Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 12, Issue 12, pp 4113–4124 | Cite as

An economic assessment of the contribution of biological control to the management of invasive alien plants and to the protection of ecosystem services in South Africa

  • Willem J. de Lange
  • Brian W. van WilgenEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

This study is a first attempt at a holistic economic evaluation of South African endeavours to manage invasive alien plants using biological control. Our focus was on the delivery of ecosystem services from habitats that are invaded by groups of weeds, rather than by each individual weed species. We established the net present value of the weed biological control efforts, and derived benefit:cost ratios by comparing this value (a cost) to the estimated value of ecosystem services protected by weed biological control. We identified four major functional groupings of invading alien plants, and assessed their impact on water resources, grazing and biodiversity. We estimated the area that remained free of invasions due to all historic control efforts in South Africa, and the proportion that remained free of invasion as a result of biological control (which was initiated in 1913). The estimated value of potential ecosystem services amounted to 152 billion South African rands (ZAR—presently, about US$ 19.7 billion) annually. Although an estimated ZAR 6.5 billion was lost every year due to invading alien plants, this would have amounted to an estimated additional ZAR 41.7 billion had no control been carried out, and 5–75% of this protection was due to biological control. The benefit:cost ratios ranged from 50:1 for invasive sub-tropical shrubs to 3,726:1 for invasive Australian trees. Benefit:cost ratios remained positive and our conclusion, that biological control has brought about a considerable level of protection of ecosystem services, remains robust even when our estimates of the economic impacts of key variables (i.e. sensitivity analyses of indeterminate variables) were substantially reduced.

Keywords

Benefit-cost analysis Invasive alien plants Water resources Grazing Biodiversity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Cliff Moran and John Hoffmann for suggesting that individual weed species be combined into functional groupings for these analyses, and we thank the numerous experts who assisted with the estimations of the relative contribution of biological control. The Plant Protection Research Institute, the University of Cape Town and Rhodes University allowed us access to records that led to the costing of research. This work was funded by the South African Working for Water programme of the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs.

References

  1. Annecke DP, Moran VC (1978) Critical reviews of biological pest control in South Africa. 2. The prickly pear, Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Miller. Journal of the Entomological Society of southern Africa 41:161–188Google Scholar
  2. Baars J-R, Neser S (1999) Past and present intitatives on the biological control of Lantana camara (Verbenaceae) in South Africa. African Entomology Memoir 1:21–33Google Scholar
  3. Biggs R, Reyers B, Scholes RJ (2006) A biodiversity intactness score for South Africa. S Afr J Sci 102:277–283Google Scholar
  4. Buhlea ER, Margolis M, Ruesink J (2005) Bang for buck: cost-effective control of invasive species with different life histories. Ecological Economics 52:355–366Google Scholar
  5. Culliney TW (2005) Benefits of classical biological control for managing invasive plants. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24:131–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Lange WJ, Kleynhans TE (2008) Long-term water resource management in semi-arid areas: a South African case study. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 3:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Wit MP, Crookes DJ, van Wilgen BW (2001) Conflicts of interest in environmental management: estimating the costs and benefits of a tree invasion. Biol Invasions 3:167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Esler KJ, van Wilgen BW, Te Roller KS, Wood AR, van der Merwe JH (2010) A landscape-scale assessment of the long-term integrated control of an invasive shrub in South Africa. Biol Invasions 12:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Federal Interagency Committee for Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (1998) Pulling together: a national strategy for management of invasive plants, 2nd edn. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Hassan RM (2003) Measuring asset values and flow benefits of non-traded products and ecosystem services of forest and woodland resources in South Africa. Environ Dev Sustain 5:403–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Higgins SI, Turpie J, Costanza R, Cowling RM, Le Maitre DC, Marais C, Midgley GF (1997) An ecological economic simulation model of mountain fynbos ecosystems: Dynamics, valuation and management. Ecological Economics 22:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoffmann JH, Moran VC, Zimmermann HG (1999) Integrated management of Opuntia stricta (Haworth) Haworth (Cactaceae) in South Africa: an enhanced role for two, renowned, insect agents. African Entomology Memoir 1:15–20Google Scholar
  13. Jarvis PJ, Fowler SV, Paynter Q, Syrett P (2006) Predicting the economic benefits and costs of introducing new biological control agents for Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius into New Zealand. Biol Control 39:135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klein H (1999) Biological control of three cactaceous weeds, Pereskia aculeata Miller Harrisia martini (Labouret) Britton and Cereus jamacara de Condolle in South Africa. African Entomology Memoir 1:3–14Google Scholar
  15. Law MC (2007) Willingness to pay for the control of water hyacinth in an urban environment of South Africa. Thesis, Rhodes University, GrahamstownGoogle Scholar
  16. Le Maitre DC, Versfeld DB, Chapman RA (2000) The impact of invading alien plants on surface water resources in South Africa: a preliminary assessment. Water SA 26:397–408Google Scholar
  17. Louda SM, Stilling P (2003) The double-edged sword of biological control in conservation and restoration. Conserv Biol 18:50–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McConnachie AJ, De Wit MP, Hill MP, Byrne MJ (2003) Economic evaluation of the successful biological control of Azolla filiculoides in South Africa. Biol Control 28:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McFadyen RE (2004) Biological control: managing risks or strangling progress? In: Sindel BM, Johnson SB (eds) Proceedings of the 14th Australian Weeds Conference of the Weed Society of New South Wales, Sydney, pp 78–81Google Scholar
  20. McNeeley JA, Mooney HA, Neville LE, Schei P, Waage JK (2001) A global strategy on invasive alien species. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  21. Moran VC, Zimmermann HG (1991) Biological control of jointed cactus, Opuntia aurantiaca (Cactaceae), in South Africa. Agric Ecosyst Environ 37:5–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moran VC, Hoffmann JH, Zimmermann HG (2005) Biological control of invasive alien plants in South Africa: necessity, circumspection, and success. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3:77–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Page AR, Lacey KL (2006) Economic impact assessment of Australian weed biological control. Technical series report prepared by the AEC group for the CRC for Australian Weed Management, Waite Campus, University of AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  24. Perrings C, Mooney H, Williamson M (2010) Bio-invasions and globalization: ecology, economics, management, and policy. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Pimentel D (2002) Biological invasions: Economic and environmental costs of alien plant, animal and microbe species. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics 52:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pringle KL, Heunis JM (2006) Biological control of mites in apple orchards in the Elgin area of South Afrca using a predatory mite: a cost-benefit anlysis. African Entomology 14:113–121Google Scholar
  28. Richardson DM, Macdonald IAW, Hoffmann JH, Henderson L (1997) Alien plant invasions. In: Cowling RM, Richardson DM, Pierce SM (eds) Vegetation of southern Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 535–570Google Scholar
  29. Rouget M, Richardson DM, Nel JL, Le Maitre DC, Egoh B, Mgidi T (2004) Mapping the potential ranges of major plant invaders in South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland using climatic suitability. Divers Distrib 10:475–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scholes RJ, Biggs R (2005) A biodiversity intactness index. Nature 434:45–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Shackleton CM, Shackleton SE (2004) The importance of non-timber forest products in rural livelihood security and as safety nets: a review of evidence from South Africa. S Afr J Sci 100:658–664Google Scholar
  32. Sheppard AW, Shaw RH, Sforza R (2006) Top 20 environmental weeds for classical biological control in Europe: a review of opportunities, regulations and other barriers to adoption. Weed Res 46:93–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Simberloff D, Stiling P (1996) Risks of species introduced for biological control. Biol Conserv 78:185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Statistics South Africa (2004) Census of commercial agriculture 2002 (Summary). Statistics South Africa, Pretoria; http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/Report-11-02-01/CorrectedReport-11-02-01.pdf
  35. Turpie JK (2003) The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay. Ecological Economics 46:199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Turpie J (2004) The role of resource economics in the control of invasive alien plants in South Africa. S Afr J Sci 100:87–93Google Scholar
  37. Turpie J, Heydenrych BJ, Lamberth S (2003) Economic value of terrestrial and marine biodiversity in the Cape Floristic Region: implications for defining effective and socially optimal conservation strategies. Biol Conserv 112:233–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Wilgen BW, Le Maitre DC, Cowling RM (1998) Ecosystem services, efficiency, sustainability and equity: South Africa’s working for water programme. Trends Ecol Evol 13:378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Wilgen BW, van der Heyden F, Zimmermann HG, Magadlela D, Willems T (2000) Big returns from small organisms: developing a strategy for the biological control of invasive alien plants in South Africa. S Afr J Sci 96:148–152Google Scholar
  40. van Wilgen BW, Richardson DM, Le Maitre DC, Marais C, Magadlela D (2001) The economic consequences of alien plant invasions: examples of impacts and approaches to sustainable management in South Africa. Environ Dev Sustain 3:145–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van Wilgen BW, De Wit MP, Anderson HJ, Le Maitre DC, Kotze IM, Ndala S, Brown B, Rapholo MB (2004) Costs and benefits of biological control of invasive alien plants: case studies from South Africa. S Afr J Sci 100:113–122Google Scholar
  42. van Wilgen BW, Reyers B, Le Maitre DC, Richardson DM, Schonegevel L (2008) A biome-scale assessment of the impact of invasive alien plants on ecosystem services in South Africa. Journal of Environmental Management 89:336–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. van Wyk E, van Wilgen BW (2002) The cost of water hyacinth control in South Africa: a case study of three options. African Journal of Aquatic Science 27:141–149Google Scholar
  44. Zimmermann HG, Moran VC, Hoffman JH (2004) Biological control in the management of invasive alien plants in South Africa, and the role of the Working for Water programme. S Afr J Sci 100:34–40Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Invasion BiologyCSIR Natural Resources and the EnvironmentStellenboschSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations