Page: [1] [2] [3]

CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF RISKS FROM PHYTOPHTHORA RAMORUM AND PHYTOPHTHORA KERNOVIAE:

ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES

Introduction

1. Between July and October 2008 the Scottish Government consulted stakeholders on how to manage the risks posed by two plant pathogens, Phytophthora ramorum and Phytophthora kernoviae. First identified in Great Britain in 2002/3, these diseases have the ability to kill trees and cause serious damage to some garden shrubs, and have the potential to kill native heathland species. A similar consultation was carried out by Defra for England and Wales.

2. This paper reports on the responses received to the consultation, and takes the opportunity to clarify some points queried by respondents. The responses to both consultations will now be considered by the inter-departmental Phytophthora Programme Board to develop recommendations to Ministers on how to manage these diseases in future.

3. Three options for future management were offered:

Option 1: Meet EU minimum requirements on control of P. ramorum and remove all controls against P. kernoviae, other than maintaining a ban on the movement of infected plants to other countries.

Option 2: Increased activity, aimed at eradicating the diseases or reducing the level of inoculum to epidemiologically insignificant levels, by removal of infected sporulating hosts in woodlands and the wider environment, combined with enhanced containment and eradication measures in infected gardens and nursery sites, and the identification and control of any new outbreaks.

Option 3: Holding option; a further two years of the current level of containment and eradication activity whilst more evidence is gathered, after which a decision on long-term action would be taken.

4. Consultees were also invited to comment on what would be an appropriate minimum EU control level, to inform the UK's line in a forthcoming EU review.

5. The consultation paper included a Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment which sought to quantify the likely impacts of each option.

6. Almost 500 copies of the consultation paper were distributed. Around 400 were sent to individual horticultural businesses. Other recipients included organisations with interests in the environment and conservation, historic and botanic gardens, biosciences, and commercial horticulture, forestry and agriculture. A consultation meeting was also arranged to clarify any points and help stakeholders develop their responses.

Respondents

7. 25 responses were received, 22 from organisations and 3 from individual businesses. A list of respondents is provided at Annex A and full responses can be viewed here. We are grateful to all those who contributed their views on the consultation. The respondents can be categorised as follows. This is based on their principal interest as expressed in their response, although they may also have other roles.

8. The consultation paper contained 12 specific questions as follows, to guide responses.

9. Only 15 respondents organised their responses according to these questions, and several of these provided more significant comments in additional statements separate from the questions. The following analysis is therefore arranged thematically according to the issues raised by respondents, rather than strictly in line with the numbered questions.

Preferred option

10. 16 respondents expressed a clear preference for Option 2, and a further four favoured Option 2 with certain additions, restrictions or reservations. Three preferred Option 3, and two responses did not set out a clear preference. None of the respondents favoured option 1.

Approach to the two pathogens

11. Of the 17 respondents who addressed this question, 10 stated that P. ramorum and P. kernoviae should be treated the same. Where separate approaches were recommended this was mainly in terms of practical action, to take account of differences in host species, methods of spread, etc, between the two pathogens, whether currently known or as these are discovered. Two responses recommended that legal controls and policy should seek to eradicate P. kernoviae, while its distribution is limited, but noted that for P. ramorum only containment is likely to be achievable.

EU controls

12. All 21 respondents who addressed the question agreed that measures should continue to be taken to prevent the pathogens moving on nursery stock within the EU. 18 respondents commented on the appropriate level of EU controls, of whom 9 felt they should continue at the current level (5 noted that this should apply to P. kernoviae as well as P. ramorum) and 9 felt they should be stronger, again usually including both pathogens.

13. Respondents' knowledge of EU legislation varied. It should be made clear that, despite the lack of legislation specific to P. kernoviae, Member States are required to take action to prevent the spread to other countries of any harmful organism found in their territory. In addition, Member States are free to take stricter measures than those laid down in EU legislation in relation to outbreaks in the wild, provided these do not restrict trade. Several respondents proposed that EU controls should seek to eradicate outbreaks in the wild, rather than simply contain them, or that the UK should have flexibility to seek eradication.

14. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee provided a detailed response proposing the addition of P. ramorum and P. kernoviae to relevant annexes of the Plant Health Directive (2000/29/ EC), a ban on entry of susceptible plants from the USA and controls on those from New Zealand. They also suggested more detailed specification of the annual survey which Member States are required to carry out in "uncultivated" plants. The Horticultural Trades Association (HTA) was concerned that EU controls should be set at a level which is able to be fully implemented and properly reported on by all Member States, to ensure they are effective in reducing inoculum levels and preventing re-infection.

Controls on the nursery trade

15. There was a strong perception in some sectors that nursery stock was a key source for spread of these diseases, and therefore controls on the nursery trade should be strengthened significantly. In fact there are limited cases in which outbreaks in gardens or the wider environment have been linked to nurseries; in most outbreaks the infected plants have been established for several years. Other possible long-distance sources of infection include informal exchange of plants or cuttings between gardens or individuals and transfer on tools, footwear or vehicles. Research is planned to include DNA fingerprinting of the pathogen samples taken from each site, to provide more information on how outbreaks may be linked.

16. Several respondents suggested that nurseries should be inspected more frequently. This is proposed under Option 2, for which the impact assessment assumes a doubling of inspections from two to four annually. Three responses highlighted the fact that small nurseries which retail all their stock locally do not currently require to be inspected regularly. The National Council for the Conservation of Plants and Gardens commented that increased burdens on small and specialist nurseries could threaten the supply of rare plants.

17. The HTA and the National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS) were not convinced that increased controls on the nursery trade were justified, since existing controls had seen a reduction in outbreaks in this sector. Both felt it was important that controls were not reduced. The HTA took the view that more frequent inspections in the UK were unlikely to reduce the spread of infection unless all Member States took the same approach.

Approach to infected plants of historic significance

18. 18 respondents addressed this question. 9 stated unequivocally that such plants should not receive special treatment. A further 7 were clear that all infected plants should normally be removed to prevent spread of the diseases, but supported efforts to protect specimens of heritage value from infection in the first place, or to seek to propagate from them before they were destroyed, to preserve the genotype.

19. The two respondents who were firmly in favour of different treatment for infected plants of historic significance were the National Trust for Scotland (NTS) and the National Council for the Conservation of Plants and Gardens (NCCPG), which awards and administers National Plant Collection status. They were concerned about both the potential loss of individual specimens and the impact on the overall garden or landscape context. Records of the plants present in large gardens, and of the garden design, are often very limited. Additional time is therefore sought to record affected gardens, assess whether any plants merit further study and propagation, and to plan clearance to minimise as far as possible the effect on the historic character of the garden. As an example, this might involve provision of alternative shelter before removing R. ponticum which performs that function, to prevent consequential losses to more tender plants. At the same time measures would be taken to limit the risk of the disease spreading out of the garden.

Threats to native species and habitats

20. Many respondents expressed concern for the potential impact of P. ramorum and P. kernoviae on Scottish native plants and habitats, and some suggested that where native plants became infected, as opposed to invasive R. ponticum and imported garden varieties, these should receive special consideration. It was also suggested that a baseline survey of natural habitats should be carried out, in addition to the annual survey of gardens and nurseries.

21. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) highlighted the government's obligations to protect sites designated under the various EU and international biodiversity agreements. Meeting these obligations might require preventive clearance and other measures to be undertaken to reduce the risk of infection if an outbreak occurred close to a designated site. If a designated site became infected, consideration would have to be given to appropriate methods of containment or eradication. Clearance of all infected and susceptible plants might not be suitable in all cases, because of its possible impact on other species such as lichens, insects and breeding birds.

22. Forestry Commission Scotland commented that, in woodlands and the wider environment, susceptible plants should be cleared over a larger area than the standard 2m radius with monitoring of those within 10m. The exact area to be treated would depend on site-specific factors.

23. 7 respondents stressed the desirability of widespread action to remove R. ponticum, to reduce the risk of the diseases spreading through this host to affect other species. Several recommended that such work should receive government funding, and should be co-ordinated between agencies and across wide areas to be effective. However, SNH warned that priority for funding of rhododendron clearance must be balanced between areas at greatest risk of Phytophthora infection and those where the biodiversity benefit of clearance is greatest.

Risk assessment to prevent disease spread

24. The Scottish Agricultural College proposed that a rigorous risk assessment tool could be drawn up to determine in what circumstances historically significant plants might be retained despite being infected. JNCC suggested a similar approach for assessing the need for clearance of any sporulating host, both native and heritage specimens, as did the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh in terms of measures to put in place to protect from infection. Factors would include:

· distance from other susceptible plants,

· proximity of vulnerable habitats,

· public access (to prevent movement of soil on shoes and removal of plant material), and

· potential for transfer by water.

Any such risk assessment would be updated as knowledge increases of how the diseases are spread. Some respondents also suggested that fungicides, currently banned in outbreak premises because they may mask symptoms of infection, could be helpful in gardens and the wider environment by reducing levels of inoculum and therefore the risk of the disease spreading.

Education and publicity

25. 5 respondents made recommendations about raising public awareness of these diseases and how to reduce the risks of spread. Targets for such campaigns could include:

· Garden visitors - to avoid removing plant material from infected sites, either deliberately or on footwear etc;

· Gardeners - to avoid exchanging potentially infected material with other gardens, and be aware of symptoms and eradication measures;

· Land managers - to be aware of symptoms and maintain surveillance of susceptible plants on their land. This would be particularly important in monitoring heathland areas;

· Those involved in rhododendron clearance - to promote appropriate clearance methods and hygiene measures to prevent disease spread;

· Countryside visitors - to understand the need for clearance of R. ponticum.

Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment

26. 9 respondents commented on the figures and assumptions used in the Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment (PRIA) accompanying the consultation paper. The main areas of comment were on

· the social and environmental values given to woodland and heathland,

· the identification of woodland habitats at risk,

· the costs to historic gardens of the loss of visitors,

· the additional costs to gardens of secondary impacts, replanting and management to prevent reinfection

· the possible loss of tourism if infection spread to significant areas of heathland.

· the potential impact on forestry and timber industries of infection of both hardwoods and softwoods

The PRIA was issued in the knowledge that figures for these impacts were missing, or were not particularly robust, because there was insufficient information available to quantify them accurately. Respondents did not offer any new figures. However, the changes suggested to the impacts would mainly increase the benefits of Option 2 and do not alter the balance between the options.

27. A number of respondents criticised the figure of 5ha of rhododendron to be cleared each year. In parallel with Defra's calculations, this area was based on "known infected R. ponticum in woodlands". At the time of writing the consultation paper, only one patch of infected rhododendron had been found in woodland in Scotland, compared with 422ha of woodland affected in England and Wales, therefore a nominal area of 5ha was used. It is recognised that this does not cover general preventive clearance of uninfected R. ponticum. Removal of infected R. ponticum in gardens is included under "Cost to Historic and Public Gardens".

Scottish Government

Rural Directorate

November 2008

Page: [1] [2] [3]