evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Binational Beaver Control Programme — Tierra del Fuego (Argentina–Chile)

Argentina · Ushuaia · See the Argentina profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 64% 40/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Argentina and Chile have run a binational GEF/FAO-funded programme since 2008 to control 65,000-150,000 invasive North American beavers damaging up to 40,000 ha of Tierra del Fuego's native Nothofagus forest and peatlands, though full eradication has stalled since 2018.

65,000–150,000 beavers
Estimated invasive beaver population
40,000 ha
Native Nothofagus forest damaged
1,000+ beavers
Beavers removed, Argentina pilot programme (2016–2018)
11,700 beavers
Beavers removed, Chile control campaign (2005–2006)
66 USD million/year
Estimated annual beaver damage cost, Argentina
73 USD million
Estimated beaver damage cost, Chile (2020)
Binational Beaver Control Programme — Tierra del Fuego (Argentina–Chile)

Details

Maturity
Discontinued
Promoter
CADIC-CONICET / Argentine and Chilean environment ministries (GEF/FAO-funded binational programme)
Period
2008–present (binational agreement); field pilots 2016–2022, implementation stalled since 2018
Keywords
invasive species control, beaver management, forest conservation, binational cooperation

Context

In 1946 the Argentine Navy introduced about 20 North American beavers (Castor canadensis) to Isla Grande, Tierra del Fuego, to start a fur trade. With no natural predators, the population has since grown to an estimated 65,000-150,000 animals across the Argentine and Chilean sides of the island, and beaver dams have altered roughly 31,000 hectares of peat bogs, forest and grassland, damaging about 40,000 hectares of native Nothofagus forest, with some 16 million hectares of forest considered at risk.

Objectives

Argentina and Chile signed a binational management agreement in 2008, later securing GEF/FAO funding for coordinated control efforts aimed at reducing the invasive beaver population and the damage it causes to native forest and peatland ecosystems.

Activities

Argentina's pilot programme (2016-2018) trapped and removed more than 1,000 beavers across 505 colonies in seven test areas covering roughly 180,000 hectares. Chile's parallel Proyecto GEF Castor (2017-2022) built national control capacity, building on an earlier 2005-2006 campaign that had already removed 11,700 beavers.

Results

The economic case for control is significant: Argentine officials estimate beaver damage costs around $66 million a year, and Chile put its 2020 damage at roughly $73 million. Feasibility studies diverge on the cost of full eradication, citing figures from $15 million over 15 years to $31-33 million over 17-30 years, reflecting real scientific and financial uncertainty rather than a settled plan.

Conclusions

Implementation has stalled since 2018, with project participants themselves acknowledging that 'practically nothing' has been done at scale since then, largely for lack of sustained political commitment across two governments over multiple decades. A 2021 peer-reviewed study also complicated the simple 'pest' narrative, finding that beaver ponds locally increase bird diversity — a genuine ecological trade-off rather than proof the programme should stop.

Implementation

Indicative cost
High (€500k–€5M) — Feasibility studies cite $15 million over 15 years to $31-33 million over 17-30 years for full eradication; annual damage is estimated at $66 million (Argentina) and $73 million (Chile, 2020).
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Binational agreement signed 2008; field pilots ran 2016-2022; implementation has stalled since 2018; full eradication feasibility studies span 15-30 years.
Staffing & skills
CADIC-CONICET researchers, Argentine and Chilean national environment ministries, GEF/FAO-funded binational project staff

Conditions for success

  • sustained binational political commitment across two governments over multiple decades
  • coordinated cross-border funding and trapping capacity (GEF Castor, CADIC-CONICET)

Common failure modes

  • lack of sustained political commitment across two governments, cited by project participants as the reason implementation has been 'practically' stalled at scale since 2018
  • large divergence between feasibility studies on eradication cost/timeline ($15M/15yr vs $31-33M/17-30yr) reflecting real scientific and financial uncertainty

Where it fits

Governance type
binational government agreement, GEF/FAO-funded
Scale
island-wide (Tierra del Fuego, Argentina and Chile)
Income level
upper-middle to high-income

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful