has cost
Oregon about $1.8 million a year
and the complete cost of
eradication is estimated at $7
million annually over the next
five years. But Sudden Oak Death
could devastate nurseries and
timber harvests because of
potential quarantine
requirements costing Oregon
hundreds of millions of dollars
in lost revenues each year.
"You don't need to be an
economist to figure out that $7
million now is nothing compared
to the potential costs of this
invasive disease if we don't
spend money now on eradication,"
Harte said.
Thinking about invasive species
in economic terms leads to a
different set of strategies and
implications, Harte said.
"For a start, we begin to
realize locally and for the
foreseeable future the impacts
of invasive species are on par
with those of global warming,"
Harte said. "Oregon and
Oregonians can't necessarily
stop global warming by
ourselves, but we can stop
invasive species."
Prevention, education, vigilance
and a common approach to
understanding the economics of
invasive species is necessary,
the authors point out, yet
success will depend on
consistency. They write: "Three
ports on the west coast may have
best practice invasive species
prevention measures in place,
but a fourth port may only put
in place the minimum prevention
practices required by law. This
‘weakest link' can result in
(invasive species) introductions
into the region despite the very
best effort of the other three
ports."
Harte says that compared with
many countries, the United
States has been slow to address
the invasive species problem.
His native New Zealand, in
contrast, allots about 1 percent
of all government spending to
tackle invasive species issues.
Harte said the goal of the
report to the Oregon Invasive
Species Council was not to
provide a comprehensive outline
of Oregon's invasive species
problem, nor to provide a
precise dollar figure for
addressing each issue. But
looking at invasive species
through an economic perspective,
he added, is long overdue.
"The figures are dramatic,"
Harte said, "but even these are
only a partial estimate. They
don't account for the potential
loss of tourism, lost fishing
opportunities, the degradation
of habitat or the myriad
offshoots that invasive species
may engender."
The report is available from
Michael Harte by e-mailing him
at
mharte@coas.oregonstate.edu