GlobalHAB: Evaluating, Reducing and Mitigating the Cost of Harmful Algal Blooms: A Compendium of Case Studies.

Abstract

Over the last two decades, several efforts have been addressed to compile what is known about the economic impacts of harmful algal blooms (HABs; e.g., Anderson et al., 2000; Hoagland and Scatasta 2006; Huppert and Trainer, 2014; Trainer and Yoshida, 2014; Sanseverino et al., 2016). One study estimated the annual cost of HABs in the European Union at 800 million USD (Hoagland and Scatasta, 2006) but most of that cost was extrapolated from very few HAB organisms. In China, a single Karenia mikimotoi event in 2012 caused up to 330 million USD loss to the mariculture industry, mostly cultivated abalone (Guo et al., 2014). Although past reports have attempted to gather comprehensive economic impact data (e.g., Trainer and Yoshida, 2014), both the type and amount of information were limited, highlighting the need for collaboration between HAB scientists and economists. Furthermore, most countries have neither conducted economic analyses of HABs nor collected data that can be used to generate reliable quantitative estimates of net economic losses and impacts. The lack of data, appropriate and standardized protocols, and the dearth of peer-reviewed studies hamper efforts to quantify the societal costs of regionally frequent, intense, and long-lasting HAB events and to help evaluate the cost of various strategies being developed for HAB prevention, control, and mitigation. To strategize how specific economic studies can be used to assess the economic impacts of HABs and mitigate their associated risks, a Marine Environmental Quality (MEQ) sponsored Workshop on GlobalHAB: Evaluating, Reducing and Mitigating the Cost of Harmful Algal Blooms: A Compendium of Case Studies was held on October 17–19, 2019, at the Annual Meeting of the North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES; Appendices 1 and 2). During this 2.5-day workshop, over 48 international experts on economics, insurance of aquaculture companies, and the science of HABs from Australia, Canada, China, Chile, France, Japan, Korea, Norway, Scotland, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, the UK, and the USA (see list of participants, Appendix 1) discussed a compendium of case studies that highlighted the economic ramifications of HABs on farmed salmon and shellfish, and on wild-caught, reef-based fisheries. The workshop included plenary lectures summarizing the state-of-the-art knowledge, ideas and concepts about the economic consequences of HABs worldwide on wild and recreational fisheries and aquaculture, concentrating on five areas of focus: 1. An overview of methods used to evaluate the economic impacts of HABs; 2. Cochlodinium polykrikoides bloom impacts on wild and aquaculture fish kills in Korea; 3. Ciguatera fish poisoning with direct effects on human health and wellbeing; 4. HAB impacts on fish and shellfish aquaculture in the European Union, Canada, and Chile. 5. Impacts of HABs on salmon cage aquaculture. The HAB-related losses faced by insurers are huge. At the workshop, a representative from a reinsurance company specified that 45% of insurance claims are now related to HABs. In fact, it was stated that the losses due to HABs are larger than any storm that insurers have ever faced. In the Republic of Korea, an insurer recently collapsed due to the frequent and enormous losses of aquacultured fish attributed to HABs. During the workshop, breakout groups were formed to discuss strategies for mitigation, including the value of information from better or more refined forecasts. Questions addressed included: Can contingency planning reduce loss? How can areas be opened more quickly, how can closures be shorter, and what is the value of information from better forecasts? What is the cost benefit analysis of monitoring programs? How much should be spent on monitoring? For insurance purposes, how can the cost of HABs be reduced? Several examples of HAB-related losses and mitigation costs were discussed in detail. A HAB incident in northern Norway alone resulted in the loss of 14 thousand tons of Atlantic salmon in May 2019, resulting in a total loss of at least 330 million USD, including insured losses of 45 million USD, underinsured values and deductibles of 40 million USD, losses of future salmon sales of 160 million USD, cleanup costs of 30 to 40 million USD, and loss of taxes and unemployment benefits of 50 million USD. In Brittany, France, the Laboratoire d’Economie et de Management de Nantes-Atlantique (LEMNA), University of Nantes, is conducting a detailed estimation of the impacts of shellfish trade bans caused by HABs. Researchers at LEMNA are creating a database documenting these trade bans from 2004 through 2018 at shellfish harvesting areas in four French departments (Finistère, Morbihan, Loire-Atlantique and Vendée). These four areas encompass about 700 shellfish farms representing 37,600 metric tons of products having an estimated value of €141 million (>156 million USD), i.e., 20% of the national shellfish harvest. Ciguatera fish poisoning (CFP) deserved special attention at the workshop. This non-bacterial food poisoning, endemic in the South Pacific Islands and the Caribbean Sea, seems to be spreading due to climate change, globalization, and dwindling marine fishes. Poisoning results from the consumption of fish contaminated with Gambierdiscus-produced ciguatoxin. The main challenges to effective CFP detection are the rapid and accurate detection of the causative species and toxins in seafood. CFP has major impacts on human health which are anticipated to increase with climate change (Kidwell, 2015), with acute and chronic diseases and subsequent loss of work hours, and with changes from traditional protein sources to imported products. Appropriate strategies for intervention are urgent but difficult to Introduction Trainer et al. PICES Scientific Report No. 59 3 implement. The workshop participants discussed recent studies that are opening new possibilities to address CFP risks in island nations (Trick et al., this report). The huge HAB-related losses to industry, consumers, and governments illustrate the need for insurers, the aquaculture industry, public health professionals, economists, and HAB scientists to work together to estimate the cost of HAB events relative to the costs of mitigation and management. There are a number of factors that directly impact the economic stability of both finfish and shellfish aquaculture, of which HABs are only one. Better economic assessment is therefore required to evaluate and prioritize responses to HAB events as appropriate to business need. It is also necessary to determine whether pre-emptive measures currently taken are the most appropriate course of action or whether investment in alternative warning or mitigation approaches is more cost effective. The “halo effects” of HAB impacts are also poorly quantified, including consumer confidence in seafood during and after HAB events. Finally, HAB impacts on aquaculture can be intermittent. While fish and shellfish kills can be massive, they may be years apart, so multi-year economic assessments are needed to better quantify changes in losses and impacts. The future changes on HAB frequency and intensity (Wells et al., 2020, including extreme HAB events (Trainer et al., 2020) cannot be ignored. Studies of economic and social losses and their impacts need to be planned and teams need to be formed prior to HAB events to ensure that they are comprehensively studied. Toward this goal, the workshop further helped to establish greater connections between economists, industry scientists, and HAB researchers. In this report we provide a series of case studies to help guide future research and management priorities.