Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity

Written evidence submitted by Jim Pratt

1. Your terms of reference and the request for views document asks a number of questions in relation to the nation’s preparedness for dealing with threats from plant diseases. I will restrict my answer to tree health, and to a general statement because I am no longer familiar with the structure or management of the public bodies involved. When we are thinking about these issues, it is imperative to keep in mind that the ‘stakeholders’ we should be considering are future generations yet to be born. We professionals and managers have a responsibility to protect our environment for their future use: in the case of Chalara, we have failed to do so regardless of ample warnings, and this inquiry provides a unique opportunity to rectify the mistakes that led to that catastrophe.  My statement will cover the provision of staff, and plant import regulations.

2. PROVISION OF STAFF.

a. I joined the Pathology Branch of the Forestry Commission Research Division in 1967, and worked therein for 31 years until retiring in 2002 as head of the Pathology section of Forest Research at Roslin, Midlothian.

b. When I joined, the Branch had a reputation second to none, and was highly respected throughout the world for the quality of its applied research, embodied in a number of text books written by staff which are now standard texts.

c. The reason for this excellence was due, in my opinion, to the imaginative and energetic leadership of its first director, Dr Tom Peace, to the mix of staff (scientific, technical and industrial) and to a clear and achievable career structure within  its parent organisation, namely the  Forestry Commission. This national body (charged with protecting and increasing the nation’s forest estate) fully appreciated and valued the advice it received from its Pathology Branch on a range of biotic and abiotic disorders of trees, including diseases of potential significance from overseas.  At that time, our annual Pathology Group Meeting could muster up to 30 professional practitioners and students from Britain and Ireland.

d. A key reason for the success of the Pathology Branch in dealing with the large numbers of queries that arose during the period of expansion of the Forestry Commission’s new plantations (composed largely of non-native conifers on marginal ground, usually in exposed uplands) was that it had immediate access to other specialisms within Forest Research. These included genetics and dendrology, geology and soils, soils water management, climate, wildlife, insect pests, tree physiology, silviculture, and integrated services such as statistics and computing, economics, and a library. Elsewhere within the Forestry Commission we could get specialist advice on such matters as timber structure and strength, harvesting techniques, roads construction and the like. And, of course, we had access to forest pathologists at a number of British universities, most notably Cambridge, Oxford, Aberdeen  and Edinburgh.  Of course, each of those groups could take advantage of our knowledge and experience, which was freely shared.

e. As I understand the current  staffing levels, the numbers of forest pathologists working in that specialism today within Britain and Ireland can be counted on the fingers of two hands, and that only one University (Aberdeen) offers post-graduate study. This significant reduction in properly-trained staff has, I believe, occurred throughout Europe, and also to some extent in North America.  It would seem proper for your committee to try to understand why our society no longer values the forest environment sufficiently to create a vibrant, effective and dedicated national tree disease research team, properly resourced and with a career structure that encourages forestry graduates to take up this profession. This would not seem unreasonable, even within a period of recession, given the queue of exotic diseases waiting to make an entrance into this country.

f. Evidence for a paucity of specialists within the UK can be seen in the make-up of the Independent Task Force on Tree and Plant Health, set up in the wake of the Chalara outbreak, which numbers but one professional tree pathologist in its membership.   

g. The really important point to make is that forest pathology is a specialism very different from more general plant pathology, especially that related to annual crops. This is because in forestry the hosts’ interrelationships with their environments is modified and varied over periods from decades to centuries, and the interplay of the effect of environment on host, and of host on environment, is subtle and surprisingly difficult to unravel.

h. In my opinion, therefore, moves to subsume tree pathology into a wider DEFRA plant health body would be mistaken. Pathologists need access to other forest-related disciplines more than to those involved with the production of food.  And, of equal importance, they need unfettered contact with  other tree pathologists throughout the world. 

i. Finally, in relation to tree health, I think it would be appropriate to examine the qualifications of the Forestry Commission’s staff in the Plant Health Service, since this is the unit ultimately responsible for advising ministers on matters of tree health.  In my opinion, it should be staffed by a practising pathologist or entomologist.

3. IMPORT REGULATIONS

The uncontrolled spread of Chalara into and across Europe (including its arrival in infected planting stock in the UK) demonstrates that the regulations set out in the EU Directive 2000/29/EU* as amended have failed, and are in need of urgent and immediate revision. Until they are modified to become fit for purpose, the UK Government should consider replacing them with emergency legislation to restrict the import of any live trees or tree reproductive material unless they can be shown to be axenic (thus allowing entry to seeds and tissue cultures, with the normal quarantine conditions).  In addition, and most importantly, all imports of trees or woody plants growing in any soil-based medium must be banned forthwith.  (*Council Directive on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (OJ L 169, 10.7.2000).)

4. SUMMARY

a. There is an urgent need to increase the numbers of properly trained and motivated specialist Forest Pathologists within the UK who are domiciled among other forestry specialists rather than among plant pathologists.

b. The regulations on the imports of living trees into the UK needs urgent review leading to radical changes.

January 2013