Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
been used to develop national frameworks and policy. h e Code also contained
technical implementation details which were useful but this was not enough for
some countries without experience or technical knowledge about biological con-
trol (Kairo
et al
. 2003); there is a real need for knowledge transfer, but with the
issue of the revised Code (FAO 2005b) there is an intention to produce technical
implementation details as a set of documents in support of the Code (Nowell and
Maynard 2005).
Lack of adequate funding for biological control also hinders its proper imple-
mentation and follow-up in many countries. h is problem was alluded to earlier
in this chapter. In general, funding is linked to government policy issues referred
to above. Most classical biological control is undertaken by public sector organiza-
tions and is funded by the public sector (Hill and Greathead 2000) and classical
biological control in developing countries is often funded in part by international
assistance agencies (Kairo
et al
. 2003). Public and donor funding usually operates
on short cycles (3-5 years is typical) but it is recognized that biological control
projects take much longer (Cock
et al
. 2000). h us crucial studies tend to be
curtailed and the results of the biological eff ort are unknown.
It has been predicted that there will be a massive increase in invasive plant species
from those introduced over the past century that have already become naturalized,
and from other species that continue to be moved as a consequence of globaliza-
tion (McFadyen 1998); the same is true of species in other taxa that have been,
or are being moved around the globe. This author also argued that 'classical bio-
logical control is the only safe, practical and economically feasible method that
is sustainable in the long term, and the importation of (benefi cial) insects and
pathogens must not be prevented by ever-increasing restrictions and demands for
pre-release studies'. This has been enforced more recently by the statement that
classical biological control is the only method open to resource-poor farmers in
the developing world, who, in the absence of control, abandon weed-infested land
and clear more forest (Wilson and McFadyen 2000). These authors argued that
'nit-picking' about non-target impacts sends out the wrong messages to coun-
tries where there is effort to assess and implement management methods for inva-
sive species. But on the other hand, the increasing concern about ecological risks
that classical biological control presents calls for constant vigilance by biological
control practitioners to ensure that best practices are followed and high standards
are maintained. Methods for all stages of classical biological control that have been
tested are now available so there are no reasons why modern projects should not be
safe and have a good chance of being successful.
