Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Horticultural Trades Association on behalf of Horticultural Trade Association and Confor

The additional evidence below is in response to requests from the EFRA Select Committee for further details following the oral evidence session on 26 June. Specifically, questions relayed by the Clerk of the Committee include;

Views further to the outcome of the Plant Health Risk Register workshops being organised by Fera

Both Confor and the HTA have been impressed by the first phase of this work which has included several day-long workshops with scientists, researchers and practitioners from certain sectors (glasshouse crops, arable and fruit crops, potatoes, forest trees, hardy ornamental and wild plants). The end result will be a comprehensive, prioritised risk register which has assessed approximately 700 pests or pathogens against their likely arrival and level of impact against a spectrum of mitigating actions. Fera expect to formally consult on phase one of the project in the autumn.

Key factors in retaining the function and value of the risk register once published will be;

· to continue to horizon scan for future pests and disease;

· to implement emergency measures when appropriate (protected zone status)

· and to communicate the register in tailored fashion to a wide variety of stakeholder groups (scientists, growers, landowners, landscapers, contractors, local authorities etc).

An understanding of the current spend by their member bodies/the wider industry on research into plant pests and diseases and managing their spread/controlling their impacts

The following statistics refer to research funds for Horticulture, defined as Fruit, Vegetable (excluding potatoes) and Plant Production.

· Total research spend across all horticultural sectors between 2005 and 2012 has gradually decreased from £26m per annum to £18.5m per annum (-30%).

· Total government funding (BBSRC, TSB and Defra) has decreased from £17.5 to £9m (-48%) over this period.

· Defra funding has fallen from £12.24m to £1.34m (-89%).

· Total industry funding has increased from £8.7m to £9.5m (+8%). disease;

Industry is defined as the sum of Horticultural Development Company (HDC) levy collection plus any cash/in kind research budgets from larger horticultural companies (excluding the agricultural chemicals industry),

Within the HDC budget of £4m, only £380k is allocated to hardy Nursery Stock. Of the £380k, the tree and hedging sector has an allocation of just 13%, circa £50k per annum. Given this limited funding, research on quarantine pests and diseases has been minimal, but specific examples include:

· A review of the potential for disease management in forest nurseries using fungicides for Red Band Needle Blight (2010)

· Tobacco whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) control on imported poinsettia cuttings

· Tomato leaf miner (Tuta absoluta) - not established in the UK but working on strategies to control it at present

· Spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii)

The Horticultural Trades Association has long argued that scientific research and development is absolutely essential to the horticultural sector's future in the face of plant health, pest, disease and other environmental threats. With the recent R&D focus on the food agenda, ornamental horticulture has been neglected despite its wide-reaching contribution to the UK's environment, the economy and the nation's health and well-being.

In March 2013, the Horticulture Innovation Partnership (HIP), was launched by Sir John Beddington, the Government's Chief Scientific Advisor, to bring together industry representatives including growers, policy makers, research funders and providers, suppliers and retailers. The HIP aims to ensure there is an integrated horticulture R&D strategy and approach to the coordination of funding for research on horticulture crops and potatoes and helps to provide a collaborative network to address technological and commercial barriers preventing business development. The sector calls on the Government to maintain its support for the Horticulture Innovation Partnership and encourage new potential funders to become involved so the Partnership has a secure basis to develop its important initiatives for the ornamental horticulture sector.

For the forestry sector, page 24 of Defra's written evidence to the Select Committee provided details of research spend between 2008-2015.

What is the impact of the Bronze Birch Borer in Russia (referred to in evidence)? What measures are being adopted in other EU member states and the UK to prepare for its possible arrival? Is there good co-ordination with scientists in Russia on the pest and its epidemiology and control?

The HTA have since corrected the evidence provided in the oral session to accurately refer to the reference to the Emerald Ash Borer (rather than Bronze Birch Borer) that has been identified in Russia. The Emerald Ash Borer has caused widespread devastation to the native ash population in the USA and Canada since identification in 2002 after a probable arrival in wood packaging from East Asia. Fera are aware of the threat, but there does not appear to be a current Pest Risk Assessment at either UK or EU level. Neither the HTA nor Confor are aware of the strength of links between the UK and Russian scientific community.

A request for a copy of the organogram referred to on plant health responsibilities in Defra and its arms' length and other bodies

The most recent available organogram is attached at Annex A.

What is the impact of grant cycles on planning for demand for plants/trees and the consequent effect on the level of imports? And more detail on the proposed solutions.

The grant system drives the forestry supply market. The problem is that the approvals system is slow and does not allow for multiple year planning. Because of this, UK nurseries typically receive short notice of supply contracts for which they cannot meet all the requirements. In such circumstances, UK nurseries will try to source missing stock from other UK growers, or from mainland Europe if stock is unavailable in the UK.

The solution would be to reform the grant system to develop multiple year plans for forestry planting. This would enable landowners and nurseries to draw up longer term production and supply contracts, thereby increasing UK production and decreasing imports and the associated plant health risks. The same benefits would apply to the amenity sector if the Government established procurement standards to become exemplar clients for contract grown projects as per the stunning example of the Olympic Park, e.g. future HS2 planting requirements.

There is also an urgent need to adequately address the "gap year" of forestry grants in 2014-15. The nursery sector is extremely concerned about the impacts of the end of the existing Rural Development Programme budget at the end of 2013. The danger is twofold; firstly that the impending closure of the scheme actually sees it closed much earlier than planned as agents rush to secure the remaining funds and the budget is quickly overcommitted. Secondly, that the resulting hiatus in orders is compounded by the new technological and procedural complexities of the successor RDP budget. This is precisely what happened in 2008, causing a backlog of projects in the system. Nurseries suffered heavy losses and were forced to issue redundancy notices and other extreme measures just to survive, including not sowing crops and sterilising land. Indeed, some nurseries had only just managed to get back to normal production cycles before Chalara hit.

It is therefore essential that arrangements for 2014/15 are clear, visible and carefully managed to avoid similar problems. If not, some UK nurseries will probably fail to survive, thereby reducing domestic production and increasing the level of imports.

July 2013

Annex

Decision making and consultative bodies for UK plant health

Background

The attached diagrams show past (2010) and present state of the committees and other groups making decisions or influencing decision making on UK plant health. These are groups which have agreed terms of reference, meet and record decisions and actions. Meetings which are internal to a team or organisation are not shown.

Additions to the landscape

The proposal shows two recent additions. Firstly a plant health advisory forum of stakeholders, serviced and chaired (at least initially) by Fera. The forum subsumed the work of an ad hoc stakeholder group on review of the EU plant health regime. Advice from that forum can now be included in submissions to Ministers. Secondly a UK plant health strategy board, chaired by Defra, with representation from Fera, FC and DAs. This subsumed the work of the inter-departmental programme board for Phytophthora, and oversees delivery of the Action Plan on Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity. One early piece of work for this revised governance structure is development of a new UK plant health strategy, in parallel with negotiations on a revised EU plant health regime, for which the Commission will issue formal proposals in late 2012 or early 2013.

This version (rev 12) also shows the CSA's expert task force, recently commissioned by the Secretary of State. Although this will be of limited duration its findings are likely to have a significant influence on the development of UK plant health strategy.

Simplification of the landscape

Simplification has been facilitated by subordinating all of the groups shown to either the UK plant health strategy board (in the case of the official groups) or the stakeholder forum (in the case of stakeholder input). Some Phytophthora-specific groups have been merged with more general functions, in line with the recommendation from the "refresh" of the Phytophthora project to mainstream activity against Phytophthora. The proposal keeps a clear distinction between groups of officials and stakeholder groups, but where the stakeholder forum sees a need and has the capability, there are opportunities for stakeholders to participate in the official working groups, subject to arrangements for handling any conflict of interest or confidential information.

Scope

The current structure is based on UK wide working groups wherever possible. This has the benefit of bringing expertise from across the UK into detailed discussions, and should be adaptable to possible future changes, for example in the relationship between the different parts of the Forestry Commission and the devolved administrations.

Martin Ward

1st November 2012