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

Introduction

1. This is a joint submission by Defra and the Forestry Commission in response to the questions identified by the Committee for its inquiry into tree health and plant biosecurity.

Q1—Are the roles and responsibilities of public agencies for monitoring incidences of plant and tree diseases or pests sufficiently clearly defined?

2. The responsibilities of public agencies for plant health are set out in the Plant Health Act 1967,1 which splits responsibility in England between the Forestry Commission and Defra (who delegate responsibility for plant health to the Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera)). The Plant Health Act 1967 prescribes the Forestry Commissioners as the competent authority in Great Britain for the protection of forest trees and timber, although the Act does not define “forest trees”.

3. The Forestry Commission monitors forest tree health, at a national level, for quarantine pests, in accordance with EC Directive 92/70/EEC. More generally it monitors the condition of woodland trees as part of the National Forest Inventory and through reports to the Tree Health Diagnostic and Advisory Service. Whilst there is no legal definition of “forest trees” the Forestry Commission’s remit, has through custom and practice, been interpreted as including at least those tree and shrub species for which the Forestry Commission would pay grant aid2 for woodland creation and regeneration.

4. Forestry is a devolved matter. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has responsibility for forestry in England as well as certain activities such as international affairs, which are reserved. Responsibility for forestry in Scotland lies with the Scottish Government and in Wales with Welsh Ministers. Separate arrangements apply in Northern Ireland covered by the Plant Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.

5. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) co-ordinates plant health policy across the UK and Crown Dependencies and represents the UK as the “Single Central Authority” under the EU Plant Health Directive. Defra is also the contact point for the UK “National Plant Protection Organization” under the International Plant Protection Convention. These responsibilities were delegated to Fera, but, as a first step towards improving plant health governance, we have decided to bring plant health policy closer to the heart of Government. As a result, the Plant Health Policy Team in Fera (which carries out much of the co-ordinating role) transferred to Defra on 31 December 2012.

6. Fera implements plant health policy in England and (through a concordat with the Welsh Government) Wales. Fera Inspectors carry out inspections of plants (including trees) and produce imported from non-EU countries, and targeted monitoring of plants (including trees) moving within the Single Market. Fera scientists carry out assessments of risk to plant health (other than forest trees), diagnosis of pests and pathogens, and research on risk assessment, detection, diagnosis and control. A concordat signed in 2011 between Forestry Commission and Fera sets out the way the two organisations work together, including in outbreak situations.

7. Pest or disease outbreaks are the joint responsibility of FERA and Forestry Commission with roles agreed based on where the sites are and what resources and capability are required to deal with the outbreak. Surveillance for harmful organisms of trees in the wider environment including street trees, public parks and gardens responsibility is shared between Forestry Commission (where there is a threat to forests or woodland), Fera, Local Authority tree officers, landowners and managers, and householders.

8. Although the statutory plant health services have lead responsibility, a key element of the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Action Plan is the engagement of statutory conservation bodies, industry sectors, NGOs, local authorities, landowners and the general public in reporting new pest and disease outbreaks and helping to manage them.

9. The separation of responsibility for forest trees and plant health and the risk of inconsistent strategies amongst Devolved Administrations led the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Expert Taskforce to suggest in their interim report that plant health governance is reviewed, simplified and strengthened, and that a UK-wide strategy in identifying and managing threats will be essential. Sir John Beddington and Defra have warmly welcomed the interim report. The taskforce will meet again in January and February 2013, and a final report will be published in the spring.

Q2—Are the Defra, Forestry Commission and Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera) contingency plans for managing a disease outbreak, such as Chalara fraxinea, adequate and appropriate to control its spread and mitigate the impacts of disease?

10. To address the risks posed by forest tree pests and diseases without imposing unnecessary burdens on industry, a risk based approach is employed. The Risk Management Framework is based on the Food and Agriculture Organization/International Plant Protection Convention’s (IPPC) recommendations set out in International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs). Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) is the process used to determine whether an organism is a potential quarantine pest or a Regulated Non Quarantine Pest.

11. The Forestry Commission in their 2011 Tree Health Strategy identified that being able to respond to any new pest quickly is essential to ensure the eradication of that pest. With this in mind, that strategy included a generic contingency plan which was supplemented by a suite of pest-specific plans based on pest risk assessments (there was no specific contingency plan for Chalara as it did not have a pest risk assessment at that point). The purpose of the contingency plans is to provide an operational framework to ensure that any outbreak of a potentially serious tree pest is managed consistently and rapidly, first to contain and if possible to eradicate the pest.

12. The suite of pest-specific Contingency Plans were prepared by the Forestry Commission’s GB Plant Health Service for all of the forest tree pests and diseases listed in the Schedules to the Plant Health (Forestry) Order 2005, and are based on PRAs prepared by European experts, including pathologists or entomologists in Forest Research and published by the European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). The plans provide a clear and consistent approach to addressing forest tree pest or disease threats when an outbreak occurs. The plans date from 2008–09 and are in need of refreshing to reflect recent organisational changes and should be maintained to keep them up to date for the future. A Risk Management Workstream operates a process to prioritize the review and update of contingency plans and to monitor progress against agreed actions (paragraph 19).

13. The generic contingency plan can be adapted to respond rapidly to the appearance of any new forest tree pest or disease not covered by a pest-specific plan. Having a contingency plan ready allows rapid response especially where a number of different parties are involved, which can include other government departments, local government authorities, industry sectors and other commercial bodies. As there was no specific contingency plan available for Chalara, the process outlined in the generic contingency plan3 was used.

14. In addition to these existing plans the interim Taskforce report proposes that draft generic plans for novel types of threats (eg insect pests, Phytophthora fungi etc) should be prepared. These contingency plans need to take account of stakeholders views through consultation and ahead of any incursions. These plans should also be shared amongst other European countries.

15. When the first findings of Chalara in mature trees were confirmed on 22nd October, the response was expanded and put onto an emergency footing. An unprecedented rapid survey by Forestry Commission was commenced with around 500 staff a day being mobilised and around 2,500 ten kilometre squares being covered. This found that the pathogen was present in the wider environment, and marked a step change in the approach to surveillance of the disease. Whilst acknowledging the effort which went into this response the interim report of the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Expert Task Force identifies that there is a much greater sophistication in the preparedness for emerging livestock disease compared with plant disease.

16. The Taskforce interim report identifies that in order to be prepared to manage an outbreak robust data on the host distribution is vital and assurance is required that there is the capacity to model epidemics. Gaps in knowledge (eg taxonomy) and resources (eg rapid molecular diagnostic tests) should also be identified and consideration given to commissioning research to address them. We are currently setting up single tenders for research on Chalara, and another single tender for future plant pests with FERA. This would include the emerald ash borer, bronze birch borer, and Asian longhorn beetle.

Q3—How effective is co-ordination between agencies such as Natural England, the Forestry Commission and Fera?

17. The interim report of the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Taskforce highlights that there are good working relationships between the different organisations when responding to pest and pathogen incursions. For example action this summer against an outbreak of Asian longhorn beetle in Kent involved Forestry Commission, Forest Research, Fera and local authorities, as well as stakeholder groups and the affected householders. Organisations contributed according to their expertise and capability and issues around remit did not get in the way of an effective response. We are cautiously optimistic that the outbreak has been eradicated.

18. There are formal governance arrangements in place to ensure effective co-ordination of plant health bodies. However the Taskforce identified, based on recent experience with the management of tree disease, that making governance work more effectively is necessary to eradicate or reduce the spread of pests or pathogens in future. The interim Task force recommendations include looking at a revised role for various bodies that focus on biosecurity, and how they fit into a strengthened governance structure for tree health and plant biosecurity to ensure national GB co-ordination over forest tree pests and diseases.

19. A UK Plant Health Strategy Board was established in 2011, under Defra chairmanship, comprising senior representatives from Forestry Commission, Fera, Devolved Administrations and the JNCC. It is responsible for co-ordinating UK strategy in international plant health negotiations. It has also taken on oversight of groups carrying out more detailed co-ordination, including the monthly Risk Management Workstream, which was previously an internal Fera body. A UK Plant Health Advisory Forum has also been established, bringing together 14 stakeholders representing growers, traders, environmental and horticultural organisations concerned with plant health.

20. Forestry Commission has set up a GB Biosecurity Programme Board4. The Board includes representation from the forest industry, Fera, the Scottish Government, and Welsh Assembly and oversees development and delivery of Forestry Commission’s approach to tree health. It also provides a strategic overview of Forestry Commission’s approach to tree health and biosecurity, to assist the Commission in meeting its objectives.

21. Pest-specific programme boards and outbreak management teams are used to coordinate the activities of different stakeholders at an operational level and these report to the GB Biosecurity Programme Board as required. A member of Forestry Commission’s Biosecurity Programme Board sits on the UK Plant Health Advisory Forum. FC’s head of plant health attends both groups to further strengthen co-ordination.

22. Fera and Forestry Commission have a concordat signed in 2011 which sets out how they can both maximise the value from their collective capacity both in research and to protect the phytosanitary position of the UK. Fera, together with the Devolved Administrations, Crown Dependencies and Forestry Commission form the UK Plant Health Service.

23. Natural England (NE) is involved where relevant in plant disease outbreaks. In most cases this coordination is achieved through involvement in the Outbreak Management Teams (OMT). For an outbreak of P. austrocedrae Natural England chaired the OMT, with representation on the group from FERA and FC, due to the original outbreak occurring on a nature reserve. For Chalara NE involvement in the rapid survey was as a result of a direct request to the organisation from FC but NE also sit on the OMT and contribute to the work on Chalara and work with FC and FERA through that group.

24. The value of having good co-ordination between Forestry Commission, Fera, and Natural England, is that they each bring unique expertise to the issue, they have differing perspectives which produce more effective strategy, and they have strong links to their own research, policy, and operational activities. This has proved to be particularly effective in tackling the recent outbreak of Asian longhorn beetle and has also contributed to progress on the Phytophthora programme which is currently being reviewed and evaluated. (see paragraph 32 below)

25. As a first step towards improving plant health governance we have decided to bring plant health policy closer to the heart of Government. To support that, on 31 December 2012, the plant health policy team currently located in Fera transferred to Defra. The UK Chief Plant Health Officer also transferred to Defra from the same date. As plant health is a devolved matter, the policy team and the Chief Plant Health Officer will work closely with the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Q4—Are there sufficient resources for research to provide effective evidence on the emergence of new threats to trees and plants and for management of existing threats?

26. The table below includes funds spent by Defra and Forestry Commission 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.

27. 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 Forestry Commission has increased the proportion of their research budget to be spent on plant health.

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

29. There is a further £2 million allocated under the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Action Plan which will be committed in 2015–16. 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. Forestry Commission will also be contributing an additional £0.5 million over the life of the LWEC initiative.

	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 (£m)	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.

30. Forestry Commission funds its Forest Research agency to provide timely and responsive evidence relating to the threats posed by forest tree pests and diseases. This evidence provides support for the whole UK forestry sector. The Forest Research programme addressing the current major pest and disease threats faced at the moment has three elements:

Pest or pathogen-specific research to provide evidence and management solutions for damaging or potentially high risk disorders.

The Tree Health Diagnostic and Advisory Service, which includes acting as first point of contact for reports of tree ill-health, providing advice and topical information on forest tree pests and diseases, underpinning tree health surveillance, conducting formal pest risk analysis and knowledge transfer in relation to national and international plant health regulations.

Strategic research to predict the likely effects of new forest tree pests and diseases, which includes modelling the impact of climate change on existing pests and pathogens.

31. We are currently funding a major programme to address the threat posed to forests, historic gardens and heathland by Phytophthora ramorum in England and Wales. This £23 million, five year, programme (which includes some £4 million pre-existing activity) is managed by Fera, and will conclude in 2014. A review is currently underway which will report in February setting out recommendations for follow up. The review is concentrating on; Programme delivery; Research—particularly in respect of further needs; Overall view of the Programme and recommendations for further action.

32. Research to combat tree disease and pests is also funded by the EU, often as co-funding which supplements UK funding (shared cost programmes) and also to encourage co-operation of research effort across member states (eg COST5 actions, INTERREG6 funding and the EUPHRESCO7 programmes). Forest Research is a partner in the EUPHRESCO research co-ordination programme, which is led by Fera and brings together research programme owners/managers from 22 European partner countries to optimise the use of limited resources via trans-national research commissioning.

33. The UK Research Councils, other Government departments, the forestry sector and charities also fund research which has synergies with the plant health research programmes funded by Defra and the Forestry Commission.

Q5—Is there sufficient coordination of research effort and does the UK have an adequate pool of the right skills to draw upon?

34. Evidence Plans are the mechanism for coordination of the research effort on tree health and plant biosecurity and are an integral part of Defra’s business planning. Evidence is defined as “reliable and accurate information that Defra can use to support sound decisions in developing, implementing, and evaluating policy”.8 It includes economics, statistics, social, veterinary and natural scientific information, operational research, analysis (by internal or external experts), advice (including from advisory committees), monitoring, surveillance and research. Plant health evidence governance arrangements are being reviewed in light of the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Expert Task Force’s recommendations. Evidence Plans covering plant health are currently being updated; they set out current and future evidence needs and how these align to policy outcomes.

35. There is close cooperation among governmental and non-governmental bodies working on plant health Evidence Plans in the UK. In the UK, Defra, Forest Research and Fera colleagues work closely to make the best use of the resources available. Defra coordinates the commissioning of research projects in support of the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Action Plan and Evidence Plans with Fera and Forestry Commission to ensure that research in this area is joined up and coherent. There are a number of universities which undertake work into tree and plant health, such as Cambridge, Imperial, Aberdeen and Exeter. Expertise also exists at research institutions, such as East Malling and the John Innes Centre.

36. The recent outbreaks of Phytophthora ramorum and Chalara fraxinea have required interdisciplinary co-operation to ensure that modelling, epidemiology, and diagnosis are co-ordinated in management planning. The availability, over the long term, of skills in this area has tended to reflect the research funding available and action, as mentioned above, has been taken to enhance this by both Defra and Forestry Commission. The LWEC initiative is supported by some research councils, such as BBSRC, and NERC, and their engagement with tree and plant health should help to support the development of new skills and capacity for the future. This will help to address the erosion of skills and capacity which has occurred over the last decade reflecting an earlier decline in university courses, research and career opportunities in plant pathology.

37. EU funded programmes, such as EUPHRESCO, FRAXBACK, and PERMIT support the exchange of knowledge across Europe. Other European countries face many of the same problems as the UK, and this European funding helps to leverage both the resources and the skills available within the UK.

38. Tree health and plant biosecurity is a complex issue, and while new research funding and capacity can always be employed to good effect, Defra and the Forestry Commission are keen to engage wider society in supporting our efforts to improve the UK’s biosecurity. To this end, the Chalara control plan identifies that we will be looking increasingly to utilise citizen science to best effect to help identify and combat plant and tree diseases. Defra will fund a pilot project this financial year to accelerate development of ObservaTREE—a Forest Research-led bid for EU Life+ funding to develop an integrated Tree Health Early Warning System using volunteer groups. The pilot project will focus on establishment and testing of Information Communications Technology infrastructure and developing a cadre of champions, who are linked to the communications network.

39. In addition, Fera has been working with the parks and gardens sector on a “train the trainers” initiative aimed at equipping those who train people working in the sector to spot plant pests and diseases. We will build on this and work with the Forestry Commission to extend this concept to provide an “early warning network” for tree pests and diseases. This network could include a group of competent and trained stakeholders to operate a network of between 10–20 Genie LAMP assay machines to diagnose Chalara and other diseases.

40. These up skilling exercises will assist in creating a wide network of individuals able to indentify plant pests and diseases. In addition the Forestry Commission has actively developed relationships with a range of universities through co-financing, co-supervising or hosting PhD studentships. Up to 30 studentships have been supported at any time, although not all of those are dedicated to plant health. Forest Research currently host, co-host or co-supervise 7 PhD students and 1 MSc student on plant health research. In addition from March 2004 six plant health taxonomic studentships have been commissioned by Fera to underpin policy by ensuring that expertise in plant pathology is maintained and developed. These studentships commonly adopt molecular approaches and have covered a wide range of organisms including Phytophthora species and nematodes.

41. The interim report of the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Expert Task force highlighted the fact that “there has been an erosion of skills and capabilities, in the UK and internationally, to deal with tree and plant disease at different scales, as well as some of the underpinning natural and social science essential to inform and implement policy.” The Taskforce also identified that whilst some issues can be addressed with the existing skills base others will require a more long-term strategic review involving the Research Councils, Higher Education Institutes as well as government. Defra will be commissioning a review on capacity and capability on plant health.

Following further analysis, the Task Force will produce a final report addressing all of its aims in spring 2013. This is expected to:

review the national and international risks and the evidential basis for the effectiveness of response options;

develop work to provide an independent perspective on costs and benefits to inform setting priorities and resource allocation around tree and plant health;

review best international practice in tree health and plant biosecurity management; and

produce a strategic evidence assessment and make recommendations for next steps including developing crucial knowledge gaps.

Q6—Does the international regime for trade in plants and the EU plant health framework provide a sufficiently flexible and responsive framework to respond to newly identified pests and diseases or to those that are spreading? Can these regimes impede stronger import controls?

42. In developing policy the UK must consider our international obligations under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS), which is binding on all member countries of the World Trade Organisation and those in the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). The rules of international trade, as set out in the SPS, allow countries to set their own standards, but state that regulations must be based on science. They should be applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health. And they should not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between countries where identical or similar conditions prevail.

43. The SPS explicitly permits governments to choose not to use the international standards. However, if the national requirement results in a greater restriction of trade, a country may be asked to provide scientific justification, demonstrating that the relevant international standard would not result in the level of health protection the country considered appropriate. Countries must establish SPS measures on the basis of an appropriate assessment of the actual risks involved, and, if requested, make known what factors they took into consideration, the assessment procedures they used and the level of risk they determined to be acceptable. This is generally achieved through Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) prepared following the guidelines set out in the relevant International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures.

44. The UK plant health policy team (previously in Fera, now in Defra) negotiates in Europe on the EU plant health regime. The EU’s Standing Committee on Plant Health determines which pests should be classified as quarantine pests or regulated non-quarantine pests, and the special requirements to be taken to prevent their introduction and spread. Under Article 16 of the Plant Health Directive Member States have the right to introduce national legislation if there is a specific threat that is not controlled effectively through EU legislation. The Plant Health (Forestry) Order 2005 allows statutory control measures to be put in place at an early stage. This approach has already been taken in the case of certain insect pests like Oak Processionary Moth to create a protected, or pest free, zone.

45. Any changes to the pest list, or the special requirements to be met before regulated plants, plant products or other objects may be landed, are set out in the EU Plant Health Directive, and these are usually triggered either by import interceptions of new pests by a Member State, or EPPO alerts.

46. Under the EU Plant Health Directive, there is generally free trade in plants for planting between Member States. Specific measures may be required against identified risks, for example there may be a requirement that the plants must come from a disease free area or from a disease free place of production. In the case of plants from other continents, there is a greater risk from pests and pathogens which may be much more damaging away from their region of origin. In this case the risks are difficult to predict or assess. If infected plants are imported into the EU and infection is not detected at import, such plants can be transported across the EU. While monitoring occurs the high volume of plant trade means that 100% inspection of intra-EU movements is neither feasible nor practical, so protection for the UK against risks from non-EU countries depends on an effective EU plant health regime of import requirements and controls. For imports from non-EU countries to the EU, there are therefore a number of general requirements to reduce the risk from those unknown or unlisted pests. The adequacy of those requirements, in relation to new trades, will be considered in the forthcoming review of the EU regime.

47. The Common Plant Health Regime (CPHR) aims to protect the EU against the harm caused by the introduction and spread of harmful organisms. The regime dates from 1977 and the UK Plant Health Service has been instrumental in getting a review of the regime initiated. The European Commission are carrying out this review, with a proposal to be published this year. As part of this work they have undertaken a preparatory evaluation of the current EU framework which has concluded that the main problems with the current regime are:

Insufficient focus on prevention in relation to increased imports of high risk commodities.

A need for prioritising harmful organisms at EU level across all Member States.

A need for better measures for controlling the presence and natural spread of harmful organisms which manage to enter the Union territory.

A need for modernising and upgrading the measures concerning the phytosanitary control of intra-EU movements (plant passports and protected zones).

These findings will be taken on board in the review. The outcome of the review will be new EU Plant Health legislation, to replace the current Directive.

48. Following earlier engagement with UK stakeholders a number of key points were agreed which the UK wished to see addressed in the review. These fall into three priority areas:

Faster decision making as plant health risks change and new pests arrive.

Better risk targeting, including regionalisation where appropriate, and a shift of inspection effort from plant produce to plants and propagating material (including addressing threats from new and emerging trades).

More co-operation between plant health inspectorates across the EU and between plant health and customs services.

49. Proposals for changes to the regime are expected in March 2013.

Q8—Are plant health controls sufficiently broad to cover trade in tree and plant products such as biofuels?

50. The scope of the EU Plant Health Directive extends to all plants and plant products. The definitions of “plant” and “plant products” in the Directive cover the range of material most likely to sustain harmful plant health organisms, including trees, wood and unprocessed wood products. Biomass material imported for fuel or other use is subject to the requirements of the Directive in the same way as plants and plant products imported for other purposes. Whilst liquid biofuels or refined solid biofuels such as wood pellets and charcoal will provide no risk relating to the importation of plant pests,9 some wood or wood products (eg chips) used as biofuel may pose a risk and such risks are assessed (along with other pathways) as part of the Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) process for specific organisms.

51. The PRA provides the scientific basis upon which most plant health legislation is based. Where a risk is identified associated with a particular commodity or plant species, specific requirements are introduced, which range from an import prohibition to measures which must be applied before exports can take place to the EU. For example, trade in ash chips from countries where the damaging wood boring beetle—Agrilus planipennis (the Emerald Ash Borer)—is present, can only take place if the chips originate from a Pest Free Area or are processed into pieces not bigger than 2.5cm, which has been shown to destroy the larvae.

52. Where a decision is taken to regulate imports of a particular commodity, they must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate to confirm that the prescribed requirements have been complied with. The phytosanitary checks that are made on imports of controlled wood used as biofuel are similar to those applied to other controlled wood products. These consignment checks include an examination of the accompanying phytosanitary documentation; a check on the identity of the material declared and, where required, a physical inspection to ensure that material is free from pests and diseases and complies with specific landing requirements.

53. Globally, National Plant Protection Organisations (NPPOs) recognise the threat from various pathways, including wood and wood products. Wood packaging is also an important pathway, linked to the movement of certain pests, such as Anoplophora glabripennis (the Asian Longhorn Beetle). An international approach in which all wood packaging material worldwide is subject to prescribed universal measures to prevent pest transport has been agreed in an International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures, ISPM No. 15. Implementation of the procedures necessary to ensure that UK-manufactured wood packaging material meets this Standard is overseen by a joint FC/industry Advisory Council with representation from the Forest Service of the Northern Ireland Department for Agriculture & Rural Development.

Q9—What lessons are being learnt in the UK from the management of Chalara dieback of ash in other EU Member States: for example on trade in plants, management of infected trees including saplings, and development of resistant trees?

54. We are ensuring that we are learning from the experience on mainland Europe, where they have been dealing with this disease for a few years now. We have engaged with the Chief Plant Health Officers (COPHS) group of the European heads of plant health to gain a Europe wide perspective. The UK is also a member of FRAXBACK, an EU funded COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) action aimed to generate comprehensive understanding of Ash dieback through sharing and synthesis of available knowledge. FRAXBACK has 26 partners from across Europe and China, Russia and New Zealand. UK plant health scientists attended the most recent FRAXBACK meeting in Vilnius which took place in November 2012.

55. The UK, through Forest Research, also leads on another COST action, PERMIT, which is providing a structured means both to address and reduce the risk of pathways of global pest movement. This work extends beyond, but is complementary to, the current phytosanitary procedures.

56. On 2 November, Forestry Commission’s Director General wrote to forestry contacts across Europe to seek information on ash dieback, and management approaches. As of 15 November 2012, 14 countries had responded. 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 on other countries’ experience of tackling Chalara, scientific papers and the names of experts. We have also been liaising closely with other Member States through the Standing Committee on Plant Health, including presenting the current UK position and future plans to the Standing Committee on 22 November 2012.

57. There is a requirement to notify new pest outbreaks within the EU and also to notify any interceptions of forest tree pests and diseases on material within the EU and from third countries. Representatives from Fera, accompanied by Forestry Commission when forestry items are on the agenda, attend the monthly meetings of the European Union Standing Committee on Plant Health. These meetings provide a forum to raise awareness about new threats and to take forward emergency measures and legislative change where this is required. However no other EU Member State (except Ireland which has recently taken emergency measures) has attempted to carry out statutory controls against Chalara, and there is a recognition across Europe that lessons need to be learned from the experience of the rapid spread of Chalara, and the delay in identifying the organism responsible and carrying out a risk assessment.

58. Within the IPPC network, nine Regional Plant Protection Organizations have been set up, covering areas with similar climatic and other features. The UK is a member of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), which has 50 members covering all EU Member States and most other countries of the European and Mediterranean region. EPPO has produced a large number of standards and publications on plant pests, phytosanitary regulations, PRAs and plant protection products, which can be found on their website.

59. The UK participates in a number of Technical and other panels set up within the IPPC/EPPO framework. In addition, the UK plant health authorities monitor the pest alerts published at frequent intervals by EPPO and some other Regional Plant Protection Organizations as part of the horizon scanning process and, where appropriate, conduct PRAs in order to determine whether our import controls need to be adjusted, advising the European Commission and the member states accordingly.

60. Forestry Commission’s research agency (Forest Research) has a number of international partnerships. It takes a lead in both the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO10) and the European Forest Research Institute (EFI11), and is commonly sought as a partner in EU and world-wide research and cooperation initiatives. This provides a valued level of awareness of pest and pathogen problems in other countries, including those which would flourish if they arrived in the UK and others whose range is currently expanding towards the UK (eg Pine Processionary moth, the Emerald Ash Borer, and Chestnut Blight).

January 2013