David C. Cook

This article discusses institutional changes that may facilitate an adaptive approach to biosecurity risk management where governance is viewed as a multidisciplinary, interactive experiment acknowledging uncertainty. Using the principles of adaptive governance, evolved from institutional theory, we explore how the concepts of lateral information flows, incentive alignment, and policy experimentation might shape Australia's invasive species defense mechanisms. We suggest design principles for biosecurity policies emphasizing overlapping complementary response capabilities and the sharing of invasive species risks via a polycentric system of governance.

Quantifying the impact of alien invasive species on ecosystem services is an essential step in developing effective practices and policy for invasive species management. Here we develop a stochastic bioeconomic model that enables the economic impact of an invasive pest to be estimated before its arrival, based on relatively poorly specified ecological and economic parameters. We developed the model by using a hypothetical invasion of the varroa bee mite (Varroa destructor) into Australia and the negative flow‐on effects that it would have on pollination by reducing honey bee populations, giving rise to a loss of pollination services, reduced crop yields, and additional production costs. If the mite were to continue to be prevented from entering the country over the next 30 years, we estimate that the economic costs avoided would be US$16.4–38.8 million (Aus$21.3–50.5 million) per year. We suggest that current invasion response funding arrangements in Australia, which do not acknowledge these avoided damages, require amendment.

A framework is developed to evaluate eradication as one of three alternative management responses to an outbreak of an invasive species: eradication, suppression or no action. This framework can be used to establish under what conditions an eradication option could provide an expected net economic benefit, and whether this net benefit exceeds that of the other two options. The eradication option is more likely to be preferred in situations where there is an immediate export benefit that is derived from eradication of the outbreak, and also the uncertainty associated with the likely success of eradication is low.