Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

The following evidence for the above inquiry is submitted on behalf of the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH), a Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) research centre reporting to Government through BIS. CEH is the UK’s centre of excellence for integrated research on terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems and their interaction with the atmosphere. CEH carries out its scientific research across three Science Programmes—Biodiversity, Water, and Biogeochemistry which integrate with a central data centre—the Environmental Informatics Data Centre.

CEH welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to this inquiry. Our views are submitted under the specific questions requested in the call for evidence.

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

1. No comment

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?

2. Early detection of potential plant diseases both within and outside the UK should be a high priority. Timely, appropriate action to assess risks, and prevent the spread of disease is then required. It would be desirable, therefore, for Government to have an “in principle” rapid response already signed off by all agencies with a potential involvement in a disease outbreak, supported by a contingency fund. A nominated person (eg in Defra, Fera or the Forestry Commission (FC)) could then quickly assemble a group to go through a rapid response flowchart which should function at a national, regional or local level. A protocol that formally assesses the potential risks should be used to initiate the release of resources. By having agreements and strategies in place, this would maximise the advantage of public concern and demonstrate effective response in the case of rapidly developing threats such as that posed by Chalara fraxinea.1

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

3. No comment.

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

4. Defra and the FC’s Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Action Plan was launched in October 2011.2 The Action Plan is focused on import controls, practical biosecurity actions, public and stakeholder engagement, and research. Over £1.2 million of research has been commissioned since April 2012 on: stakeholder mapping and analysis on tree pests and pathogens; the review and analysis of control strategies; improved detection of Asian longhorn beetle; the causes, distribution and scale of acute oak decline; early detection, control and outbreak management of oak processionary moth; genetics of Phytophthora ramorum; social and economic analysis of Dothistroma needle blight; and preparing for priority emerging and future pest threats, including ash die-back.

5. It could be argued that the research element of this programme has a mainly short-term focus, responding to current problems, rather than preparing for emerging threats and supporting research that will underpin a future UK response. For example, we have a relatively poor understanding of the effects of climate change and extreme weather events (ie flooding, drought) on long-lived species such as trees and how such events might make them more susceptible to disease. From another angle, research on the economic consequences of plant pest and disease outbreaks would also be useful in determining whether resources allocated to research and practical action are adequate.

6. In October 2012, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Defra (with the support of the Welsh Government), FC, Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), NERC and the Scottish Government committed funds to support strategic research in the area of tree health and plant biosecurity under the auspices of the Living With Environmental Change (LWEC) Partnership.3 The purpose of this multi-disciplinary Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Initiative is to generate natural and social scientific knowledge to address current and emerging threats to trees and woodland ecosystems from pathogens and pests. The overarching aim is to support the future health and resilience of trees, woodlands and their associated ecosystems. The initiative also directly supports the objectives of the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Action Plan. An initial phase of funding worth £500k has supported the development of research consortia with the aim of bringing researchers from different disciplines together to network and develop research proposals. Funding for full research proposals will open in spring 2013 (total funding available approx. £6.5 million). This represents, therefore, effort to coordinate research by the major funding agencies in a multidisciplinary way. CEH are leading a Phase1 project “Deploying forest genetic resources for management of tree pests and pathogens—a review of prospects and capacity (GRIPP)”.

7. This initiative has the potential to address some of the limitations of the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Action Plan by having a more long-term focus on future health and resilience of trees and their ecosystems. The benefit of being prepared for potential threats is that we can respond more rapidly and effectively, protect our valuable natural resource and save money in the long term. Strong integration of projects is required to address this at the ecological and landscape scale.

8. Coordination is essential for effective evidence generation; it is especially important in situations where there are a diversity of issues (diseases and threats impacting different forms of organism) requiring different disciplines (botanists, plant physiologists, agronomists, horticulturalists, foresters, ecologists, climate specialists, social scientists, economists, etc.). At present there is no individual or single group that carries authority and leadership to address all aspects. A standing committee on plant and tree health and biosecurity could be an option.

9. To maintain and enhance research capacity, the UK requires a skill base that has the flexibility to respond rapidly to new and emerging problems, and gain experience by carrying out ongoing research and monitoring of existing problems. Research institutes and government agencies are currently capable of responding faster than universities as they have staff in place and do not need to identify, select and apply for funding. However, with the current financial crisis, the agencies and institutes are under continued pressure and may be losing the flexibility to respond to current and emerging problems, with emergency responses deflecting staff from work that has already been prioritised.

Are sufficient resources being put into developing effective responses to plant health threats, such as improving resistance, biocontrols and chemical or management responses?

10. CEH was involved in the stakeholder consultation for Defra and the FC’s Tree Health and Biosecurity Action Plan, and welcomed the resources allocated to it. As detailed in paragraph 4, the Action Plan is focused on import controls, practical biosecurity actions, engagement, and research, some of which involves control and management measures.

11. Areas of research where there is scope for more work to be done in the UK include:

Resistance—We have a limited understanding of the extent of genetic diversity, its spatial structure and the rate and adaptive potential of forest populations, for many UK tree species. The focus of research on resistance could centre on production forestry (turnover through harvesting and replanting), and natural forests (turnover through death and natural regeneration). The priorities for research will be quite different in each case, the former can use breeding programmes and take advantage of resistant varieties, the latter offers the potential of evolutionary change, perhaps with rate changes mediated by management to increase turnover. Little work has been done in this area, and would involve research on management strategies that build in adaptive potential and gene flow, and allow alterations to rates of generational turnover for species affected by new threats.

Plant viruses—The virus record is very limited for UK trees and wild plants, however, screening and detection methodology is available. When infecting, plant viruses suppress host immunity locally and systemically. There is the likelihood, therefore, that virus infections may make plants more susceptible to other pathogens. Similar evidence has been abundant in animal and humans (eg HIV) but little has yet been reported in plants. By using the next generation sequencing (NGS) technology and advanced bioinformatics, CEH has developed homology-dependent virus detection pipelines that detect unknown virus prevalence, and is making breakthroughs for the discovery of novel plant viruses in the environment.

Plant fungal pathogens—The pathogenicity and genetic variability of real and potential fungal pathogens is poorly understood. The potential for evolution of common non-pathogenic fungi into disease organisms is not known. New, rapid molecular methods for fungal identification are required as many of these micro-organisms are very difficult to identify in the field.

Insect pests and insect vectors of fungal pathogens and viruses—The potential spread of viruses and fungal pathogens by insect vectors is also poorly understood. In addition to diseases spread by native insects, alien insects might bring new pathogens to the UK. Both native and alien insects might also evolve the ability to transmit fungal and virus pathogens.

Citizen science—Within the Biological Records Centre (BRC), CEH has an online system (via “iRecord”)4 which has a page for the reporting of ash die back. Our colleagues at NatureLocator/University of Bristol were in discussion with the Forestry Commission about an app (based on the PlantTracker app5) that would utilise the Indicia database system for biological recording. This system has been set up to easily allow verification of the data coming in, rapid reporting of results, and good quality data flow into systems like the National Biodiversity Network (NBN). This system would allow an online and app recording system for the early detection of plant pests and pathogens. It should be noted that an app for the citizen recording of ash die back is currently available through Ashtag.6 The BRC system, however, could be applied to a range of pests and diseases and would allow the robust flow of data into existing citizen science recording schemes. The Open Air Laboratories Network (OPAL)7 have plans for a survey on tree health in 2013.

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?

12. CEH cannot comment on the full scope of the EU plant health framework, but can provide comment on a number of organisations and initiatives in which it has been involved.

13. Many plant health specialists would agree that once an invasive plant pest or pathogen has gone beyond a certain threshold, efforts of eradication will be hugely costly and may be ultimately unsuccessful. Early detection outside the UK should, therefore, be a high priority. Through its work on invasive species (including plant pests and pathogens), CEH has recognised that rapid response, a pre-requisite for prevention, control and eradication, relies on timely detection of new alien species. Current information systems are inadequate in this regard as the information is in a variety of forms, databases may not be compatible, and information may be difficult to retrieve. CEH has recently been awarded funds for a COST action to harmonise within Europe the information in existing alien species databases, explore undiscovered sources of information, and identify the needs and formats for alien species information by different user groups and for the implementation of an Early Warning and Rapid Response System.8 The COST Action will provide a network of experts and consider how interoperable data can be made accessible through a set of web services linking to the newly established European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN) initiative.

14. The European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation (EPPO) developed a risk assessment after the sweet chestnut gallwasp, Dryocosmus kuriphilus, was first recorded in Italy. To quarantine infected areas in terms of trade should have been an obvious suggestion for the risk assessment, yet it moved from one chestnut growing area to another and is now in France, Switzerland, Slovenia, and Croatia with Hungary expected to be the next country to become affected. In this case, the issue was not about being unaware, but adequate response and enforcement was lacking.

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

15. The UK currently imports biomass in different forms for power generation. This is likely to increase as coal-fired power stations are all moving to co-firing with biomass, or planning to close by 2015 due to the flue gas desulphurisation legislation. If there is an increase in wood imports up to and beyond 2015 to meet this demand, then UK plant health controls and their enforcement will become increasingly important. Awareness of plant health issues should be raised within the appropriate sectors as there is a tendency to view biomass as inert, and legislation/inspection regimes to be bureaucratic.

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?

16. If ash in the UK proves to be as susceptible to Chalara as in countries such as Denmark with the prospect of major mortality, then there could be a case for pre-emptive establishment of new trees of alternative species. This could be particularly useful for individual and hedgerow trees which have a large influence on the character of the landscape and the biodiversity of farmland hedgerow networks. (Pre-emptive replacement of whole woods is unlikely to be practical and probably undesirable if it involved felling existing, currently healthy, trees). Financial support for farmers to establish new trees as a safeguard prior to evidence of infection could reduce the time required to replace mature trees. Information on suitable replacement species, and their management would also be required. Such a strategy might also be suitable for certain parkland, garden and other urban situations.

17. It can be noted that trees that are resistant to Dutch Elm disease have taken over 40 years to develop and their use is restricted by patents. Research to develop more rapid methods of identifying resistant individuals of plants, and associating genetic characteristics with resistance is required.

January 2013