View - ResearchGate

414
D. Babendreier
has attracted considerable attention internationally as very environmentally
focused legislation, and its implementation by ERMA NZ has been observed
with interest. In Australia, biological control agents are regulated by two agencies
under three separate Acts, and have been similarly heralded as a thorough
and biosafety-conscious approach. The two systems have some key differences
in approach, and the notability of these approaches, particularly in the
area of scope of the regulatory process, is in the opportunity for public participation,
and the degree of risk-aversion of the regulatory agencies.
An initiative of OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development) countries resulted in the development of a guidance document
for biological control agents. The document (OECD 2003) proposes guidance
to member countries on information requirements for (1) the characterization
and identification of the organism, (2) the assessment of safety and
effects on human health, (3) the assessment of environmental risks and (4)
the assessment of efficacy of the organism. In Europe, the biological control
industry expressed concern when the OECD guidance document was published,
as the information requirements were considered to be too stringent.
As a result, a Commission of the IOBC/WPRS was established in 2003 and a
meeting of scientists, together with the biocontrol industry and regulators,
resulted in the production of a document which gives detailed guidance on
regulation procedures for exotic and indigenous biocontrol agents (Bigler et
al. 2005). Most recently, the European Commission released a call for project
applications with the aim to develop a new, appropriate and balanced system
for regulation of biological control agents (micro- and macro-organisms),
semiochemicals and botanicals. It is expected that, in the foreseeable future,
the EU members and other European countries may regulate invertebrate biological
control agents under uniform principles (but see also Chap. 20).
From this overview on activities worldwide, it is becoming evident that the
potential for non-target effects of biological control agents has become an
important issue recently, and that important progress has been achieved.
However, it was recognized that all these initiatives and guidelines generally
highlight what should be done or what knowledge is required but they are not
designed to provide detailed methods on how one should test for non-target
effects. This gap was addressed by a guide to best practice in host range testing
published by Van Driesche and Reardon (2004). In addition, a comprehensive
review on the current methods used to assess potential risks of biological
control agents was provided by Babendreier et al. (2005), and a recently published
book attempts to go a step further by providing guidance on methods
to be used to assess non-target effects of invertebrate biological control agents
of insect pests (Bigler et al. 2006).
Though several different aspects may become relevant for risk assessment
of arthropod biological control agents, including the potential for establishment
(in augmentative biocontrol only) or hybridisation (Chap. 16), host
range is the pivotal point in most cases. As Hoddle (2004) pointed out, the