CHAPTER 12 Managing conflict over biological control: the· case of strawberry guava in Hawaii

M. Tracy Johnson USDA Forest Service, PacificSouthwest Research Station, Volcano, USA

Introduction invaders with no viable management alternatives, it may be necessary to consider biological control even Conflict can be a part of virtually any decision about when it is likely to generate conflict. Discussed here is a management of natural resources, not least decisions case study, strawberry guava (Psidium cattleianum regarding use of biological control. The shared, public Sabine) in Hawaii, in which conflicting views of the character of natural resources and the permanent, targeted plant engendered substantial opposition to irrevocable nature of biological control releases ensure biological control. The processes followed and lessons that many people will have opinions, sometimes learned may be useful for others considering biological strongly held, regarding use of a particular biological control as a management option for widespread plant control agent in an area they care about. Conflicts asso­ invasions in natural areas, especially where there are ciated with the use of biological control have been groups with conflicting interests. reviewed elsewhere, along with approaches for resolving conflict and the challenges these present (Turner, 1985; Stanley and Fowler, 2004; Hayes et al., Strawberry guava in Hawaii 2008). A variety of conflict-resolution approaches exist; however, the time and effort involved in gathering the Following its introduction into Hawaii in the early necessary data and engaging in the required processes 1800s, strawberry guava (Figure 12.1) was cultivated to resolve conflicts tend to be seen as onerous, moti­ widely in gardens and used occasionally in efforts to vating weed biological control scientists to select only reforest degraded landscapes (Degener, 1939; Wagner targets with low potential for conflict (Stanley and et al., 1990). Today strawberry guava continues to be Fowler, 2004), essentially a strategy of conflict avoid­ planted as an ornamental, and jam from the fruit is sold ance. In cases where target-based concerns are unavoid­ at farmers' markets. However, it is not cultivated as an able, for example biological control of invasive Acacia agricultural commodity, in contrast with its congener, trees that nevertheless have timber value in South common guava (Psidium guajava L.). Dense stands of Africa, some programs have focused on biological strawberry guava infest tens of thousands of hectares of control agents that minimize conflict, such as seed­ wet and mesic forest on all the major Hawaiian islands, feeding agents that limit tree reproduction and spread and it continues to spread, potentially affecting an esti­ without harming existing timber stands of the targeted mated 475,000 hectares, 90% of Hawaii's forests (State species (e.g., Dennill et al., 1999). of Hawaii, 2011). It is considered a serious threat to Avoiding targets with potential for high conflict may native ecosystems and to dozens of threatened and remain common, but for certain highly damaging endangered species (Mitchell et al., 2005) owing to its

IntegratingBiological Control into Conservation Practice, First Edition. Edited by Roy G. Van Driesche, Daniel Simberloff, Bernd Blossey, Charlotte Causton, Mark S. Roddie, David L. Wagner, Christian 0. Marks, Kevin M. Heinz, and Keith D. Warner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

264 Managing conflict over biological control 265

Figure 12.1 Strawberry guava, Psidium cattleianum, thickets crowd out native forest species in Hawaii. Photo courtesy of Jack Jeffrey. ability to form dense thickets even in relatively undis­ rapidly colonize areas disturbed by logging and suppress turbed wet forests (Huenneke and Vitousek, 1990). koa regrowth (Dobbyn, 2003; Baker et al., 2009). Strawberry guava is among the worst invasive species Effective management of natural areas invaded by globally (IUCN, 2013), posing a threat to native ecosys­ strawberry guava requires repeated mechanical and tems in Florida, Puerto Rico, Reunion, Mauritius, Guam, chemical treatments to reduce its copious resprouting, Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia, Palau, Samoa, and but such intensive work is not practical across the vast Norfolk Island (Lorence and Sussman, 1986; Tunison, areas of affected forest, much of it in remote, rugged 1991; Space, 2013). terrain. Population growth rates of strawberry guava Invasion by strawberry guava has devastating conse­ can be rapid: studies in native forest at 900 m elevation quences for Hawaiian ecosystems. In addition to loss of in Hawaii showed nearly 10% annual increases in habitat for native species, forests dominated by strawberry guava stem density and basal area (Denslow strawberry guava lose more water to evapotranspiration et al., unpublished data). Although strawberry guava than native forests: 27% more in a recent measurement, seeds are short lived (Uowolo and Denslow, 2008), its equivalent to a loss of 33 cm (13 inches) in annual pre­ fleshy fruits are abundant and rapidly dispersed by cipitation from watersheds (Takahashi et al., 2011). introduced birds and pigs (Diong, 1982). The invasive Millions of pounds of fallen strawberry guava fruit each success of strawberry guava has been attributed to its year are a primary breeding resource for oriental fruit broad environmental tolerances, prolific fruit produc­ flies, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel), a pest of Hawaiian agri­ tion, frequent vegetative spread, and an absence of culture (Vargas et al., 1989, 1990, 1995). Fruit flies can natural enemies (Huenneke and Vitousek, 1990; cause direct yield loss, but even more importantly, their Tunison, 1991). infestation limits possibilities for export of Hawaiian Strawberry guava was one of the earliest species produce to major markets such as California and Japan. selected by a multi-agency group established in the late Also, sustainable wild harvest and management of 1970s to identify key pests of Hawaiian forests and Hawaii's high value native hardwood Acacia koa A. Gray develop biological control remedies (Hodges, 1988). is impeded by dense stands of strawberry guava, which Exploration for natural enemies in strawberry guava's 266 Chapter 12

Figure 12.2 Tectococcus ovatus scales make galls on young leaves of strawberry guava. Photo courtesy of USDA Forest Service.

Table12.1 Impactsexpected from biological control of Johnson, 2005; Wessels et al., 2007). Furthermore, strawberry guava. T. ovatus had never been recorded as a pest of any agricultural or ornamental plants, and never attacked • XTectococcusovatus scales make galls on young leaves; defoliation common guava, which grows throughout its native is uncommon; wood will not be affected range. In 2005, a petition for release of the agent was • Trees will not be killed, but will grow slower and compete less submitted by the Forest Service to the Hawaii with native plants • Fruit and seed production will be lower by as much as 90%, Department of Agriculture, the state agency charged slowing invasion into native forests with regulating biological control introductions • Fewer pest fruit flies will be produced in areas with abundant (Johnson, 2005). strawberry guava • Yard trees far from forests may not be affected due to limited dispersal of the scale Regulatory review of strawberry • Trees grown for fruit can be protected with common horticultural oil sprays guava biological control • Biological control can enhance chemical/mechanical control by slowing regrowth and re-invasion The proposed biological control of strawberry guava underwent a state-mandated process entailing review by expert committees, public hearings in each of the native range, southern Brazil, began in 1988, and in­ four counties, and finally a decision by the Hawaii depth studies of several potential agents were conducted Board of Agriculture in 2007 to place T. ovatus on a list in Brazil in the 1990s. A leaf-galling scale insect, of approved biological control agents. In addition, Tectococcus ovatus Hempel (Hemiptera: Eriococcidae) USDA-APHIS conducted a federal environmental (Figure 12.2), was given top priority for further assessment, standard to their review process, which development and was imported to Hawaii in 1999 for was completed in early 2008 (USDA, 2008). Following quarantine studies. Impacts of this gall insect on these reviews, state and .federal permits for environ­ strawberry guava in Brazil indicated that the scale had mental release of T. ovatus were issued to the Forest high potential to reduce the plant's growth and Service in April 2008. Throughout these processes, reproduction (Table 12.1 ). Testing in Brazil, Hawaii, and release of the strawberry guava agent was supported by Florida demonstrated that T. ovatus was restricted to a almost all reviewers, with few expressions of concern narrow subset of Psidium species (Vitorino et al., 2000; and very little comment from the public. Release of Managing conflict over biological control 267

T. ovatus was delayed, however, pending completion of each EA to include a cultural impact assessment, ana­ a state environmental assessment. lyzing a project's expected impacts on cultural prac­ The Hawaii state environmental assessment (EA) tices and features important to native Hawaiians and process was applied to biological control releases for other ethnic groups (Office of Environmental Quality the first time in 2007. Although federal EAs had been Control, 2004). conducted for many years, Hawaii's biological control Proposing release of a biological control agent within practitioners decided voluntarily that it was also appro­ the Hawaii environmental review process for the first priate to submit proposed releases to the state environ­ time presented some unusual challenges. The strong mental review process, which is triggered by use of emphasis on considering socio-cultural· as well as state or county lands or funds, including resources and biological impacts in the state EA process required staff of state agencies involved in releasing biological additional consultations and expertise that were not control agents (Office of Environmental Quality well developed in the earlier federal EA (USDA, 2008). Control,<2004). Two agents to be released against pest Furthermore, the environmental review process in insects, plus an agent for fireweed (Senecio madagas­ Hawaii previously had been applied mainly to cariensis Poiret) biological control and T. ovatus for commercial or governmental construction or similar strawberry guava, were the first biological control projects, with the geographic focus restricted to a agents subjected to this process (Office ofEnvironmental particular site. In contrast, biological control releases Quality Control, 2008). There was very little public have nearly always been statewide in scope, with comment on the draft EAs for three of these releases, impacts that are intended to extend everywhere the all proposed by the Pest Control Branch of the Hawaii target pest may be found. This geographic breadth also Department of Agriculture. However, the draft EA for biological control of strawberry guava, submitted at Table 12.2 Significance criteria specified for evaluation in a the same time by the USDA Forest Service, received State of Hawaii Environmental Assessment: an Environmental dozens of comments, both in support of and in Impact Statement is required if, to a significant level of expected impact project ... opposition to the proposed release. The developing , a controversy over strawberry guava biological control • involves an irrevocable commitment to loss or destruction of any attracted media attention and generated calls to local natural or cultural resource political leaders. It became evident that a more thor­ • curtails the range of beneficial uses of the environment ough process of public engagement was needed, and • conflicts with the state's long-term environmental policies or the strawberry guava draft EA was withdrawn for revi­ goals and guidelines as expressed in Chapter 344, HRS, and any revisions thereof and amendments thereto, court decisions, or sion (Tummons, 2008). executive orders State of Hawaii EAs are structured much like fed­ • substantially affects the economic or social welfare of the eral United States EAs, with detailed descriptions of community or state alternative actions, including the proposed action, • substantially affects public health along with analyses of the expected impacts and.. pro­ • involves substantial secondary impacts, such as population posed mitigation measures associated with each changes or effects on public facilities alternative (Office of Environmental Quality Control, • involves.a substantial degradation of environmental quality • individually limited but cumulatively has considerable effect 2004). Analyses are required to consider direct, is upon environment or involves a commitment for larger actions indirect, and cumulative impacts expected from any • substantially affects a rare, threatened or endangered species, proposed action. The Hawaii EA differs from the fed­ or its habitat eral EA in some of the specific criteria that must be • detrimentally affects air or water quality or ambient noise levels considered (Table 12.2) before the state can issue a • affects or is likely to suffer damage by being located in an Finding of No Significant Impact (FONS!), which environmentally sensitive area such as a flood plain, tsunami zone, allows a project to proceed without an Environmental beach, erosion-prone area, geologically hazardous land, estuary, fresh water, or coastal waters Impact Statement. These state criteria emphasize • substantially affects scenic vistas and view planes identified in assessment of possible impacts on people - for county or state plans or studies example through social, economic, or health effects ­ • requires substantial energy consumption as well as on the environment. Hawaii also requires 268 Chapter 12 tended to increase the required consultations and two resolutions opposing the use of the biological con­ made analysis more complex. trol based on concern over the specificity of the agent Although more detailed than the three contempora­ and concern that it might evolve to use other plants. neous biological control EAs for the other agents One of these resolutions eventually was adopted in mentioned above, the 2008 strawberry guava EA still August 2009 (County of Hawaii, 2009). In contrast, in fell short as a comprehensive consideration of the many March 2009 the Maui County Council adopted a reso­ criteria for a Hawaii assessment (Table 12.2), and it lution supporting use of biological controls for forest lacked a cultural impact assessment. To improve the pests, including mention of strawberry guava as a key document, the Forest Service contracted with a target for management (County of Maui, 2009). professional EA writer with long experience in the Meanwhile, bills in opposition to strawberry guava Hawaii system to develop the EA. In 2009, consultations biological control were introduced in the state legisla­ with broader segments of the public were begun, ture in early 2009, but never received hearings (Hawaii including p“blic meetings scheduled in each of Hawaii's State Legislature, 2009). In the end, none of these four counties and targeted contacts to gather input for a legislative actions changed the final decision-making cultural assessment. Meanwhile, the Forest Service and process: whether to permit release of strawberry guava its partners began work to describe to the public more biological control remained a matter before the state effectively the rationale and goals of the strawberry administrative branch, pending completion of a state guava project. Outreach specialists involved in invasive environmental assessment. species control and prevention, and many others within The revised Draft EA was completed and published in the Hawaii conservation community, actively collabo­ June 2010. This document incorporated the many rated to convey messages on the importance of statewide consultations over the preceding two years, managing strawberry guava and the role of biological including inputs from public meetings. It also included control. This work was spurred initially by the vigorous recent analyses of remote sensing and other studies of campaign of early opponents who noted the inadequacy the strawberry guava invasion that strongly docu­ of the EA and questioned the necessity and safety of mented negative ecological effects of the weed (Asner attempting biological control (Warner and Kinslow, et al., 2008; Zimmerman et al., 2008; Takahashi et al., 2013). Much of the information needed by biological 2011), an economic analysis of conventional control control supporters was already available from previous methods, and a cultural impact assessment (State of Forest Service documents, such as "Frequently Asked Hawaii, 2010). The Draft EA increased from 33 pages in Questions" on strawberry guava and biological control 2008 to 133 pages in 2010. During the 30-day period (USDA Forest Service, 2013a, b), but outreach special­ for public comment, over 200 respondents sent letters, ists were able to reformulate this information so that it approximately 2 to 1 in support of biological control could be communicated more effectively. Over time, a (Figure 12.3). According to Hawaii rules for the process, variety of novel and effective communication pieces individual responses were written for each comment were produced by partners outside the biological con­ letter, and the EA was revised a final time and all com­ trol community who saw a crucial need to manage ments and responses incorporated. This final EA was strawberry guava (Gon, 2009; Conservation Council for published in November 2011 with a FONS! issued by Hawaii, 2010; Hawaii Ecosystems at Risk, 2011). the Hawaii Department of Agriculture (State of Hawaii, The controversy following the 2008 strawberry 2011). Following this decision, the Department then guava EA immediately generated calls to local political re-issued a permit for release of T. ovatus, and in leaders. Some responded by scheduling public meet­ December 2011 the biological control agent was ings to share information about the proposed biological released for the first time from quarantine into the control and to hear the opinions of local citizens want­ environment on Hawaii Island. Two years later the ing to offer testimony (Tt1mmons, 2008). The first agent was released at forest sites on Oahu. As of 2014, meeting on Hawaii Island in June 2008 attracted strawberry guava biological control was established and approximately 150 people, and later meetings before spreading slowly at multiple sites on these two islands, the Hawaii County Council were similarly well and efforts had begun to establish it in invaded forests attended. Hawaii County Council members proposed on Maui and Lanai. Managing conflictover biological control 269

Value of fruit and/or wood ]jji: :E:'::E:.f______l EA not adequate/EIS required Violates private property/govt liable Tectococcus may attack other plants Biocontrol usually disastrous, ineffective Should find productive uses for SG -­ Remove SG manually instead WilLdegrade scenic value of landscape Reasons cited Other invasive species will replace SG by opponents Biocontrol is irreversible SG does not adversely affect ecosystems Other plants are more appropriate targets Tectococcus testing inadequate Tectococcus may be allergenic Birds/pigs need SG fruit +"eee;'---- †-‡- - - .---,- ˆ‰ Š-1 0 50 100 % of opposing commenters (n = 70)

SG impacts ecological resources Controls now inadequate/need new tool Tectococcus safe/risks acceptable .....~, -~·C: ' . -,,,._ ' SG impacts water supplies SG impacts cultural resources Reasons cited Proven track record of modern biocontrol """""""'"""""-' by supporters SG impacts local agriculture ‹-­ Restore balance to ecosystem = - - - -­ -i:=:::::::::; e.,... Œ Ž ˆ  .-----1 0 20 40 60 BO 100 % of supporting commenters (n = 137)

Figure 12.3 Relative frequency of public comments on 2010 Draft Environmental Assessment of proposed biological control of strawberry guava (State of Hawaii, 201 lb).

Lessons learned about our public species to unique island ecosystems. This example has been memorized by generations of Hawaii residents, People in Hawaii are probably unusual compared to and it predates by a decade or two the modern era of most other Americans, in that a great number have at targeted weed control usingspecialized natural enemies, least a passing familiarity with the concept and practice inaugurated by Albert Koebele's 1902 introductions of of biological control. This might be expected from the agents into Hawaii from Mexico against lantana state's very long and active history of biological control (Lantana camara L.). There are several recent biological introductions: over 700 since 1902 (Follett et al., 2000). control success stories that could be told in Hawaii Unfortunately, it is failures that come to mind for most (Trujillo, 2005; Hawaii Department of Agriculture, residents asked about biological control, with the great 2010), but none are yet so widely known as to effec­ majority first citing the nineteenth-century introduc­ tively counter the mongoose story. tion of mongoose to control rats in sugar cane fields. Negative views of species introductions also predom­ That this introduction was conducted by an individual inate in Hawaii because residents are highly attuned to cane farmer, with little scientific justification and no the serious harm caused by invasive species. Many regulatory oversight, is not at all widely known (Baldwin recent invasions - little fire ants (Wasmannia auropunc­ et al., 1952; Reimer, 2002). Besides the regular visibility tata [Roger]), coqui frogs (Eleutherodactylus coqui of mongoose in the islands and their popularity in local Thomas), coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei folklore and children's literature, the story of their intro­ [Ferrari]) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), and axis deer duction has great staying power as a cautionary tale (Axis axis [Erxleben)), among others - regularly earn about unforeseen consequences of introducing new headlines in local newspapers and affect many people's 270 Chapter 12 lives very tangibly. Negative attitudes toward invasive to see what reasons were most persuasive. For people species are also well established because of longstand­ concerned about native species and Hawaii's forests, the ing educational efforts to highlight the problem and threat of strawberry guava has been generally well build support for enhanced biosecurity. Over the last understood and was a strong motive for their approval 25 years multi-agency collaborations have alerted the of biological control. However most people did not share public to the "silent invasion," and invasive species a deep appreciation of Hawaii's unique forest biota and committees have worked steadily on each island toward instead tended to be moved by human needs such as control or eradication of the most damaging invasive economic well-being and health. For people generally species (Krauss and Duffy, 2010). So it is a great step indifferent to the plight of native forest species, the forward that most people now understand well that threats of strawberry guava to water supply and local introduced species can have serious ecological conse­ agriculture - through increases in water loss (Takahashi quences. "unfortunately for biological control, most et al., 2011) and higher fruit fly populations people do not clearly distinguish between the (Conservation Council for Hawaii, 2010) - were more unplanned invasions of species arriving through persuasive reasons for management. In addition to commerce and the purposeful introductions of natural making these connections clear, it was important to enemies for biological control of invasive species. develop a detailed economic argument for the necessity Rather, all new introductions are viewed with suspicion of adding biological control as a tool for managing and the expectation of bad outcomes. This is only com­ strawberry guava, instead of relying on increased efforts pounded by widespread biases against arthropods and with other control methods. The revised EA addressed microorganisms, generally regarded as pests, which are these points more explicitly and in greater detail and the tools of biological control. variety. For example, conventional methods of hand These existing biases against introduction of new cutting strawberry guava and applying herbicide were species lead to the completely understandable default described and efforts per acre mapped for specific areas, position among the great majority of our public: resulting in an overall estimated cost of more than "Introducing new species is a bad idea, and introducing $350 million for initial control of strawberry guava in any new plant pest is crazy." However, almost everyone conservation areas in the eastern half of Hawaii Island encountered is also open to asking "why would you (State of Hawaii, 2010). ever do such a thing." Curiosity over the seemingly · Another key reason why opinions tended to tum counterintuitive nature of biological control may even against biological control in Hawaii was because the increase the likelihood that they will be receptive to an public generally failed to grasp the concept of host spec­ explanation. Usually this opportunity is all that is ificity. This is a challenge familiar to all biological control needed. Once one explains why biological control scientists confronted with the question "won't the is necessary and how it is done safely, the typical result biological control agent move on to eat something else is that people move from some level of opposition to once its target food is exhausted." Building awareness of some level of acceptance. the fact that many organisms exist in extremely host­ Given that most people start from a position of skep­ specific relationships is absolutely critical for gaining ticism, it is incumbent on scientists to convey the acceptance of biological control from a skeptical public. motives for managing invasive species with biological Once people recognized evidence of host specificity in control. In the case of strawberry guava biological con­ everyday examples, most were readily convinced of the trol, one flaw of the initial EA was that it did not ade­ value and acceptability of managing invasive species quately describe all the problems caused by this with biological control. particular invasive plant. Instead of writing for an audi­ ence of managers and regulators who understood the Opponents issues surrounding strawberry guava, it would have A certain segment of the public may remain opposed to been better to address the general public, who were using biological control in spite of our best efforts to largely unaware of the plant's impacts. In discussing articulate the economic and ecological justifications and with Hawaii residents the various motives for pursuing to explain risks and benefits. Motivations of opponents biological control of strawberry guava, it was interesting varied in the case of strawberry guava, but seemed to Managing conflict over biological control 271 center on valuing the tree, its wood, and especially its strawberry guava as a target for management. Many fruit for various uses (Figure 12.3). Such concerns over complained that they first heard of the proposed use of the value of an exotic plant are a common and straight­ biological control and the problems caused by strawberry forward source of conflict in weed biological control guava after biological control had already been in programs (Turner, 1985). Resolving this source of development for many years and approval of the release conflict is possible in some cases; for example, some of an agent was imminent. Feeling powerless to opponents were persuaded by the explanation that yard influence events that seemed to be a foregone trees valued for their fruit and attractive foliage might conclusion, some opponents became deeply inflamed, remain unaffected owing to the limited dispersal ability and their resentment over lack of engagement reso­ of T. ovatus and by the option to control the insect with nated with other anti-establishment sentiments (Warner horticultural sprays if it did reach their yard trees. The and Kinslow, 2013). For these people, the fact that expectation that T. ovatus would not kill trees or reduce biological control is a permanent, irreversible, and available wood from existing stands was an important relatively unbounded form of management became mitigatufg factor for several common reasons for especially objectionable. opposing management with biological control. With the potential for passions to run high, the most The value of strawberry guava fruit appeared to be active opponents of strawberry guava displayed remark­ the most common motivation for people who were able savvy in tapping both emotional and rational argu­ actively opposed to biological control (Figure 12.3). ments to gamer support. Examples included a child People often expressed a fondness for the fruit as an holding a sign or writing a letter with a message such as occasional snack or in reminiscence of past experi­ "Don't take away my food." Often opponents' message ences collecting and eating it, but less often mentioned points were poorly supported by facts, but had a strong it as a food source they depended on regularly. In emotional consistency, typically conveying fear, suspi­ either case, positive emotional connections with the cion, and resentment (Warner and Kinslow, 2013). fruit were the norm, with few people noticing a link Such arguments tended to contrast sharply with the between abundant fruit and pest insects. Those most relatively dispassionate and factual language of scien­ vigorously opposed to biological control argued that, tists and agencies evaluating biological .control. even if currently underutilized, the fruit was valuable Emotional detachment, a usual characteristic of as a free emergency food source - famine food, in the scientific analyses, in this case tended to widen the gulf event of interrupted supply ships (State of Hawaii, between the two sides, adding to the distrust that many 2011). Hawaii's dependence on imports for about 90% opponents felt toward the motives and wisdom of scien­ of its food has long been a major concern (Office of tists and managers supporting biological control. Planning, 2012), and arguments for maintaining strawberry guava as a wild food and potential crop Supporters of biological control appealed to the many proponents of small-scale Although a great majority of the public was silent and subsistence agriculture, especially in rural Hawaii apparently uninterested in biological control of county. Strawberry guava fruits also were valued by strawberry guava, there were substantial numbers of many pig hunters as a food source for wild pigs, which active supporters. Strong support for biological control are harvested as an important subsistence resource by came from Hawaii's conservation community, including some (Burrows et al., 2007). land managers and biologists who were familiar with Individuals actively opposed to strawberry guava the ecological damage caused by strawberry guava and biological control often expressed multiple rationales in the extreme difficulty of managing it effectively over addition to valuing the plant (Figure 12.3). Distrust of large areas of native forest. Advocates for release of the the science supporting biological control and of the biological control agent included the Hawaii government agencies conducting and reviewing the sci­ Conservation Council, Sierra Club, and, most signifi­ ence were common underlying factors (Warner and cantly, the Hawaii Conservation Alliance (HCA), a con­ Kinslow, 2013). Opponents typically expressed frustra­ sortium of public and private agencies working to tion at being left out of the decision-making process preserve and restore native ecosystems (Conservation concerning biological control, starting with selection of Council for Hawaii, 2010). Unanimity among the 272 Chapter 12

diverse members of HCA, ranging from The Nature and documentation were much more comprehensive Conservancy to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, spoke to and inclusive than those for previous biological control the depth of concern over strawberry guava and the EAs. It was critical to move beyond the central biological support for use of biological control. Strong supporters question of host specificity to address thoroughly the also included ranchers who were familiar with success­ impacts of the invader and the expected results of ful use of biological control for other weeds and some biological control, considered as broadly as possible and agricultural specialists who were concerned about fruit from diverse viewpoints. flies and watershed protection (Conservation Council The work of professionals in EA writing and public for Hawaii, 2010). outreach was tremendously important to the effort of These various supporters were relatively quiet improving the EA between 2008 and 2010, mainly by through the early development of biological control for broadening and deepening consultations (State of strawberrr,, guava, with only a few playing active roles Hawaii, 2010). Public meetings to share information in supporting or overseeing biological control research. and gather feedback involved teams of ten or more part­ However, when the proposed biological control came ners in each of four counties. Consultations with under vocal public criticism beginning in 2008, sup­ Hawaiian cultural practitioners by an experienced spe­ porters rallied impressively. Their efforts resulted in a cialist were critical to completing the EA's cultural variety of communication products designed to reach impact assessment. Dozens of scientists and managers the public in ways potentially more effective than the from agencies across the state contributed expert opin­ dryly scientific EA and release petition, including videos, ions or analyses on economic, geographic, and ecolog­ blog discussions, online and printed testimonials, letters ical issues, for example interactions between strawberry to the editor, and appearances at public meetings guava and particular endangered species. (Medeiros, 2008; Gon, 2009; Corrigan, 2009; Although it can contribute importantly to sound Conservation Council for Hawaii, 2010). Through the decision-making, such a thorough EA process will add coordinated efforts of specialists in invasive species con­ significantly to the time required to deliver biological trol and public outreach, key messages were conveyed control to managers. Our strawberry guava EA process widely. By 2010, a broad coalition of active supporters lasted more than three years. In the absence of political were united behind the necessity of using biological and administrative complications that tended to delay control as a new tool for managing strawberry guava research and writing, however, the Hawaii process (Figure 12.3). Their many contributions strengthened might have taken only a few months to generate a com­ the Final Environmental Assessment published in 2011, prehensive draft EA. The protracted course of the resulting in an evaluation of the proposed biological strawberry guava EA probably helped make it more control release that was more comprehensive ecologi­ inclusive and thorough, but many consultations could cally and socially (State of Hawaii, 2011 ). have taken place earlier, while the biological control agent was still in the final stages of testing. Accelerating a multi-disciplinary effort in this way, however, would Lessons learned about the process require truly deft coordination of funds and expertise.

No matter how thoroughly justified and well composed an Environmental Assessment, it will garner complaints Conclusions from some segments of the population. In the face of opposition to biological control of strawberry guava, the Given the divergent viewpoints on strawberry guava, best course of action appeared to be to adhere to a trans­ conflict over biological control was probably unavoid­ parent, well established process for consulting public able, and eruption of controversy in the media and local opinion and then provide the results to decision-makers. politics may have been inevitable. Release of T. ovatus Designed for this purpose, the Hawaii EA process seemed was delayed at least three years as public concerns were to work well in the end. Improving the initial strawberry addressed through outreach and the environmental guava EA to meet Hawaii's regulatory laws better assessment process. Surely these challenges could have required substantial e-ffort. The additional consultations been handled differently to lessen conflict; but how? Managing conflictover biological control 273

Topics of public concern around biological control of oppos1t10n to strawberry guava biological control in strawberry guava were not difficult to predict. Many of 2008 was most effectively countered when individuals these concerns, such as questions over host specificity, and groups from outside the government, who could would have applied to any biological control project, act as credible messengers, stepped forward in support and none of the other objections to strawberry guava of biological control (Gorr, 2009; Corrigan, 2009; biological control were unanticipated (Figure 12.3). Conservation Council for Hawaii, 2010). Proponents of biological control could understand and The potential to address issues of trust is an important articulate most public concerns without conducting reason for biological control programs to seek new ave­ broad consultations with the public. However, it was the nues for public engagement (Warner and Kinslow, process of consultation itself that was a critical missing 2013). Hayes et al. (2008) described a specific process, piece for many people skeptical of biological control based on facilitated face-to-face dialogues, for building (Warner and Kinslow, 2013). Just being able to hear trust among concerned groups with regard to biological about and discuss the issue of strawberry guava inva­ control in New Zealand. They found that this form of sion and the use of biological control was important to public engagement involved substantial effort - more many people. than initially expected - but that it might prove easier Engagement with the public, especially when there is and cheaper in the long run than a less interactive potential for significant conflict, needs to be broad and approach. Intensive public engagement by biological early. The case of strawberry guava underlines the desir­ control scientists and managers, to be manageable over ability of a process to formally establish social consent the long term, certainly needs to be carefully targeted. for selection of a species as a target of biological control In working toward conservation of native forests in at the very beginning of a project (see Chapter 15). Two Hawaii, it makes a great deal of sense to engage with or three scientists making occasional presentations over selected small groups of pig hunters and Hawaiian a period of years to social organizations, horticultural cultural practitioners, citizens whose values are strongly fairs, and other public events clearly was too limited an tied to healthy forests but whose views sometimes outreach effort. Fortunately, the rise of internet-based diverge sharply from those of resource -managers. media has opened a means to reach much larger audi­ Building relationships and understanding of different ences. Developing and deploying online communica­ points of view can provide a means to get beyond dis­ tions early in a project is now essential. Actually agreements and work collaboratively on shared engaging audiences in two-way discussions through interests. social media presents an opportunity that deserves care­ ful consideration. Even when time or institutional bar­ riers prevent the scientists who are developing biological Acknowledgments control from using such tools, the opportunity exists to share information with partners who do have time and Many individuals and agencies contributed to the expertise to discuss the goals and progress of biological development of strawberry guava biological control control projects with online audiences. Widening the over the past 25 years, but particularly important was lines of- communication gives everyone the opportunity the work of Cliff Smith, J. H. Pedrosa Macedo, Marcelo to influence resource-management decisions, and Vitorino, Charles Wikler, and Robert Barreto in Brazil; deepening consultations in this way will ultimately Julie Denslow, Wendell Sato, Amanda Uowolo, Erin strengthen the environmental assessment process. Raboin, and Nancy Chaney in Hawaii; and Jim Cuda In the United States and perhaps elsewhere, and Frank Wessels in Florida. Working on outreach government-run and government-supported institu­ communications and public engagement were Pat tions, including those conducting biological control Conant, Franny Kinslow, Anne Marie LaRosa, Evelyn research and regulating its use, are widely viewed with Wight, Christy Martin, Jackie Kozak Thiel, Bob Masuda, mistrust, which seems unlikely to diminish in the fore­ and numerous other partners. Ron Terry expertly seeable future. To overcome this challenge, biological guided us through the environmental assessment pro­ control projects need strong support from independent cess. My perspectives on dealing with conflict were groups that enjoy greater public trust. The swell of influenced by the wisdom and aloha of Franny Kinslow, 274 Chapter 12

Evelyn Wight, Keith Warner, Darcy Oishi, and others. Follett, P. A., J. J. Duan, R. H. Messing, and V. P. Jones. 2000. I also thank Keith Warner, Bernd Blossey, David Wagner, Parasitoid drift after biological control introductions: re­ and Dan Simberloff for reviews of Chapter 12. examining Pandora's box. American Entomologist 46: 82-94. Gon, S. 0. 2009. Native Hawaiian forests vs. strawberry guava. Available from: http://www.webquest.hawaii.edu/kahihi/ videos/NativeHawaiianForests.php?v=-pAh-AtOHdM References (Accessed September 2014]. Hawaii Department of Agriculture. 2010. Biological control in Asner, G. P., R. F. Hughes, P. M. Vitousek, et al. 2008. Invasive Hawaii: Working with nature to find a sustainable solution. plants alter 3-D structure of rainforests. Proceedings of the 2 pp. Available from: http://hdoa.hawaii.gov/pi/files/2013/ National Academy of Sciences 105: 4519-4523. O 1/Biocontrol-Flier-4.27.10-cmps.pdf (Accessed September Baker, P. J.,'i,, G. Scowcroft, and J. J. Ewe!. 2009. Koa (Acacia 2014]. koa) ecology and silviculture. General Technical Report PSW­ Hawaii Ecosystems at Risk. 2011. Strawberry Guava Biological GTR-211. Pacific Southwest Research Station. USDA Forest control: Restoring natural balance to Hawaii's forests and Service. Albany, California. watersheds with the help of a bug. Available from: Baldwin, P. H., C. W. Schwartz, and E. R. Schwartz. 1952. Life http://www.hear.org/strawberryguavabiocontrol/ (Accessed history and economic status of the mongoose in Hawaii. September 2014]. Journalof Mammalogy 33: 335-356. Hawaii State Legislature. 2009. Senate Resolution No. 108. Burrows, C. P. M., C. L. Isaacs, and K. Maly. 2007. Pua'a (pigs) Requesting a moratorium on the release of biological control in Hawai'i, from traditional to modern. 7 pp. Fact sheet pub­ agents for the environmental management of plant species that lished by' Ahahui Malama I Ka Uikahi, July 2007, Honolulu, also serve as food resources. Available from: http://www.capitol. Hawaii. hawaii.gov/ Archives/measure_indiv_Archives.aspx?billtype= Conservation Council for Hawaii. 2010. Leveling the playing field SR&billnumber=l08&year=2009 (Accessed September 2014]. in Hawaii's native forests: call to action. Available from: http:// Hayes, L. M., C. Horn, and P. 0. B. Lyver. 2008. Avoiding tears www.conservehi.org/documents/CCH_StrawberryGuava_ before bedtime: how biological control researchers could ActionA!ert.pdf (Accessed September 2014]. undertake better dialogue with their communities, pp. 376­ Corrigan, D. 2009. Video: Inside a strawberry guava thicket, 382. In: Julien, M. H., R. Sforza, M. C. Bon, et al. (eds.). Waiakea Forest Reserve, Hawaii.Big Island VideoNews. Available Proceedings of the XII International Symposium on Biological from: http://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2009/0.5/ 17 /video­ Control of Weeds, La Grande Motte, France, 22-27 April 2007. inside-a-strawberry-guava-thicket/ [Accessed September 2014]. CAB International. Wallingford, UK. County of Hawaii. 2009. Resolution No. 80 09, A resolution Hodges, C. S. 1988. Preliminary exploration for potential requesting a ban on the release of biological control agents on biological control agents for Psidium cattleianum. Technical the island of Hawaii, including insects, fungi, bacteria, viruses, Report 66. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit. or other pathogens, for any tree species related to the ohi'a University of Hawai'i. Manoa, Hawaii, USA. (Metrosideros polymorpha), including all species of the family Huenneke, L. F. and P. M. Vitousek. 1990. Seedling and clonal Myrtaceae, such as the strawberry guava (Spidium cattleianum). recruitment of the invasive tree Psidium cattleianum: Available from: http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/Weblink8/0/ Implications for management of native Hawaiian forests. doc/55424/Pagel.aspx [Accessed September 2014]. Biological Conservation 53: 199-211. County of Maui. 2009. Resolution No. 09-35, Supporting safe, IUCN. 2013. 100 of the world's worst invasive alien species, Global effective biological control for Maui County's forest pests. Invasive Species Database managed by the Invasive Species Available from: http://www.co.maui.hi.us/documents/24/99/ Specialist Group (ISSG). Available from: http://www.issg.org/ 253/Reso%2009-035.PDF [Accessed September 2014]. database/ species/search.asp ?st= 1OOss&fr= 1 &str=&lang=EN Degener, 0. 1939. Flora Hawaiiensis: The New Illustrated Flora of (Accessed September 2014]. the Hawaiian Islands. Book 4, Family 273, Myrtaceae, Psidium Johnson, M. T. 2005. Petition for field release of Tedococcus ova­ cattleianum Sabine, 2 pp. (privately printed). tus (Homoptera: Eriococcidae) for classical biological control Dennill, G. B., D. Donnelly, K. Stewart, and F. A. C. Impson. of strawberry guava, Psidium cattleianum Sabine (Myrtaceae), 1999. Insect agents used for the biological control of Australian in Hawaii, 31 pp. Submitted to Hawaii Department of Acacia species and Paraserianthes lophantha (Fabaceae) in Agriculture Pest Quarantine Branch, May 10 2005. Available South Africa. African Entomology Memoir 1: 45-54. from: http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/ecosystem_processes/ Diong, C. H. 1982. Population Biology and Management of tropical/invasive /Petition%20for% 20release % 20of%20 the Feral Pig (Sus scrofa) in Kipahulu Valley, Maui. Ph.D. Tectococcus%20may05.pdf (Accessed September 2014]. Dissertation, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, USA. Krauss, F. and D. C. Duffy. 2010. A successful model from Dobbyn, P. 2003. Permit hurdles, litigation drag down plan to Hawaii for rapid response to invasive species. Journal for log koa in forest near Hilo. Environment Hawai'i 14(6): 1-10. Nature Conservation 18: 135-141. Managing conflictover biological control 275

Lorence, D. H. and R. W. Sussman. 1986. Exotic species inva­ doh .hawaii.gov IShared% 20Documents /EA_and_EIS_ sion into Mauritius wet forest remnants. Journal of Tropical Online_Library/Statewide/2010s/201l-l l-08-FEA-Biological Ecology 2: 147-162. control-Strawberry-Guava.pd! (Accessed September 2014]. Medeiros, A. C. 2008. Importing safe insects the· only hope of Takahashi, M., T. W. Giambelluca, R. G. Mudd, et al. 2011. saving Maui's native koa forests. TheMaui News, November 8, Rainfall partitioning and cloud water interception in native 2008. forest and invaded forest in Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park. Mitchell, C., C. Ogura, D. W. Meadows, A. Kane, L. Strommer, Hydrological Processes 25: 448-464. S. Fretz, D. Leonard, and A. Mcclung. 2005. Hawaii's Trujillo, E. E. 2005. History and success of plant pathogens for Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Department biological control of introduced weeds in Hawaii. Biological of Land and Natural Resources. Honolulu, Hawai'i. Control 33: 113-122. Office of Environmental Quality Control. 2004. The Tummons, P. 2008. Controversy flares over proposal to control Environmental Guidebook: A Guidebook for the Hawaii State waiawi with scale insect. Environment Hawai'i 19(1): 1, 8-9, Environmental Review Process. State of Hawaii, Department of July 2008. Health, Honolulu, Hawaii. 133 pp. Tunison, J. T. 1991. Element stewardship abstract for Psidiumcattle­ Office oJ Environmental Quality Control. 2008. The ianum. The Nature Conservancy. Available from: http://wil

N. R. (ed.). Proceedings of the X International Symposium on Wessels, F. W., J.P. Cuda, M. T. Johnson, and J. H. Pedrosa­ Biological Control of Weeds, Bozeman, Montana, 4-14 July 1999. Macedo. 2007. Host specificity of Tectococcus ovatus Montana State University. Bozeman, Montana, USA. (Hemiptera: Eriococcidae), a potential biological control Wagner, W. L., D. R. Herbst, and S. H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of agent of the invasive strawberry guava, Psidium cattleia­ the Flowering Plants of Hawai'i. University of Hawaii Press. num (Myrtales: Myrtaceae), in Florida. Biological Control Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. 52: 439-449. Warner, K. D. and F. Kinslow.2013. Manipulating risk commu­ Zimmerman N., R. F. Hughes, S. Cordell, et al. 2008. Patterns nication: value predispositions shape public understandings of primary succession of native and introduced plants of invasive species science in Hawaii. Public Understandingof in lowland wet forests in eastern Hawai'i. Biotropica Science 22: 203-218. 40: 277-284.