Search BIREA:

View:   long pages · print version

Annotated bibliography

Biological control regulation


Bale, J. (2011). Harmonization of regulations for invertebrate biocontrol agents in Europe: progress, problems and solutions. Journal of Applied Entomology 135: 503–513.
This article reviews major developments in the regulation and environmental risk assessment of insect biocontrol agents in Europe over the last 10 years including: the fragmented pattern of regulation between countries, variation in information requirements for release licences, format and methods of environmental risk assessment for different taxonomic groups, use and updating of the European Plant Protection Organisation Positive List, sources of expert advice, communication between regulators, and options for the provision of international leadership to coordinate regulatory issues with biocontrol in Europe.

Barratt B.I.P. and Kuhlmann U. (2005). Introduction: legislation and biological control of arthropods: challenges and opportunities. Pp. 683-685 In: Second International Symposium of Biological Control of Arthropods, M. Hoddle (Ed.) USDA Forest Service FHTET-2005-08.

Barratt B.I.P. and Moeed A. (2005). Environmental safety of biological control: policy and practice in New Zealand. Biological Control 35: 247-252.
The regulatory system for biological control agent introduction in NZ and the process by which biological control applications are received and processed is described. Two case studies of weed biological control agents which have been through the HSNO process, and the scientific issues that arose in considering the environmental safety of these agents are discussed.

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) (2010). Import and release of non-indigenous biological control agents. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 40: 335-344

FAO (1996). Code of conduct for the import and release of exotic biological control agents. Food and Agriculture Organisation. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No 3.

Goldson S.L., Frampton E.R. and Ridley G.S. (2010.). The effects of legislation and policy in New Zealand and Australia on biosecurity and arthropod biological control research and development. Biological Control 52: 241-244.
The authors highlight some of the differences between legislation, policy and what science can deliver relating to biological control and biosecurity in New Zealand and Australia. They also discuss some of the inconsistencies and impracticalities in their implementation with a focus on examples from arthropod biological control.

Harris P. (1991). Classical biological control of weeds: its definition, selection of effective agents, and administrative-political problems. Canadian Entomologist 123: 827-849.

Harrison L., Moeed A. and Sheppard A. (2005). Regulation of the release of biological control agents of arthopods in New Zealand and Australia. Pp. 715-725 In: Second International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods, Davos, Switzerland, 12-16 September, 2005, M.S. Hoddle (Ed.) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington.
Regulation of biological control agents in New Zealand is legislated by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 and administered by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA New Zealand). In Australia the Department of the Environment and Heritage and the Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry Australia - Australian Quarantine Inspection Service jointly regulate the import, testing and release of biological control agents under the Quarantine Act 1908, Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 and Biological Control Act 1984. The 2 regulatory systems are compared in this paper highlighting the pivotal role of information from the host specificity testing in the decision making process and the valuable opportunity for researchers to interact with the public.

Kairo M.T.K., M.J.W. Cock. and M.M. Quinlan (2003). An assessment of the use of the Code of Conduct for the Import and Release of Exotic Biological Control Agents (ISPM No. 3) since its endorsement as an international standard Biocontrol News and Information 24: 27N
This review assesses the use of ISPM No. 3 since it became an international standard for making decisions about biological control agents. It was found that ISPM No. 3 or similar national procedures have been applied in most cases to support decisions regarding import and release of exotic biological control agents since 1996. It has provided a mechanism for formalizing current good practice and provided internationally accepted standards to countries with little experience in implementing biological control. Limitations in implementation of ISPM No. 3 included lack of technical capacity and appropriate quarantine facilities. Case studies for decisions by Kenya, Colombia, the Caribbean, Yemen, Samoa and Brazil are discussed to provide further insights into the use of ISPM No. 3 over its first seven years.

Kluge R.L. (2000). The future of biological control of weeds with insects: no more 'paranoia', no more 'honeymoon'. Proceedings of the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds: 459-467
Two issues are considered in this paper: first the 'paranoia' about the threat of biocontrol agents to non-target plant species, and second, the 'honeymoon' regarding the lack of accountability for projects that failed to achieve their desired objectives. Proposals are made to deal with five current pressures that biological control of weeds is facing, the image of the discipline, host specificity verification, selection of candidates, funding and regulatory requirements.

Knutson L. and Coulson J.R. (1997). Procedures and policies in the USA regarding precautions in the introduction of classical biological control agents. EPPO/CABI workshop on safety and efficacy of biological control in Europe 27: 133-142.
Scientists, administrators and others have long recognized the need to ensure that natural enemies of weeds do not attack commercially or horticulturally important plants and to ensure that natural enemies of insects do not attack beneficial species. Procedures for testing the host specificity of the natural enemies of weeds in their area of origin, before shipment to the country of release, have been developed to quite high levels of reliability but there is need for further improvements. All applications for permission to introduce biocontrol agents are examined by an Inter-agency Technical Advisory Committee for Biological Control of Weeds (TAGBCW) before import permits are issued by the relevant authority (USDA APHIS/PPQ). TAGBCW review includes study of research plans and of lists of host plants for testing host specificity. It is considered that there is relatively little need for host-range testing of most parasitoids because these are generally co-evolved and intimately related organisms that are restricted to one or a few host species. Concern about the potential impact of oligophagous predators on non-target organisms has increased recently and is a developing field of research. The import permit system in the USA is presented, and two suggestions for changes in European permit procedures are suggested.

Longworth J.F. (1987). Biological control in New Zealand: policy and procedures. New Zealand Entomologist 10: 1-7.

Loomans A.J.M., Van Lenteren J.C., Bigler F., Burgio G., Hokkanen H.M.T., Thomas M.B. and Editor: Enkegaard E. (2002). Evaluating environmental risks of biological control introductions: how to select safe natural enemies? Proceedings of the joint IOBC/WPRS Working Group "Integrated Control in Protected Crops, Temperate Climate" and IOBC/NRS "Greenhouse, Nursery, and Ornamental Landscape IPM Working Group" at Victoria (British Columbia), Canada, 6 9 May 2002; Bulletin OILB/SROP 25: 147-150.
Biological control of greenhouse pests has become a key component of sustainable horticulture in the world. No clear direct adverse effects have been found, but the potential nontarget effects of these releases have been little emphasized. The current situation with respect to selection procedures for importing, mass-rearing and releasing (new) exotic natural enemies is discussed.

Mason P.G. and Kuhlmann U. (2002). Regulations are necessary for biological control agents. IOBC/wprs Bulletin 25: 165-171.

Messing R.H. (2005). Hawaii as a role model for comprehensive U.S. Biocontrol legislation: the best and the worst of it. Pp. 686-691 In: Second International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods, Davos, Switzerland, 12-16 September, 2005, M.S. Hoddle (Ed.) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington.
The USA currently has no comprehensive, integrated legislative or regulatory framework to manage the permitting of imported biological control agents. In contrast, the State of Hawaii has specific, detailed and exhaustive rules for obtaining import and release permits for natural enemies and this could serve as a useful model for national protocols, with coordinated scientific evaluation at several levels of specialization and input from a wide range of concerned parties. The author suggests that the best parts of the Hawaii system are captured, and the legalistic and bureaucratic aspects removed, then a thorough, streamlined, efficient, transparent, accountable and enabling regulatory framework could be put in place that would safeguard non-target species while facilitating biological control and environmentally sound pest management at the national level.

Miller M.L. and Aplet G.H. (2005). Applying legal sunshine to the hidden regulation of biological control. Biological Control 35: 358-365.
This article identifies a legal gap in current USDA policy concerning decisions about the review and release of biological pest control agents. Current practices do not provide sufficient information for biologists or an informed public to understand or evaluate policy decisions and environmental outcomes. The USDA needs to comply with federal law by making all relevant documents and data available on the internet. Federal law and policy requires that the USDA release all relevant information, and make it readily accessible to all interested parties.

OECD E.D. (2003). Guidance for information requirements for regulation of invertebrates as biological control agents (IBCAs). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 19 pp.

Orlinskii A.D. (1997). Precautions for and experiences with introduction of exotic biological control agents into the former USSR. Pp. 61-68 In: EPPO/CABI workshop on safety and efficacy of biological control in Europe, I.M. Smith (Ed.) Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford.

Paraiso O., Kairo M.T.K., Hight S.D., Leppla N.C., Cuda J.P., Owens M. and Olexa M.T . (2013). Opportunities for improving risk communication during the permitting process for entomophagous biological control agents: a review of current systems. Biocontrol 58: 1-15.
Concerns about potentially irreversible non-target impacts from the importation and release of entomophagous biological control agents (BCAs) have resulted in increasingly stringent national import requirements by National Plant Protection Organizations worldwide. However, there is a divergence of opinions among regulators, researchers, environmentalists, and the general public on ways to appropriately manage associated risks. Implementation of a comprehensive and effective risk communication process might narrow the opinion gaps. Results from a comprehensive survey cnducted in the United States were used to describe communication habits of stakeholders involved in biological control and identify areas that are fundamental in an efficient process. In addition, this study critically reviews risk communication practices and how phytosanitary decisions are communicated in the permitting systems for entomophagous BCAs of several countries to identify risk communication tools used in an effective risk communication framework. The following barriers to efficient risk communication were identified: absence of a formalized risk communication process, undefined risk communication goals and target audiences, lack of credibility and objectivity of information sources, inefficiency of mode of distribution of messages, insufficient public participation, and lack of transparency of decision making processes. This paper suggests the creation and/or enhancement of modes of distribution of risk messages to increase coverage, understanding, and guidance. For instance, messages should be presented in different formats such as internet, brochures, and newspapers. Surveys, public meetings, and trainings/workshops are tools that can be used to characterize stakeholders’ diversity and develop risk messages specific to the targeted audience. Implementation of a participatory decision making process will increase stakeholder involvement and trust in the risk management plan. Development of practical mechanisms, such as public hearings will increase all stakeholders’ involvement in the risk assessment process. A clear framework describing how public comments will be incorporated in the decision making process should be implemented. Finally, to ensure a streamlined risk communication process, there must be consistency in the messages disseminated by federal, state, and local agencies.

Paton (1992). Legislation and its administration in the approval of agents for biological control in Australia. In: Proceedings of the VIII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, E.S. Delfosse and R.R. Scott (Ed.)

Schulten G.G.M. (1997). The FAO Code of Conduct for the import and release of exotic biological. Pp. 29-36 In: EPPO/CABI workshop on safety and efficacy of biological control in Europe, I.M. Smith (Ed.) Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford.

Sheppard A.W., Shaw R.H. and Sforza R. (2006). Top 20 environmental weeds for classical biological control in Europe: a review of opportunities, regulations and other barriers to adoption. Weed Research 46: 93-117
Despite more than 130 case histories in Europe against insect pests, no exotic classical biological control agent has been released in the EU against an alien invasive weed despite increasing numbers of exotic invasive plants being imported. The authors review possible European weed targets for classical biological control from ecological and socioeconomic perspectives. They also consider why classical biological control of European exotic plants remains untested, and the regulatory framework that surrounds such biological control activities within constituent countries of the EU and suggest how invasive exotic weeds in might be managed in the future in Europe.

Smith I.M. (1997). EPPO/CABI workshop on safety and efficacy of biological control in Europe. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford.

Stanley M.C. and Fowler S.V. (2004). Conflicts of interest associated with the biological control of weeds. Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds: 322-340
The introduction of weed biological control agents may be delayed or prohibited where the plant targeted for control also has beneficial attributes. Conflicts fall into one of several categories: one or more groups value the target plant for economic and/or cultural use; non-target effects of biological control; those related to biocontrol programs against native plants; and ecological effects of successful biocontrol as a result of weed use by native biota. While industry-based conflicts dominate, there has been a shift towards conflicts associated with the ecological effects of weed biocontrol. The benefits of weeds to ecosystems, particularly where weeds provide resources for native fauna, are becoming an important part of cost-benefit analyses for weed biocontrol programs. Examples where weed biocontrol programs have been delayed because of economic and ecological conflicts are given. At present, weed biocontrol programs are usually initiated only when the risk of conflict is low. Where conflict does occur, communication and cost-benefit analyses are key to ensuring resolution is found. However, cost-benefit analyses, are expensive and time-consuming, causing substantial delays to weed biocontrol programs and ongoing environmental damage as a consequence of weed invasion.

Whiteman S.A., Barratt B.I.P. and Ridley G.S. (2006). A life sentence or parole: conditional release approval of biological control agents. New Zealand Plant Protection 59: 281-284.

van Halteren P. (1997). A code of conduct for the import and release of exotic biological control agents for Europe? Pp. 45-48 In: EPPO/CABI workshop on safety and efficacy of biological control in Europe, I.M. Smith (Ed.) Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford.