Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CommitteeFirst written evidence submitted by Defra

Thank you for your letter of 30 October about Chalara fraxinea and ash dieback. As I described at the evidence session on Defra’s Annual Report and Accounts, the Government is taking the threat and the impact on our native ash trees very seriously. I have made it and the wider issue of plant pathogens an immediate priority for Defra. You ask several questions in your letter and I will take each in turn.

First, you asked for the chronology of events leading up to the ban. The Forestry Commission and Fera have been aware of Chalara fraxinea since it was first found in Poland in the 1990s, It was added to the alert list published by EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation) in 2007 and some member countries reported findings in 2008. In 2009, it became apparent through European research that Chalara fraxinea was another form of Hymenoscyphus albidus which is widespread across Europe and the UK. Subsequent research indicated that Chalara fraxinea was not a form of H albidus but a form of a newly recognised species, H pseudoalbidus. However, the Forestry Commission did include inspection of 15,000 ash trees (8,310 groups) in the National Forestry Inventory Survey 2009–12. 103 observations of crown dieback were found and none were identified as Chalara.

Ash dieback caused by Chalara was first confirmed in the UK on 7 March of this year in a routine inspection of a consignment of trees from a nursery in the Netherlands to one in Buckinghamshire. Following forward tracing of material known to have been supplied by the infected nurseries at least 1,000 at risk sites were identified and about 100,000 trees destroyed over the summer. A Pest Risk Analysis was conducted, which was the first Pest Risk Analysis in the world on ash dieback. Chalara was confirmed in mature trees in the wider environment on 24 October in East Anglia. This had no apparent connection to nurseries and suggested that Chalara had been present in Great Britain for some years.

Well in advance of the planting season, the Government launched a consultation on various policy options. Shortly after taking office, I ensured that the consultation was the briefest possible at 8 weeks. I made clear to the trade that I was very likely to introduce an import ban and trade bodies were encouraging their members to impose voluntary import bans. The consultation closed on Friday 26 October. The ban came into force on Monday 29 October as the consultation overwhelmingly supported my proposed plan.

The Committee also asked for details of collaboration across government and in the EU. I have ensured strong collaboration in response to this disease. At an operational and tactical level, a response team has been pulled together within Defra to deal with this outbreak including experts from Fera and the Forestry Commission. Both the Forestry Commission and Fera moved all available staff onto developing an understanding of, and response to, this disease. That has included a survey of ash trees across Great Britain carried out at an unprecedented pace. During the first week of November, over 500 Forestry Commission staff worked with Fera and other organisations, including the Country Land and Business Association, the Woodland Trust and the National Trust. They visited over 10,000 sites to look for signs of the disease. The UK was divided into 2,500 squares of 10km². Each was inspected. This was the first such survey in British history.

At a strategic level, I have brought all relevant departments, agencies and the Devolved Administrations together in COBR meetings to co-ordinate the cross-Government response. Scientists from within and across government have been involved in advising the Defra Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Ian Boyd, through an expert group chaired by the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington.

I know the relationship with the Devolved Administrations is of interest to particular Members of your Committee and, while plant health is a devolved issue, our response is organised in separate “disease units” of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the same way as we do with animal health issues. We have worked closely with the Scottish and Welsh Governments in developing the response to ash dieback in Great Britain, from the initial survey work and discussions at COBR to formulating policy options. We are also working closely with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Northern Ireland, (DARD(NI)) which conducted its own specific surveys of ash locally for any symptoms of the disease. The survey covers all of Northern Ireland, particularly recently planted sites of ash in public and private woodland, roadside plantings, established trees, hedgerows and nurseries. Any suspect trees found will be sampled and undergo laboratory testing for the Chalara pathogen. DARD(NI) is adopting a risk based approach with the initial focus of surveillance on plants for planting and trees planted within the last five years. To date over 160 sites have been surveyed. Evidence has been found of ash dieback in recently planted sites in Northern Ireland from the surveys so far. Surveillance will continue over the winter months.

We have sought pan-European advice to learn from the experience of those countries also affected by Chalara fraxinea on mainland Europe. We are working with the Chief Officers of Plant Health (COPH) group of the European heads of plant health science to gain a Europe wide perspective. The UK is also a member of Fraxback, an EU funded project aimed to generate comprehensive understanding of ash dieback through sharing and synthesis of available knowledge. The project has 26 partners from across Europe, China, Russia and New Zealand.

As well as drawing on expertise from international plant health experts, we put out an urgent call for information to UK embassies across Europe. They have come back to us with a range of information, including other countries’ experience of tackling Chalara, scientific papers and the names of experts. We are pursuing these as we develop our evidence base.

We are basing our advice on the best available national and international evidence, which has been drawn together by a group of experts convened by Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Ian Boyd. Our immediate research and analysis is focusing on providing practical solutions to informing policy and management of Chalara, including integrating:

The Key Scientific Facts, supported by ongoing scientific research and analysis (http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/forestry.nsf/byunique/infd-8zss7u);

Epidemiological modelling of disease origin, movement of spores, and risk of spread in the UK; and

Socio-economic analysis of the value of ash trees to gain a baseline understanding of the socio-economic impacts of the disease against which we can begin to assess the social and economic merits of managing it (which in turn will depend directly on the projected effectiveness of different control strategies).

We are initiating a more strategic programme of multidisciplinary research through the Living with Environmental Change (LWEC) research initiative on Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity (co-funded between Defra, Forestry Commission, Research Councils and Devolved Administrations).

The total research spend by Defra and the Forestry Commission over the past five years on tree and plant health was increased from £2.8 million to £5.6 million. The attached table shows this broken down for the past five years including Fera and the Forestry Commission and that planned for 2014–15 on tree and plant health.

In terms of current and future action, the scientific advice is that it will not be possible to eradicate Chalara and so the focus will be on slowing the spread of the disease. On 7 November I convened a summit involving industry, scientists and other stakeholders to discuss the immediate actions we should take to tackle the disease. There was a broad consensus around the approach we should take and on 9 November I announced a number of actions we would take, immediately:

1.Newly-planted diseased trees and diseased trees in nurseries will be traced and destroyed, as once young trees are infected they succumb quickly.

2.Mature trees will not currently be removed, as they are valuable to wildlife, take longer to die and can help us learn more about genetic strains that might be resistant to the disease. Where there is no foliage, infection does not occur directly from tree to tree.

3.Better understanding of the disease will be built through research and surveys, which will look not only for diseased trees but for those that show signs of resistance to Chalara, to help identify genetic strains resistant to the disease.

4.The search for the disease will include trees in towns and cities as well as the countryside, building partnerships with a range of organisations beyond Government.

5.Foresters, land managers, environmental groups and the public will be informed about how to identify diseased trees and those likely to be resistant to the disease, and know what to do if they find a diseased tree.

These conclusions and actions apply to trees on public and private land. These immediate actions will be followed up with a more detailed control plan for Chalara which I will be publishing shortly.

Since I took up office, I have made wider issues of plant and tree health one of my highest priorities. In October, I asked Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Ian Boyd, to convene an independent expert taskforce to examine ways to prevent plant pests and pathogens from entering the country in future. Their work has included a look at the similarities and differences in dealing with animal and plant disease outbreaks, and what each can learn from the other. They will publish their interim report shortly.

I would also be grateful if, in wishing to publish maps of the disease, the Committee could refer to the Forestry Commission’s website (http://www.forestrv.clov.uk/chalara) as that will contain the most up-to-date information including a map of sites where disease is confirmed. I will keep the Committee updated on progress.

Annex A

PLANT HEALTH RESEARCH SPEND BY DEFRA

This table includes funds spent by Defra and FC over the past five years on plant health research, and that planned up to 2014–15. This is a complex area with funding coming from a number of sources.

While the overall total budget on forestry research will decrease over this period the amount spent on Plant Health Research will increase owing to the injection of £8 million in support of the Tree Health Action Plan, and the fact that FC have increased the proportion of their research budget to be spent on plant health.

The Core Defra Plant Health R&D includes a figure of £600k per annum for Bee Health and pollination research.

There is a further £2 million allocated under the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Action Plan which will be committed in 15/16. This was approved exceptionally as it attracted additional funding of up to £4 million from research councils under the Living with Environmental Change (LWEC) initiative.

The figures here reflect those in PQ 1082, but the PQ response also included the overall Forestry Research budget figures as requested.

	08/09	09/10	10/11	11/12	12/13	13/14	14/15**
Core Defra Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Action Plan*	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	2	2	2
Core Defra (managed by Fera) Plant Health Research	1.3	1.4	0.7	2	1.6	1.4	1.3
Forestry Commission Plant Health Research	1.5	1.4	1.4	1.7	2	2.3	2.1
Total Defra Research spend (Em)	2.8	2.8	2.1	3.7	5.6	5.7	5.4

*published October 2011

**Please note: Defra budgets for 13/14 and beyond are indicative and may increase or decrease to ensure evidence resources remain aligned and responsive to policy needs.

December 2012