Economic Impact of the Spread of Alien Species in Germany
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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).