Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity

Written evidence submitted by Scottish Natural Heritage

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

1.1 The roles and responsibilities of public agencies are clear where the plant pathogens impact on economic interests. Responsibilities are less clear where the impacts are on other interests such as landscape and biodiversity. Information on who does what is scattered across various agencies’ websites and there is no single resource where the public can go to find this out.

1.2 A partnership approach is required because plant diseases and pests often cover the remit of several agencies. For example, the plant disease Phytophthora ramorum was originally found in Britain on rhododendrons and other ornamental shrubs, before affecting commercial larch plantations and the native shrub, bilberry. Control measures usually require the cooperation of land owners, industry and the public .

1.3 Creating a single Scottish Government portal for information on plant pathogen information would also help.

2. 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?

2.1 The contingency plans for managing disease outbreaks are fit-for-purpose. However, as the Chalara fraxinea outbreak highlights, controlling the spread of diseases once they become established is costly and challenging. Priority needs to be given to disease prevention – Pest Risk Analysis and biosecurity measures to help prevent the establishment and slow the spread of diseases. It the case of Chalara fraxinea, little could have been done to prevent the spread of wind-borne spores to south-east Britain, but measures may have been put in place sooner to slow the spread to other parts of the country. Lessons could also be learned from public awareness campaigns such as Check, Clean, Dry aimed at encouraging the public to take steps to prevent the spread of non-native species.

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

3.1 We are unable to comment on the effectiveness of co-ordination between English-organisations. However, the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) support company played a vital role in connecting the statutory nature conservation bodies (SNCBs) with the Defra-led response. Through JNCC we could have more input at the GB level, for example, to help with identifying future research priorities.

3.2 Within Scotland coordination between the agencies with lead responsibility for plant health seems to have been effective. Scottish Natural Heritage’s involvement in plant health issues has, mainly been advising Outbreak Management Teams on potential natural heritage impacts. Cross-cutting groups such as the Tree Health Action Group in Scotland should improve wider coordination and communication in future.

4. 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?

4.1 New threats to trees and plants, especially fungal diseases, are emerging with increasing regularity. The expansion in global trade and travel brings plant pathogens into contact with potential hosts which have little or no resistance to them. There is also evidence to suggest that bringing together similar micro-organisms from different continents may be increasing the rate of disease mutation. Scottish Natural Heritage would support an increase in resources for research and to develop expertise in this area.

4.2 We are concerned that Pest Risk Analysis focuses mainly on plant health issues with economic impacts interests and not enough on plant diseases and pests with potentially high ecological impacts. There needs to be more research effort in this area and better coordination between the plant health regime and non-native species control mechanisms.

4.3 Early detection systems, including sharing information across countries, also need to be resourced more effectively.

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

5.1 Scottish Natural Heritage supports the development of effective responses to plant health threats. However, it is important that biocontrols and chemical or management responses take account of harmful effects on the environment and native species and avoid these where possible, or mitigate them where it is not. There are also risks associated with breeding resistant strains, including reducing genetic diversity by selecting for single traits, which may lead to reduced fitness in relation to other environmental threats. Resistant plants could also act as a vector and spread disease to previously unaffected areas.

5.2 The primary focus should be on prevention rather than control. Attention should be given to enhancing the resilience of our woodlands to pests and pathogens by:

· reducing pressures, such as herbivore impacts and invasive non-native species;

· promoting greater a greater diversity of tree species (including exotic species where appropriate); and

· restoring natural woodland processes, such as regeneration, to encourage natural selection for resistant strains.

6. 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?

6.1 Pest Risk Analysis is robust and flexible process, which allows for a rapid response to emerging threats from harmful organisms. Delays are more likely to be caused by the requirement to gather evidence that the harmful organism is not endemic or established in the member state. A more flexible, risk-based approach to establishing the level of evidence necessary to set up Protected Zones might avoid such delays in the future.

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

7.1 The tools provided by the EU plant health framework are adequate to cover trade in tree and plant products such as biofuels. However, before these tools can be used, research is needed to establish the level of risk from plant diseases and pests being transmitted via this pathway.

8. 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?

8.1 The DEFRA evidence plan (under development) and the Fraxback initiative demonstrate that lessons are being learnt from other EU member states. Knowledge exchange about threats and how to manage of plant pathogens, and non-native species more generally, plays a vital role in supporting responses to emerging threats.

January 2013