The contribution of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to decision making for biological pest control in South Africa - The case of Lantana camara

Biological Control

Volumn 55, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 141-149

  Sandham, L A ^a   Carroll, T H ^a   Retief, F P ^a  

^a NORTH WEST UNIVERSITY   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Biological control; Decision making; Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA); Environmental Impact Assessment report quality; Lantana camara

Indexed keywords

LANTANA; LANTANA CAMARA;

EID: 77956407885     PISSN: 10499644     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2009.12.010     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Anon., 1983a. Agricultural Pest Act 36 of 1983. Government Printer, Pretoria.
2. Anon., 1983b. Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act 43 of 1983. Government Printer, Pretoria.
3. Anon., 1989. Environment Conservation Act 73 of 1989. Government Printer, Pretoria.
4. Anon., 1997a. The identification under Section 21 of activities which may have a substantial detrimental effect on the environment. Government Gazette, 8261, September 5 (Notice R. 1182).
5. Anon., 1997b. Regulations regarding activities identified under Section 21 (1). Government Gazette, 8261, September 5 (Notice R. 1183).
6. Anon., 1998. National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998. Government Printer, Pretoria.
7. Anon., 2004. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004. Government Printer, Pretoria.
8. Anon., 2006a. List of activities and competent authorities identified in terms of Sections 24 and 24D of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998. Government Gazette, 28753, April 21 (Notice R. 385).
9. Anon., 2006b. Regulations in terms of Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998. Government Gazette, 28753, April 21 (Notice R. 386).
10. Almansa L.C., Merchan M., Cifuentes P. Quality of environmental impact statements in Portugal and Spain. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2005, 25:217-225.
11. Arnett A.E., Louda S.M. Re-test of Rhinocyllus conicus host specificity, and the prediction of ecological risk in biological control. Biological Conservation 2002, 106:251-257.
12. Asian Development Bank, 1997. Reviewing and Evaluating an EIA report. (accessed 21.04.09). http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Environment_Impact/chap12.pdf.
13. Baars J.R., Neser S. Past and present initiatives on the biological control of Lantana camara (Verbenaceae) in South Africa. Biological control of weeds in South Africa (1990-1999). African Entomology, Memoir No. 1 1999, Entomological Society of Southern Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa, pp. 182. T. Olckers, M.P. Hill (Eds.).
14. Baars J.R., Urban A.J., Hill M.P. Biology, host range, and risk assessment supporting release in Africa of Falconia intermedia (Heteroptera: Miridae), a new biocontrol agent for Lantana camara. Biological Control 2003, 28:282-292.
15. Bankwatch, 2003. Quality Analysis of the EIA for the Sakhalin II Phase 2 Project. (accessed 12.09.06). http://www.Bankwatch.org/documents/Sakhalin_EIA_quality_analysis_devio2003.pdf.
16. Barker A., Wood C. An evaluation of EIA system performance in eight EU countries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1999, 19:387-404.
17. Berner D.K., Bruckart W.L. A decision tree for evaluation of exotic plant pathogens for classical biological control of introduced invasive weeds. Biological Control 2005, 34:222-232.
18. Briese D.T. Translating host-specificity test results into the real world: the need to harmonize the yin and yang of current testing procedures. Biological Control 2005, 35:208-214.
19. Carroll, T.H., 2006. Quality of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Reports on Biological Pest Control for Lantana camara. Mini-dissertation submitted for Master of Environmental Management, School of Environmental Sciences and Development, North-West University, Potchefstroom campus.
20. Ding J., Blossey B., Du Y., Zheng F. Galerucella birmanica (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), a promising potential biological control agent of water chestnut, Trapa natans. Biological Control 2006, 36:80-90.
21. European Commission (EC), 1994. Environmental Impact Assessment Review Checklist. European Commission. Directorate-General for Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection, Brussels.
22. Gentle C.B., Duggin J.A. Allelopathy as a competitive strategy in persistent thickets of Lantana camara L. in three Australian forest communities. Plant Ecology 1997, 132:85-95.
23. Glasson, J., 1996. Changes in the quality of environmental statements for planning projects. Department of the Environment, HMSO, London.
24. Glasson J., Therivel R., Chadwick A. Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment 2005, Routledge, London. third ed.
25. Henderson L. Alien Weeds and Invasive Plants. Agricultural Research Council 2001, Paarl Printers, Cape Town, 300p.
26. Hoffmann M.P., Frodsham A.C. Natural Enemies of Vegetable Insect Pests 1993, Cooperative Extension, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 63p.
27. Hunt E.J., Kuhlmann U., Sheppard A., Qin T.-K., Barratt B.I.P., Harrison L., Mason P.G., Parker D., Goolsby J. Review of invertebrate biological control agent regulation in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA: recommendations for a harmonised European regulatory system. Journal of Applied Entomology 2008, 132:89-123.
28. Klein, H., 2002. Principles of biological control. PPRI Leaflet Series: Weeds Biocontrol. No 1.3. ARC-Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria, 4p.
29. Lee N. Reviewing the quality of environmental assessments. Environmental Assessment in Developing and Transitional Countries 2000, 137-147. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester. N. Lee, C. George (Eds.).
30. Lee N., Colley R. Reviewing the Quality of Environmental Statements, Occasional Paper Number 24 1992, EIA Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester. second ed.
31. Lee N., Colley R., Bonde J., Simpson J. Reviewing the quality of environmental statements and environmental appraisals. Occasional Paper 55 1999, EIA Centre, Department of Planning and Landscape, University of Manchester, Manchester.
32. Louda S.M., Rand T.A., Russell F.L., Arnett A.E. Assessment of ecological risks in weed biocontrol: input from retrospective ecological analyses. Biological Control 2005, 35:253-264.
33. McFadyen, R.E., 2003. Does ecology help in the selection of biocontrol agents? In: Spafford Jacob, H., Briese, D.T. (Eds.), Improving the Selection, Testing and Evaluation of Weed Biological Control Agents. CRC for Australian Weed Management. (accessed 21.04.09). http://www.weedscrc.org.au/documents/tech_series_7.pdf.
34. A Global Strategy on Invasive Alien Species 2001, IUCN Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK, 50p. J.A. McNeely, H.A. Mooney, L.E. Neville, P. Schei, J.K. Waage (Eds.).
35. Morrison-Saunders A., Annandale D., Cappelluti J. Practitioner perspectives on what influences EIA quality. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2001, 19:321-325.
36. Pearson D.E., Callaway R.M. Indirect nontarget effects of host-specific biological control agents: implications for biological control. Biological Control 2005, 35:288-298.
37. Rzeszot U.A. Environmental Impact Assessment in Central and Eastern Europe. Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, vol. 2, Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice: Impact and Limitations 1999, 172-175. Blackwell Science, London. J. Petts (Ed.).
38. Sandham L.A., Pretorius H.M. A review of EIA report quality in the North West province of South Africa. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2008, 28:229-240.
39. Sandham L.A., Moloto M.J., Retief F.P. The Quality of Environmental Impact Reports for projects with the potential of affecting wetlands in South Africa. Water SA 2008, 34:155-163.
40. Sandham L.A., Hoffmann A.R., Retief F.P. Reflections on the quality of mining EIA reports in South-Africa. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 2008, 108:701-706.
41. Sheppard, A.W., 2003. Prioritising agents based on predicted efficacy: beyond the lottery approach. In: Spafford Jacob, J.H., Briese, D.T. (Eds.), Improving the Selection, Testing and Evaluation of Weed Biological Control Agents. CRC for Australian Weed Management. (accessed 11.05.06). http://www.weedscrc.org.au/documents/tech_series_7.pdf.
42. Sheppard A.W., Hill R.L., DeClerck-Floate R.A., McClay A., Olckers T., Quimby P.C., Zimmermann H.G. A global review of risk-benefit-cost analysis for the introduction of classical weed biological control agents against weeds: a crisis in the making?. Biocontrol News and Information 2003, 24:91N-108N.
43. Sheppard A.W., Van Klinken R.D., Heard T.A. Scientific advances in the analysis of direct risks of weed biological control agents to nontarget plants. Biological Control 2005, 35:215-226.
44. Simpson J. Developing a review package to assess the quality of EA reports of Local Authority structure and local plans in the UK. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2001, 21:83-95.
45. UNEP Environmental Impact Assessment Training Resource Manual, Second, 2002. Topic 9 - review of EIA quality. (accessed 17.08.09). http://www.unep.ch/etu/publications/EIA_2ed/EIA_E_top9_body.pdf.
46. USDA, 2000. Reviewer's manual for the technical advisory group for biological control agents of weeds: guidelines for evaluating the safety of candidate biological control agents. Manuals Unit, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (accessed 18.11.09). http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/tag.pdf.
47. Van der Vyver, F., 2008. The quality of Environmental Impact reports in explosives industry projects in South Africa. Mini-dissertation submitted for Master of Environmental Management, School of Environmental Sciences and Development, North-West University, Potchefstroom.
48. Van Wilgen B.W., De Wit M.P., Anderson H.J., Le Maitre D.C., Kotze I.M., Ndala S., Brown B., Rapholo M.B. Costs and benefits of biological control of invasive alien plants: case studies from South Africa. South African Journal of Science 2004, 100:113-122.
49. Wapshere A.J. A strategy for evaluating the safety of organisms for biological weed control. Annals of Applied Biology 1974, 77:20-211.
50. Wood C. Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review 2003, Prentice Hall, England. second ed.
51. Wright M.G., Hoffmann M.P., Kuhar T.P., Gardner J., Pitcher S.A. Evaluating risks of biological control introductions: a probabilistic risk-assessment approach. Biological Control 2005, 35:338-347.
52. Zalucki M.P., Day M.D., Playford J. Will biological control of Lantana camara ever succeed? Patterns, processes & prospects. Biological Control 2007, 42:251-261.