Implementation of the GB Plant Health and Biosecurity Strategy 2014–2019 with foresight on a new strategy for 2020

Introduction

In April 2014, the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Secretary of State in conjunction with ministerial counterparts in Scotland and Wales published Protecting Plant Health – a plant biosecurity strategy for Great Britain (GB) (Gov.UK, 2014a). The aim of the strategy is to protect plants from pests that have been identified as priorities for action, and build awareness of the risks from pests, knowledge of how to reduce those risks and to introduce a system of management that will incentivise risk reduction. The strategy sets out how GB ministers ensure that everyone with a role to play in plant health is aware of the risks and is acting in a responsible way to minimise those risks. Developed in partnership with key stakeholders, it sets out how to provide robust protection for crops, trees and other plants building upon and enhancing the work already undertaken by the Plant Health Services across GB. While Plant Health is a Devolved matter, the strategy represents a GB approach.

The strategy provides a broad overview of the work undertaken at home, within the European Union (EU) and internationally, and is flexible to ensure our systems are dynamic and constantly evolving to keep pace with changing threats. Defra takes a risk-based approach, with risk assessment underpinning planning and decision-making and informing the design of mitigating actions. The approach is collaborative and evidence-based, with open dialogue between government and stakeholders and input from the research community providing the foundation for the design of policies and management responses to threats. The threats to plant health are growing. This is driven by globalisation in trade, the movement of people and, crucially, the unprecedented volumes of international trade in plants and trees.

The UK is a net importer of plants and plant products. One type of import with its own particular risk profile is that of mature trees. The challenges are that trees are large, which makes inspection difficult, and they are transported along with large volumes of soil, which itself may carry biosecurity risks. Some wood and wood products also pose a risk. They include not just sawn wood and timber, but also, for example, pallets and other forms of wood packaging, firewood and pieces of wood used for all sorts of other purposes. There are very strict regulations on wood and firewood, but constant vigilance is necessary.

Risk-based decision-making

It is vital to understand the risks we face and risk-based, proportionate and value-for-money decision-making underpins all other activity. There are thousands of pests which can affect the health of plants, and an up-to-date UK Plant Health Risk Register (Defra, 2013a) ensures we are directing activity most effectively as it is unrealistic to expect that we can provide effective protection from all pests. The risk register rates risks posed by over 1000 pests and ranks them according to priorities for action.

A UK-wide Plant Health Risk Group undertakes a monthly review of threats. Potentially serious pests are subject to a detailed pest risk analysis (PRA) following internationally agreed methodologies. Import inspections are risk-based and in addition inspections are carried out of other material focusing on those trades posing the greatest risk. Inland inspections and surveillance are also risk-based; using outcomes of PRA or targeting premises assessed as providing the greatest potential for distributing pests. Risk assessment feeds into the development of contingency plans and approaches to outbreak management to ensure that actions taken are correctly targeted, proportionate and effective.

The methodology has been refined, and we continue to develop and review this register to include risks from various pathways, and to identify any new and emerging pests or impacts through horizon scanning (Defra, 2013a). We also undertake additional PRAs as prioritised by the risk register. These are carried out according to prescribed international standards with enhancement to include additional assessment of spread potential and socio-economic impacts and so on as necessary. We share knowledge internationally through collaboration on risk assessment (including making use of international PRAs where these are available) and work with industry to gain trade intelligence.

We create commodity and pathway risk assessments to help deal with known and unknown pests. Risks are usually assessed on a pest-specific basis, but commodity or pathway assessments can be helpful in examining threats associated with particular trades or pathways of introduction. We ensure a risk-based approach to inspections to deliver the greatest level of protection, ensuring that we meet targets for inspections of controlled trades while also targeting uncontrolled trades to help identify new and emerging risks.

We use the risk register to identify and prioritise evidence needs and feed this into the research programme. This enables targeted R&D to develop and enhance our understanding of plant pests and how best to manage their risks and impacts. It is vital that the risk register is underpinned by robust interdisciplinary evidence.

We also use the risk register to identify gaps in our contingency plans. This ensures that the production of our contingency plans is prioritised according to the greatest threats. We aim to communicate risk clearly through the publication of the risk register and of PRAs as part of an integrated package of tools to mobilise people to adopt biosecurity behaviours. This provides industry and others with information on how to play their part in managing risks to their business and the wider environment as effectively as possible. Industry associations, NGOs and others can assist in disseminating this information, reminding individuals of their obligations and the steps they can take to tackle pests not identified as priorities for government action.

While the risk register and the action it identifies are important tools in helping us to manage and prepare for known threats, there will always be some threats that we cannot plan for because we are not yet aware of them. Many of our actions aim to increase our resilience to these unforeseen risks, and improve our capacity and capability to deal with them should they materialise.

Raising awareness and public involvement

To provide the best protection, government, its agencies, industry, NGOs, landowners and the public require increased awareness of the risks to plants, together with the biosecurity measures, to minimise them (including avoiding spreading pests through surveillance and outbreak management activity). It is critical that we improve understanding of what motivates and constrains individuals and groups in achieving biosecurity outcomes, and use this evidence to develop an integrated package of measures to mobilise and enable different groups to act.

We maintain the principle that those who benefit from plant biosecurity activity should where appropriate be responsible for that activity, and bear the cost of it. For example, if pests are found during import inspections, the importer is responsible and bears the cost of the loss of the consignment and its disposal. This has already proved an effective approach: improvements in the quality of exports have occurred in response to high levels of interceptions. For example, major exporting countries have developed systems of treatments to eliminate pests prior to export in light of high levels of interceptions of pests on fruit and vegetables.

As well as strengthening the way we communicate risk, we are enhancing the allocation of responsibility by working with industry to improve information sharing and ensuring official action is informed by trade intelligence and industry is aware of the risks and actions they can take to mitigate these.

The value of the input from public and industry was highlighted during the response to Hymenoscyphus fraxinea (ash dieback), when they made a major contribution to the effort to identify its extent. Raising awareness of plant biosecurity and developing an integrated package of measures to mobilise people to act (drawing on a range of policy and communications tools to influence behaviour) is therefore a key element of this strategy.

Activities include increased publicity to raise awareness within industry, NGOs, landowners and the public of the risks posed by plant pests and measures to avoid their introduction and spread. This has included posters and publicity, show gardens at the Royal Horticultural Society Chelsea Flower Show, training events and promoting the benefits of quarantine of imported stock.

Inspectors working with Border Force staff in passenger channels at airports and ferry ports have helped raise awareness of biosecurity issues. This has included highlighting to passengers the risks posed by the importation of plant material and lead them to think again about bringing such material into the country, for example, in a ‘Don’t Risk It’ campaign of light boxes and posters at airports in 2019.

We have developed and supported existing networks of individuals with an interest in plant health. Including supporting public participation in scientific research (citizen science) through initiatives such as Open Air Laboratories and ObservaTREE which seek the public’s help in identifying tree pests. These have provided a cadre of trained members of the public able to spot outbreaks of plant pests thereby increasing capability and capacity. We will ensure that these individuals are aware of biosecurity and plant hygiene to avoid spreading pests through their own activities (ObservaTREE, 2018).

We have also provided an online UK plant health information portal to enable access to information on plant pests to provide a single source of accurate and up-to-date information which will assist in ensuring consistent messages on plant health. It also enabled simplified reporting for all those involved in plant health (Defra, 2017).

Biosecurity continuum

We take action pre-border and at our borders to prevent pests being imported or exported in a biosecurity continuum through international collaboration to reduce the likelihood of pests arriving and gain advanced warning of pests which may pose a risk to GB. The best way of preventing pests reaching our borders is through effective application of control measures by the producers and authorities in third countries. To achieve this, the UK operates within a regime currently determined by both EU regulations and international agreements.

We engage in global initiatives to improve plant health to drive up compliance and facilitate trade and play an active role through the International Plant Protection Convention’s (IPPC) Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization and others. This includes the production of international standards to promote consistency and safeguards among participating members.

We share approaches to tackling plant health risk through interchange with plant health professionals from other countries, secondments of plant health inspectors, diagnosticians and other staff to share approaches and knowledge. Working proactively with overseas exporters, we promote and participate in initiatives which facilitate direct contact with third countries to improve implementation of phytosanitary programmes and ensure import requirements are met, encouraging importers to support their supply chain and promote best practice.

We work with GB exporters to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities to inspect material and not spread pests. Providing health certification of plants and plant products for export to ensure that wider global plant health biosecurity is maintained. Preventing the export of pests to enhance our international reputation and benefit trade by gaining a reputation for supplying clean material.

We also share information on pest behaviour internationally, including the development of an international sentinel plant network (BCGI, 2014) to share information on pests attacking plants native to other regions and work with other European countries on campaigns to raise awareness and improve early detection across the region. Assessing potentially threatening trades before they commence to determine the need for controls and using trade intelligence to identify information on potential new trades are also part of the prevention strategy.

Activity at the border

Through checking compliance of exporters, we reduce the risk of pests crossing the border. We use intelligence gathered through border inspections to further develop and refine risk assessment. A regime of import controls (documentary checks and physical inspections) exists to verify that import requirements have been met and to detect any pests present on imported consignments. These checks monitor the effectiveness of procedures in exporting countries. The UK has its own domestic border for material moving within the EU. Future import control arrangements will be determined during the Transition Period. UK has now left the EU and is in a Transition period.

While the current Single Market does not limit our ability to take justified action, there are currently no routine border checks for plants and plant material travelling between EU member states (including material which has entered the EU via another member state). However, spot checks may take place anywhere in the trade chain, and there is scope for intervening when an emerging threat in one member state threatens plant health in other member states. Protected Zone (PZ) status (areas designated under EU legislation where a pest is not established) for certain pests can be agreed; for example, UK is a PZ for Colorado beetle and Sweet Chestnut Blight. We can take National Measures on intra-EU trade when we feel a threat is imminent, for example, on potatoes from Spain because of Epitrix (potato flea beetle) and oak trees because of oak processionary moth.

The UK plant health regime applies a risk-based categorisation of material from outside the EU. It classifies plant and plant material into one of the three groups below:

Prohibited: Import is only permitted for specified purposes, such as research or trialling, under authority of a licence issued by government.

We develop and validate new detection and identification methods and refine existing methodologies to ensure rapid results. This will include ensuring sufficient laboratory capacity in the right places and will ensure that the time consignments need to be held is minimised. Activity at the border provides indications of where the import regime is not operating effectively, allowing work to be undertaken at the international level to rectify this. In addition, it will assist the targeting of surveillance and inform contingency planning. Through early detection and identification of pests, together with having a greater capacity to respond to outbreaks, we reduce the chance of pests establishing in GB. Through the development of more resilient sectors, we increase the ability to manage pests.

When plant material is traded, there is always a risk of pest introduction. However, not all pests will be introduced via plant material imports, with some being windborne, and others being transported in wood packing material or soil associated with other imports. Action at the border can therefore never reduce the risk of known pests arriving to zero, and there will be those unforeseen pests for which we had no specific plans in place. There is therefore an ongoing need to undertake inland inspections at nursery sites and wider surveillance in urban and rural environments, and to build resilience so that our agricultural, horticultural and forestry sectors are able to withstand the impact of pests and, where damage occurs, to recover quickly.

If an outbreak of a priority pest is identified, we have a contingency plan in place to carry out a rapid and proportionate response. In some cases, eradication or containment will not be achievable, so the appropriate response will be for governments to work with the affected industry sector to reduce impacts. In the case of an outbreak of a pest which is not a priority, there may be no role for government and it will be for industry to decide how best to respond. To provide protection in the longer term, governments need to work with industry, NGOs, landowners and the public to increase resilience to the threats from pests.

New EU Plant Health Regulation was published on 26 October 2016 and was applied from 14 December 2019, alongside Official Controls Regulation. The UK implemented these regulations which have included: extending the scope and changing the format of plant passporting; new requirements for authorisation to issue plant passports; more goods imported to the EU will need a phytosanitary certificate; new requirements for the registration of professional operators; movements within the EU – restrictions between disease-free and pest-free areas; a strengthened PZ; new requirements applying to high-risk plants and regulated non-quarantine pests; a precautionary approach to new trade flows and a commitment to undertake thorough pest risk assessments; new category of priority pests, including annual surveying requirements and outbreak contingency planning.

Plant passports

Since 14 December 2019, the scope of the EU plant passporting scheme has been widened. Plant passports allow us to move from a reactive approach in plant health to a more proactive approach to be better able tackle pest threats to industry and the environment as they emerge. The requirement for plant passports to be provided down to retail level and the capturing of distance sales means all traders of plants must be known to the competent authority, and will have plant health obligations, whether they are a nursery, a landscaper, a high-street retailer or selling solely online. We also continue to focus on high-risk plant pests and diseases through surveillance, contingency planning and emergency measures.

Anyone dealing professionally in plants and plant products must be registered with the competent authority and those issuing plant passports must be authorised. Although record-keeping and passport labels are important, the plant passport system also focuses on physical checks. In order to issue passports, operators will be audited to ensure they have the necessary systems in place to identify and tackle pests of the plants they trade in, and the operator must meticulously examine their plants before issuing a passport for them. Growing season inspections are also carried out to ensure pest freedom on plants and plant products grown by authorised operators.

Surveillance and inland inspections

To check for the presence of pests at nursery sites, the Plant Health Services undertake quarantine surveillance at sites where imported plants are grown. Surveillance is also undertaken to confirm the absence of specific pests to enable the establishment of PZs. In addition, the National Forest Inventory records tree health status in sample plots to provide a perspective on overall tree health across GB. Surveillance is also undertaken to determine the extent of pest outbreaks to support the outbreak management process described below. We are further supporting citizen science and industry training schemes to ensure a large cadre of knowledgeable individuals are able to support government surveillance and assist in identifying plant health issues.

Preparedness and outbreak management

Contingency plans help to ensure a rapid and effective response in the event of a pest outbreak. These plans include governance of the response through Incident Management Teams. To improve preparedness, we have developed and refined contingency plans, reviewing and updating existing contingency plans and developing new plans for priority pests as identified through the risk register. We produced a new generic contingency plan supported by a number of specific plans for priority pests and pathways (Gov.UK, 2017).

We try to ensure we are able to manage any outbreaks which do occur by ensuring sufficient capability and capacity to respond. We have ensured that the lessons learned from managing previous outbreaks inform our approach in the future. Evaluation is fully embedded within outbreak management programmes to enable us to determine how best to deploy an evolving set of available tools to prevent and control disease, assess their cost-effectiveness and adapt our policies where necessary.

The level of government involvement in such areas will take account of the wider public interest, the commitment to deliver healthy ecosystems, and any legally prescribed responsibilities (e.g. the Forestry Commission’s wider responsibility to protect the health of the nation’s forest trees, and the statutory nature conservation bodies’ responsibilities on biodiversity). Government also facilitates the development and approval of potential treatments against specific pests, and methods of disposal for infected plant material. This will enable control options to be in place ahead of an outbreak occurring, enable industry and landowners to undertake treatment of their plants and enable disposal of material that has to be destroyed as part of containment or eradication activities.

Increasing resilience

We have worked to increase resilience and encourage adaptation in plant systems to mitigate the impacts of pests, even where it is not possible to control or mitigate the spread. To increase resilience, we have worked with industry to improve sourcing of material, adoption of biosecurity best practice and the ability to adapt to established pests. We have supported industry to improve the clarity of the provenance of plant material. This has included a new Biosecurity Standard and adoption by the nursery stock (including trees) industry of an assurance scheme, and safe sourcing practices (HTA, 2020).

We have also furthered the work on Tree Health Policy as set out in the Tree Health Management Plan for England (Gov.UK, 2014b) to help protect the health of our trees and build the resilience of forests, woods and non-woodland trees to established and future pests. Working with stakeholders through the Tree Health Policy Group in England, we have developed strategic responses to outbreaks of tree pests and pathogens that are established or at (imminent) risk of establishing in England, as well as working to build economic and environmental resilience of our forests, woods and non-woodland trees.

We have worked with existing mechanisms to support increased industry resilience, for example, Grown in Britain, a Government-backed industry-led umbrella organisation that brings together a broad diversity of forest, woodland, societal, manufacturing and end user interests with government and the sector working in partnership towards a common goal of stimulating demand for British wood products. It’s already delivering results, including gaining commitment from several major companies to buy or stock more home-grown wood products.

There are linkages within inland activity, with experience from managing outbreaks providing intelligence for contingency planning which then influences surveillance activity. Inland activity also provides intelligence to assist in setting new controls pre-border at the international level.

As part of the Government 25 Year Environment Plan (Gov.UK, 2018a), Government published the Tree Health Resilience Strategy 2018 (Gov.UK, 2018b).

Case study: Ash dieback

The impacts of plant health can help illustrate how pests and diseases seriously impact on the ecosystem services that plants provide to society. Ash dieback, caused by the fungal pathogen Hymenoscyphus fraxineus, hit the headlines in the UK in 2012 when it became apparent that the disease was in the UK and having an impact on ash (Fraxinus excelsior) trees. Unprecedented public and media interest prompted a wave of social amplification and there was widespread concern about what could happen (Pidgeon and Barnett, 2013; Urquhart et al., 2017). In the worst case, some reports suggested that we were facing the loss of all of our ash trees.

The disease is now established in the UK. It can take many years for symptoms of ash dieback to develop, and it has probably been in the UK since the early 2000s (Woodward and Boa, 2013). The devastation caused by the disease was exacerbated by importing infected ash trees, but it is now known that it also arrived by windblown spores from across the Channel (Defra, 2013b). A great insurgence of spores occurred around Suffolk, Norfolk and Kent, which is where the highest impacts have been felt to date.

There are at least 120 million mature ash trees in the UK, providing valuable habitat and ecosystem services (Forestry Commission, 2013; Maskell et al., 2013; The Tree Council, 2015). Mortality rates are uncertain, but 70–90% losses of native European ash are probable (Coker et al., 2019; Vasaitis and Enderle, 2017). It is clear from this that ash dieback will have severe economic consequences. A recent publication (Hill et al., 2019) estimated that the cost might be as much as £15 billion over 100 years (£7.6 billion expected within 10 years), taking into account the loss of the trees’ biodiversity benefits. Ash supports nearly 1000 species, about 45 of which are obligate on this tree species (Mitchell et al., 2014). The cost of removing diseased ash trees from the environment where they pose risks, with implications for flood protection, climate change, and air quality, also needs to be factored in. When they become a health and safety hazard by a road or railway, diseased trees have to be felled at an estimated final cost of £4.8 billion (Hill et al., 2019).

In an effort to tackle the disease, Defra has commissioned £6 million of research on ash to date. This has included research into the genomes of ash and the pathogen, the basis of tolerance and susceptibility, treatment and containment options, public risk concerns and the ecological role of ash, among other topics. Working with industry and other departments, Defra has helped produce an ash dieback toolkit to help advise landowners how to assess the state of their trees and when to make the decision to fell (The Tree Council, 2019).

Development of resistant varieties of tree species through modern tree breeding techniques is one of several strategies included within the Adaptation pillar of the government’s recent Tree Health Resilience Strategy. It is considered as an option when a pest or disease has established such that a tree population is unable to recover, and where a genetic basis for resistance is demonstrable in a proportion of the tree population. Ash dieback is one such example, and Defra has funded the largest experimental ash screening in the world. To identify sources of resistance, 155,000 ash seedlings from 15 provenances over 14 sites in the UK were screened, leading to the first archive of putatively tolerant trees, which have been planted in 2020. There is reason to be optimistic, therefore, that there will still be ash in the landscape in the future. Tolerant trees will set seed and regenerate, supplemented by a breeding programme to reinstate them. Similarly, a range of resistant cultivars of elm have recently been developed, and it is hoped that these will soon start to re-establish this species as well.

Tree health research and policy

Research plays a critical role in shaping policy, helping to decide on appropriate actions against plant health threats. In recent years, scientific evidence has contributed to the ongoing development of pest risk analyses and contingency plans, to ensure that any restrictions and actions taken against interceptions are evidence-based. An example of this is the outbreak of Ips typographus, the eight-toothed spruce bark beetle, that was discovered in 2018 in a woodland in Kent (Forest Research, 2019). The PRA for I. typographus in the risk register (which is based on findings from the scientific literature) indicated that the beetle had the potential to cause significant damage to spruce populations and thus to UK forestry and timber industries. This meant that an evidence-based contingency plan was in place, which was immediately activated, including removal of host species and dead trees from the vicinity of the outbreak. The pest’s official status remains ‘under eradication’, but this approach, making use of the best available evidence, should give the highest likelihood of success.

There remain important knowledge gaps across plant health where future research can help to shape policy. Key gaps include understanding the true value of plants and trees to society; the impacts of multiple pests and diseases on individual plant species and the wider environment; and providing evidence for improved methods of prevention, detection and control of pests and diseases. Defra plays an important leadership role in coordinating and commissioning new plant health research. The Action Oak partnership (actionoak.org) is such an example of research coordination. In this initiative, Defra, together with the other partners, has set out the state of the art of current scientific knowledge of oak, and the most pressing research needs and priority areas for action to protect our native oak trees from invasive pests and diseases.

Public awareness and the role of citizen science

Anyone flying in to a UK airport this (2019) summer might have seen the Defra ‘Don’t Risk It’ messages in light boxes. They represent a ‘nudge strategy’ approach, to get the message over to the public ‘Don’t bring back any plant material – plants, seeds, flowers, fruit or vegetables back to the UK’. Of course, many botanists collect plants in the wild in a completely responsible way, with the necessary permits and quarantine procedures. There is a need for much greater public awareness about plant health. A recent success in raising the profile was the gold medal-winning Resilience Garden exhibited at the Chelsea Flower Show, the UK’s major annual horticultural event which attracted much media interest and public debate.

Forest Research’s tree health reporting tool, TreeAlert, is a way in which anyone can upload a report of a sick-looking tree. A triage process behind the reporting tool may be followed by a visit from inspectors to a tree of concern to establish what might be happening (TreeAlert).

International Year of Plant Health 2020

In December 2019, the United Nations General Assembly declared 2020 as the International Year of Plant Health (IYPH). The year is a once in a lifetime opportunity to raise global awareness on how protecting plant health can help end hunger, reduce poverty, protect the environment and boost economic development. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and the IPPC are leading global IYPH activities. From the biggest forests and national parks to what we plant in our own gardens, this year will celebrate the importance of plants we see in everyday life. Maintaining plant health in a changing climate is a global problem and the long-term effects of climate change on our crops and natural environments are unknown. Climate change is likely to influence the occurrence, prevalence and severity of many plant pests and diseases, affecting which crops are grown and how they are managed. Countries may have to adapt to changing climates by diversifying the crops grown and the different species planted in the natural environment, while following strict biosecurity measures to help protect our landscapes from climate change, pests and diseases.

Events are being organised around the world to celebrate the IYPH and in the UK we are planning a range of events with Defra working with a number of organisations.

UK activities will run throughout the year but will be focused around a new national Plant Health Week which will take place from 20 April to 27 April in 2020, encompassing World Earth Day, and which will become an annual event thereafter. Plant Health Week will provide a focus for activities aimed at industry, academics and the general public aimed at improving awareness of the importance of keeping plants healthy.

A future GB Plant Health Strategy for 2020–2025

A future GB strategy is being developed with Devolved Administrations and stakeholders. It will build a world-class biosecurity regime, which delivers a step change in plant health protections, allows our plant-based industries to thrive and acknowledges the value that healthy plants contribute to society and the environment. Elements will include a world-class biosecurity regime, enhancing and refining our risk-based approach, strengthening the work of UK plant health service, border controls and checks and so on. We will better manage pest and disease pressures (UK and internationally) to support a thriving UK plant industry, expanding and incentivising UK production and nursery assurance schemes, supporting exports and sharing responsibilities with industry. We want to help create and support a society that values healthy plants including raising public awareness, equipping citizens with the right knowledge and tools to make good biosecurity choices and tapping into the power of citizen science. We will further develop a coordinated and enhanced UK plant science capability including deriving better value from public investment in plant health science and technology, working through the UK Animal and Plant Health partnership, investing in R&D and innovation funds, better use of data and continuing to build plant health profession.

Conclusion

The risk from invasive plant pests and pathogens is significant and constantly growing as a result of increasing globalisation and environmental change. The UK’s plant health regime aims to manage that risk to protect the enormous value of plants and trees; from the value of crops and forestry products to ecosystem services and societal benefits. There is also a role for industry and society through risk and responsibility sharing and risk reporting. Volunteers and citizen science initiatives can also help to identify and report threats so that timely action can be taken. Together we can help protect our plants and trees so that they can continue to deliver extensive economic, environmental and social benefits to society.