ABSTRACT
Biological control is one of the most environmentally safe and economically profitable pest management methods. Beneficial organisms used in biocontrol can be of native or exotic origin. As invasive species are being accidentally introduced at an ever-increasing rate, deliberate introductions of non-native biocontrol agents are often needed for the area-wide management of these invasive pests. However, recent regulations have delayed or prevented prospecting for new, non-native natural enemies. A first phase of regulation started in the 1980s and concerned the development of risk analyses for non-native species. At this time, as commercial biocontrol became popular and the number of species of biocontrol agents on the market quickly increased, many thought that risk analyses were needed to prevent non-experts importing and commercializing insufficiently studied organisms. However, implementation of (environmental) risk assessments for biocontrol agents has resulted in a slowdown in the use of new non-native natural enemies, and in higher project costs caused by the need to prepare elaborate application dossiers. These regulations were mainly aimed at preventing potential negative effects of releasing non-native biocontrol agents and, thus, in increasing confidence in this pest management method. The second phase of regulations started more recently and deals with the question “Who owns biological control agents?” At the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in 1993, one of the three objectives formulated was “the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources”. Biocontrol agents are such genetic resources. The Nagoya Protocol, a supplementary agreement to the CBD, provides a framework for the effective implementation of the fair and equitable sharing of benefits (i.e. the Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) regulations) arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. Signatories of the Protocol are required to develop a legal framework to ensure access to genetic resources, benefit-sharing and compliance. Recent applications of CBD principles have already created barriers to collection and export of natural enemies for biocontrol research in several countries. If the Nagoya Protocol is widely applied, it may seriously interfere with searching for and application of biocontrol agents against invasive pests. Therefore, the International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC) first of all made an appeal to those involved in developing the legal framework for ABS, to design regulations that support the biocontrol sector by facilitating the exchange of biocontrol agents, including clear guidelines. Secondly, the IOBC also strongly recommended that biocontrol agents should be considered as a special case under the CBD, by creating a non-financial ABS regime, mainly because classical biocontrol is a non-for-profit activity, and both developing and developed countries benefit from the use of the same biocontrol agents. Thirdly, as prospecting for new non-native natural enemies has currently been suspended if not terminated 656in many countries due to CBD and ABS procedures, the IOBC prepared a best practices guide to assist the biocontrol community to demonstrate due diligence in complying with ABS requirements. The best practices guide includes a draft ABS Agreement for collection and study of biocontrol agents that can be used for scientific research and non-commercial release into nature by countries having signed the Nagoya Protocol. If many countries decide to implement the IOBC proposal for an agreement for collection and study of natural enemies, biocontrol might face a bright future.
