Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Opportunities for improving risk communication during the permitting process for entomophagous biological control agents: a review of current systems

  • Forum Paper
  • Published:
BioControl Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 conducted 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler P, Kranowitz J (2005) A primer on perceptions of risk, risk communication and building trust. National Energy Technology Laboratory, US Department of Energy, USA

  • APHIS (Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service) (1996) Options for changes in biological control regulations and guidelines in the United States: a Strawman for comment. National Biological Control Institute, Riverdale, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • APHIS (Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service) (2006) Plant protection and quarantine permitting review highlights, DA-2006-04. Available online. http://ipm.ifas.ufl.edu/pdf/OrganismsPermittingReview.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2010

  • APHIS (Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service) (2007) Import and export. Available online. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/index.shtml. Accessed 15 Dec 2010

  • APHIS (Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service) (2009) Environmental impact statement; movement of plant pests, biological control organisms, and associated articles. Federal Register (7CFR Part 330), Docket No. Aphis-2008-0076 74: 53673–53674

  • AQIS (Australia Quarantine Inspection Service) (1997) Protocol for biological control agents. Available online. http://www.daff.gov.au/ba/reviews/biological_control_agents/protocol_for_biological_control_agents. Accessed 16 Apr 2012

  • Barratt BIP, Moeed A (2005) Environmental safety of biological control: policy and practice in New Zealand. Biol Control 35:247–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chartier J, Gabler S (2001) Risk communication and government: theory and application for the Canadian food and inspection agency. Canadian food and inspection agency public and regulatory affairs branch, Canada

  • Chess C, Salomone KL, Hance BJ (1995) Improving risk communication in government: research priorities. Risk Anal 15:127–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covello VT (2004) Effective risk communication: the role of government and non-governmental organizations. Springer

  • Covello V, Allen F (1988) Seven cardinal rules of risk communication. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Analysis, Washington, DC, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (2000) Mail and internet surveys, the tailored design method. Wiley, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA (United States Department of Environmental Protection Agency) (2003) Considerations in risk communication—a digest of risk communication as a management tool. Technology Transfer and Support Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, USA

  • ERMA (Environmental Risk Management Authority) (2012) New organisms. Available online. http://www.epa.govt.nz/new-organisms/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 16 Apr 2012

  • FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2011) Plant protection profiles from Asia-Pacific countries (2009–2010). FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (RAP) Publication, Bangkok, Thailand

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasham M, Trumper K (2001) Review of non-native species legislation and guidance. Ecoscope, St Ives, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • FERA (The Food and Environmental Research Agency) (2012) The regulation and control of the release of non-native animals and plants into the wild in Great Britain. Available online http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/wildlife/ecologyManagement/documents/wcaCompleteGuide.pdf. Accessed 05 Jan 2012

  • Fischhoff B (1990) Psychology and public policy: tool or tool maker? Am Psychol 45:57–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal 15:137–145

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson M (1985) To breathe freely: risk, consent, and air. Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gow HB, Otway H (1990) Communicating with the public about major accidents hazard. Gow HB, Otway H (eds). Elsevier, London, UK

  • Hunt EJ, Kuhlmann U, Sheppard A, Qin TK, Barratt BIP, Harrisson L, Mason PG, Parker D, Flanders RV, Goolsby J (2008) Review of invertebrate biological control agent regulation in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA: recommendations for harmonized European system. J App Entomol 132:89–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPPC (International Plant Protection Convention) (2004) Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures # 11, International Plant Protection Convention, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. Available online. https://www.ippc.int/index.php?id=1110798&frompage=13399&tx_publication_pi1[showUid]=34163&type=publication&L=0. Accessed 16 Apr 2012

  • IPPC (International Plant Protection Convention) (2005) Guidelines for the export, shipment, import and release of biological control agents and other beneficial organisms. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures # 3, International Plant Protection Convention, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. Available online. https://www.ippc.int/file_uploaded/1323944456_ISPM_03_2003_En_2011-12-01_Refor.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2011

  • IPPC (International Plant Protection Convention) (2007) Framework for pest risk analysis. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures # 2, International Plant Protection Convention, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. Available online. https://www.ippc.int/file_uploaded/1323944382_ISPM_02_2007_En_2011-12-01_Refor.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2011

  • IRA (Import Risk Analysis) (2007) Import risk analysis handbook. Available online. http://www.daff.gov.au/ba/ira/process-handbook. Accessed 24 March 2011

  • Kairo MTK, Cock JW, Quinlan MM (2003) An assessment of the use of the code of conduct for the import and release of exotic biological control agents (ISPM # 3) since its endorsement as an international standard. BioControl News Info 24:15N–27N

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubasek NK, Silverman GS (2005) Environmental law. Pearson Education Inc, Upper Saddle River, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomans AMJ (2007) Regulation of biological control agents in Europe: review and recommendations in its pursuit of a harmonized system. In: Report REBECA (Regulation of Biological Control Agents). Available online. http://www.rebeca-net.de/downloads/Regulation%20of%20Beneficials%20in%20Europe.pdf. Accessed 01 April 2011

  • Mason PG, Flanders RG, Arrendondo-Bernal HA (2005) How can legislation facilitate the use of biological control of arthropods in North America. Proc 2nd Int Symp Biol Control of Arthropods, Davos, Switzerland, 12–16 September 2005, pp 701–714

  • Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ (2002) Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • NAPPO (North American Plant Protection Organization) (2008) Guidelines for petition for first release of exotic entomophagous biological control agents. Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures # 12. Available online. http://www.nappo.org/en/data/files/download/PDF/RSPM12-Rev20-10-08-e.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2010

  • National Research Council NRC (1996) Understanding risk: informing decision in a democratic society. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • PPQS (Plant Protection Quarantine and Storage) (2006) Guidelines for regulating export, import and release of biological control agents and other beneficial organisms. Available online. http://plantquarantineindia.org/pdffiles/guidlelinesforbeneficial%20organisms_7AUG2006.pdf. Accessed 05 Jan 2011

  • REBECA (Regulation of Biological Control Agents) (2006) General topics. In: Final report-regulation of biological control agents-specific support action, sustainable management of Europe’s natural resources

  • Sandman PM (1986) Explaining environmental risk. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances. Washington, DC, USA

  • Simberloff D (2005) The politics of assessing risk for biological invasions: the USA as a case study. Trends Ecol Evol 20:216–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D, Stiling P (1996) Risks of species introduced for biological control. Biol Conserv 78:185–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Kruskal-Wallis. In: Wilson J, Cotter S (eds), Biometry. WH. Freeman and Co. New York, USA, pp 429–432

  • Thomas MB, Willis AJ (1998) BioControl-risky but necessary? Trends Ecol Evol 13:325–329

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • van Lenteren JC, Bale F, Bigler F, Hokkanen HMT, Loomans AJM (2006) Assessing risks of releasing exotic biological control agents of arthropod pests. Ann Rev Entomol 51:609–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walls J, Pidgeon N, Weyman A, Horlick-Jones T (2004) Critical trust: understanding lay perceptions of health and safety risk regulation. Health Risk Soc 6:133–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner KD, Getz C (2008) A socio-economic analysis of the North American commercial natural enemy industry and implications for augmentative biological control. Biol Control 45:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thanks Stephanie Bloem for helpful comments and recommendations during the study. Earlier versions of this manuscript were improved by Robert Flanders, Erich Rudyj, and Keith Warner and two anonymous reviewers. This work is funded under the FAMU/USDA-APHIS Cooperative Agreement 07-10-8100-0755-CA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Biological Control, College of Agriculture and Food Sciences, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, 1740 Martin Luther King Boulevard, Perry-Paige Building, Room 308 (South), Tallahassee, FL, 32307, USA

    Oulimathe Paraiso

  2. Center for Biological Control, College of Agriculture and Food Sciences, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, 1740 Martin Luther King Boulevard, Perry-Paige Building, Room 310 (South), Tallahassee, FL, 32307, USA

    M. T. K. Kairo

  3. USDA-ARS-Center for Medical Agricultural and Medical Entomology, 6383 Mahan Drive, Tallahassee, FL, 32308, USA

    S. D. Hight

  4. Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110620, Bldg. 970 Natural Area Drive, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    N. C. Leppla & J. P. Cuda

  5. Environmental Sciences Institute, Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University, 1515 Martin Luther King Boulevard, Tallahassee, FL, 32307, USA

    M. Owens

  6. Food and Resource Economics Department, IFAS, University of Florida, 2126 MCCB, P.O. Box 110240, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    M. T. Olexa

Authors
  1. Oulimathe Paraiso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. T. K. Kairo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. D. Hight
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. N. C. Leppla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. P. Cuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Owens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. T. Olexa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oulimathe Paraiso.

Additional information

Handling Editor: Dirk Babendreier

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Questionnaire
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Paraiso, O., Kairo, M.T.K., Hight, S.D. et al. Opportunities for improving risk communication during the permitting process for entomophagous biological control agents: a review of current systems. BioControl 58, 1–15 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-012-9464-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-012-9464-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation