ALBERT

Description: Biological invasions are one of the top drivers of the ongoing biodiversity crisis. An underestimated consequence of invasions is the enormity of their economic impacts. Knowledge gaps regarding economic costs produced by invasive alien species (IAS) are pervasive, particularly for emerging economies such as India—the fastest growing economy worldwide. To investigate, highlight and bridge this gap, we synthesised data on the economic costs of IAS in India. Specifically, we examine how IAS costs are distributed spatially, environmentally, sectorally, taxonomically, temporally, and across introduction pathways; and discuss how Indian IAS costs vary with socioeconomic indicators. We found that IAS have cost the Indian economy between at least US$ 127.3 billion to 182.6 billion (Indian Rupees ₹ 8.3 trillion to 11.9 trillion) over 1960–2020, and these costs have increased with time. Despite these massive recorded costs, most were not assigned to specific regions, environments, sectors, cost types and causal IAS, and these knowledge gaps are more pronounced in India than in the rest of the world. When costs were specifically assigned, maximum costs were incurred in West, South and North India, by invasive alien insects in semi-aquatic ecosystems; they were incurred mainly by the public and social welfare sector, and were associated with damages and losses rather than management expenses. Our findings indicate that the reported economic costs grossly underestimate the actual costs, especially considering the expected costs given India’s population size, gross domestic product and high numbers of IAS without reported costs. This cost analysis improves our knowledge of the negative economic impacts of biological invasions in India and the burden they can represent for its development. We hope this study motivates policymakers to address socio-ecological issues in India and launch a national biological invasion research programme, especially since economic growth will be accompanied by greater impacts of global change.

Description: Background: Biological invasions threaten the functioning of ecosystems, biodiversity, and human well-being by degrading ecosystem services and eliciting massive economic costs. The European Union has historically been a hub for cultural development and global trade, and thus, has extensive opportunities for the introduction and spread of alien species. While reported costs of biological invasions to some member states have been recently assessed, ongoing knowledge gaps in taxonomic and spatio-temporal data suggest that these costs were considerably underestimated. Results: We used the latest available cost data in InvaCost (v4.1)—the most comprehensive database on the costs of biological invasions—to assess the magnitude of this underestimation within the European Union via projections of current and future invasion costs. We used macroeconomic scaling and temporal modelling approaches to project available cost information over gaps in taxa, space, and time, thereby producing a more complete estimate for the European Union economy. We identified that only 259 out of 13,331 (~ 1%) known invasive alien species have reported costs in the European Union. Using a conservative subset of highly reliable, observed, country-level cost entries from 49 species (totalling US$4.7 billion; 2017 value), combined with the establishment data of alien species within European Union member states, we projected unreported cost data for all member states. Conclusions: Our corrected estimate of observed costs was potentially 501% higher (US$28.0 billion) than currently recorded. Using future projections of current estimates, we also identified a substantial increase in costs and costly species (US$148.2 billion) by 2040. We urge that cost reporting be improved to clarify the economic impacts of greatest concern, concomitant with coordinated international action to prevent and mitigate the impacts of invasive alien species in the European Union and globally.

Description: Biological invasions are increasing worldwide, damaging ecosystems and socioeconomic sectors. Two decades ago, the “100 of the world’s worst” invasive alien species list was established by the IUCN to improve communications , identifying particularly damaging ‘flagship’ invaders globally (hereafter, worst). Whilst this list has bolstered invader awareness, whether worst species are especially economically damaging and how they compare to other invaders (hereafter, other) remain unknown. Here, we quantify invasion costs using the most comprehensive global database compiling them (InvaCost). We compare these costs between worst and other species against sectorial, taxonomic and regional descriptors, and examine temporal cost trends. Only 60 of the 100 worst species had invasion costs considered as highly reliable and actually observed estimates (median: US$ 43 million). On average, these costs were significantly higher than the 463 other invasive species recorded in InvaCost (median: US$ 0.53 million), although some other species had higher costs than most worst species. Damages to the environment from the worst species dominated, whereas other species largely impacted agriculture. Disproportionately highest worst species costs were incurred in North America, whilst costs were more evenly distributed for other species; animal invasions were always costliest. Proportional management expenditures were low for the other species, and surprisingly, over twice as low for the worst species. Temporally, costs increased more for the worst than other taxa; however, management spending has remained very low for both groups. Nonetheless, since 40 species had no robust and/or reported costs, the “true” cost of “some of the world’s worst” 100 invasive species still remains unknown.

Description: Biological invasions are one of the main threats to biodiversity within protected areas (PAs) worldwide. Meanwhile, the resilience of PAs to invasions remains largely unknown. Consequently, providing a better understanding of how they are impacted by invasions is critical for informing policy responses and optimally allocating resources to prevention and control strategies. Here we use the InvaCost database to address this gap from three perspectives: (i) characterizing the total reported costs of invasive alien species (IAS) in PAs; (ii) comparing mean observed costs of IAS in PAs and non-PAs; and (iii) evaluating factors affecting mean observed costs of IAS in PAs. Our results first show that, overall, the reported economic costs of IAS in PAs amounted to US$ 22.24 billion between 1975 and 2020, of which US$ 930.61 million were observed costs (already incurred) and US$ 21.31 billion were potential costs (extrapolated or predicted). Expectedly, most of the observed costs were reported for management (73%) but damages were still much higher than expected for PAs (24%); in addition, the vast majority of management costs were reported for reactive, post-invasion actions (84% of management costs, focused on eradication and control). Second, differences between costs in PAs and non-PAs varied among continents and environments. We found significantly higher IAS costs in terrestrial PA environments compared to non-PAs, while regionally, Europe incurred higher costs in PAs and Africa and Temperate Asia incurred higher costs in non-PAs. Third, characterization of drivers of IAS costs within PAs showed an effect of environments (higher costs in terrestrial environments), continents (higher in Africa and South America), taxa (higher in invertebrates and vertebrates than plants) and Human Development Index (higher in more developed countries). Globally, our findings indicate that, counterintuitively, PAs are subject to very high costs from biological invasions. This highlights the need for more resources to be invested in the management of IAS to achieve the role of PAs in ensuring the long term conservation of nature. Accordingly, more spatially-balanced and integrative studies involving both scientists and stakeholders are required.