Building a synthesis of economic costs of biological invasions in New Zealand.

Biological invasions are a major component of anthropogenic environmental change, incurring substantial economic costs across all sectors of society and ecosystems. There have been recent syntheses of costs for a number of countries using the newly compiled InvaCost database, but New Zealand-a country renowned for its approach to invasive species management-has so far not been examined. Here we analyse reported economic damage and management costs incurred by biological invasions in New Zealand from 1968 to 2020. In total, US$69 billion (NZ$97 billion) is currently reported over this ∼50-year period, with approximately US$9 billion of this considered highly reliable, observed (c.f. projected) costs. Most (82%) of these observed economic costs are associated with damage, with comparatively little invested in management (18%). Reported costs are increasing over time, with damage averaging US$120 million per year and exceeding management expenditure in all decades. Where specified, most reported costs are from terrestrial plants and animals, with damages principally borne by primary industries such as agriculture and forestry. Management costs are more often associated with interventions by authorities and stakeholders. Relative to other countries present in the InvaCost database, New Zealand was found to spend considerably more than expected from its Gross Domestic Product on pre- and post-invasion management costs. However, some known ecologically (c.f. economically) impactful invasive species are notably absent from estimated damage costs, and management costs are not reported for a number of game animals and agricultural pathogens. Given these gaps for known and potentially damaging invaders, we urge improved cost reporting at the national scale, including improving public accessibility through increased access and digitisation of records, particularly in overlooked socioeconomic sectors and habitats. This also further highlights the importance of investment in management to curtail future damages across all sectors.

Approaches for estimating benefits and costs of interventions in plant biosecurity across invasion phases.

Nonnative plant pests cause billions of dollars in damages. It is critical to prevent or reduce these losses by intervening at various stages of the invasion process, including pathway risk management (to prevent pest arrival), surveillance and eradication (to counter establishment), and management of established pests (to limit damages). Quantifying benefits and costs of these interventions is important to justify and prioritize investments and to inform biosecurity policy. However, approaches for these estimations differ in (1) the assumed relationship between supply, demand, and prices, and (2) the ability to assess different types of direct and indirect costs at invasion stages, for a given arrival or establishment probability. Here we review economic approaches available to estimate benefits and costs of biosecurity interventions to inform the appropriate selection of approaches. In doing so, we complement previous studies and reviews on estimates of damages from invasive species by considering the influence of economic and methodological assumptions. Cost accounting is suitable for rapid decisions, specific impacts, and simple methodological assumptions but fails to account for feedbacks, such as market adjustments, and may overestimate long-term economic impacts. Partial equilibrium models consider changes in consumer and producer surplus due to pest impacts or interventions and can account for feedbacks in affected sectors but require specialized economic models, comprehensive data sets, and estimates of commodity supply and demand curves. More intensive computable general equilibrium models can account for feedbacks across entire economies, including capital and labor, and linkages among these. The two major considerations in choosing an approach are (1) the goals of the analysis (e.g., consideration of a single pest or intervention with a limited range of impacts vs. multiple interventions, pests or sectors), and (2) the resources available for analysis such as knowledge, budget and time.