Review Article A global review of risk-benefit-cost analysis for the introduction of classical biological control agents against weeds: a crisis in the making?

Risks of non-target effects resulting from releases of exotic organisms for the biological control of alien pests are a growing major concern because: (a) previous releases (<1%) are having significant negative impacts on rare native species, (b) alien organisms are a recognized global threat to sustainable agriculture and biodiversity, (c) risk analysis, as applied to environmental threats of species invasions and harmful effects of releases of genetically modified organisms, is a burgeoning field, and (d) biological control is increasingly being used in complex natural ecosystems where indirect impacts are harder to predict. As a result, governments are adopting a more risk-averse attitude to biological control as they assess such releases from an environmental and an economic standpoint. This is leading to more expensive and fewer successful release applications. In this paper we review the processes of risk analysis used by regulatory bodies around the world to pre-judge biological control releases against weeds. The aim is to publicize both strengths and weaknesses and to help encourage existing assessments to be fair to all without blunting the value of biological control as an effective tool against invasive alien weeds. The review, based around the five components of formal risk analysis (comparative analysis, risk assessment, risk management, risk evaluation, and risk communication), also focuses on how well the benefits and costs of biological control releases are evaluated in addition to the traditional analysis of the hazards. Currently only the New Zealand approach closely matches a full ecological risk-benefit-cost analysis of biological control releases with a precautionary approach, open consultation, a broad hazard/benefit definition in the release application and a judicial basis to the decision, but it comes at a high cost. Improving the analytical approaches used by countries runs a high risk of grinding biological control releases to a halt in a world where the precautionary approach has been adopted with respect to threats from exotic organisms on biodiversity (in line with the ‘precautionary approach’ set forth in principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development). The benefits of biological control remain poorly understood by the public, allowing the risks to attain disproportionate attention. We make recommendations to address this crisis in the making and discuss the outcomes of the review with respect to the inherent social risks of making analysis of biological control releases an overly protracted process.

[1]  T. Olckers Biology, host specificity and risk assessment ofGargaphia decoris, the first agent to bereleased in South Africa for the biological control ofthe invasive tree Solanum mauritianum , 2000, BioControl.

[2]  A. P. Dodd The biological campaign against prickly-pear , 1940 .

[3]  Steven I. Higgins,et al.  A dynamic ecological-economic model as a tool for conflict resolution in an invasive-alien-plant, biological control and native-plant scenario , 1997 .

[4]  T. Grundy An economic evaluation of biological control of hieracium , 1989 .

[5]  H. S. Jacob,et al.  Modelling the population interactions between the crown weevil Mogulones larvatus and its host plant Echium plantagineum. , 2002 .

[6]  D. C. Le Maitre,et al.  Invasive alien trees and water resources in South Africa: case studies of the costs and benefits of management , 2002 .

[7]  A. Wapshere A strategy for evaluating the safety of organisms for biological weed control , 1974 .

[8]  L. Kok,et al.  Field Evaluation of Puccinia carduorum for Biological Control of Musk Thistle , 1993 .

[9]  J. Gibbs,et al.  National Environmental Policy Act , 1987 .

[10]  N. R. Spencer,et al.  Biological control of mist flower (Ageratina riparia, Asteraceae): transferring a successful program from Hawaii to New Zealand. , 2000 .

[11]  Robert W. Pemberton,et al.  Predictable risk to native plants in weed biological control , 2000, Oecologia.

[12]  H. Groote,et al.  Economic impact of biological control of water hyacinth in Southern Benin , 2003 .

[13]  Q. Paynter,et al.  Competition Between Two Biological Control Agents, Neurostrota gunniella and Phloeospora mimosae-pigrae , and Their Impact on the Invasive Tropical Shrub Mimosa pigra , 2001 .

[14]  D. Briese,et al.  A Strategy for the Biological Control of Onopordum spp. Thistles in South-eastern Australia , 2002 .

[15]  M. Webb Biological Control of Weeds. A World Catalogue of Agents and their Target Weeds. , 1999 .

[16]  N. R. Spencer,et al.  Apion miniatum (Coleoptera: Apionidae) and the control of Emex australis (Polygonaceae): conflicts of interest and non target effects. , 2000 .

[17]  T. Olckers Assessing the risks associated with the release of a flowerbud weevil, Anthonomus santacruzi, against the invasive tree Solanum mauritianum in South Africa , 2003 .

[18]  T. Olckers,et al.  A review of the agents and factors that have contributed to the successful biological control of Sesbania punicea (Cav.) Benth. (Papilionaceae) in South Africa. , 1999 .

[19]  M. Schwarzländer,et al.  Host Specificity of Mogulones cruciger (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), a Biocontrol Agent for Houndstongue ( Cynoglossum officinale ), with Emphasis on Testing of Native North American Boraginaceae , 2002 .

[20]  D. Briese,et al.  Host-specificity of Candidate Agents for the Biological Control of Onopordum spp. Thistles in Australia: An Assessment of Testing Procedures , 2002 .

[21]  M. Rowan Endemic biodiversity, natural enemies, and the future of biological control. , 2000 .

[22]  H. S. Jacob,et al.  Biological control of broad-leafed pasture weeds (Paterson's curse, Onopordum and nodding thistles). What have we achieved and where to from here? , 2002 .

[23]  M. Steinbauer Host Specificity Testing in Australasia: Towards Improved Assays for Biological Control , 2000 .

[24]  Jacobus A. Doeleman,et al.  Biological Control of Salvinia molesta in Sri Lanka: An Assessment of Costs and Benefits , 1989 .

[25]  Marcus J. Byrne,et al.  Economic evaluation of the successful biological control of Azolla filiculoides in South Africa , 2003 .

[26]  S. Louda,et al.  Nontarget effects--the Achilles' heel of biological control? Retrospective analyses to reduce risk associated with biocontrol introductions. , 2003, Annual review of entomology.

[27]  G. Schulten The FAO Code of Conduct for the Import and Release of Exotic Biological Control Agents1 , 1997 .

[28]  J. D. Kerr,et al.  Biological control of weeds: an evaluation , 1984 .

[29]  T. Olckers,et al.  Interpreting Ambiguous Results of Host-Specificity Tests in Biological Control of Weeds: Assessment of Two Leptinotarsa Species (Chrysomelidae) for the Control of Solanum elaeagnifolium (Solanaceae) in South Africa , 1995 .

[30]  R E McFadyen,et al.  Biological control of weeds. , 1998, Annual review of entomology.

[31]  A. Sheppard,et al.  Spatial economics of biological control: investing in new releases of insects for earlier limitation of Paterson's curse in Australia , 2002 .

[32]  Jeffrey E. Lovich,et al.  Ecological interactions in the biological control of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the United States: toward a new understanding. , 2000 .

[33]  P. Room,et al.  POPULATION GROWTH OF THE FLOATING WEED SAL VINIA MOLESTA: FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND A GLOBAL MODEL BASED ON TEMPERATURE AND NITROGEN , 1986 .

[34]  K. Hopper Research Needs Concerning Non-target Impacts of Biological Control Introductions , 2001 .

[35]  D. Strong,et al.  Food Webs, Risks of Alien Enemies and Reform of Biological Control , 2001 .

[36]  D. Briese,et al.  A new perspective on the selection of test plants for evaluating the host-specificity of weed biological control agents: the case of Deuterocampta quadrijuga, a potential insect control agent of Heliotropium amplexicaule , 2002 .

[37]  E. Wajnberg,et al.  Evaluating Indirect Ecological Effects of Biological Control , 2000 .

[38]  F. Wan,et al.  Use of Risk Analysis for Screening Weed Biocontrol Agents: Altica carduorum Guer. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) from China as a Biocontrol Agent of Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. in North America , 1997 .

[39]  W. M. Lonsdale,et al.  When to Ignore Advice: Invasion Predictions and Decision Theory , 1999, Biological Invasions.

[40]  E. Wajnberg,et al.  Risk analysis and weed biological control. , 2001 .

[41]  Daniel Simberloff,et al.  Ecological Effects of an Insect Introduced for the Biological Control of Weeds , 1997 .