Defra

Notes taken from a Stakeholder Workshop held on 22 April 2005 at Central Science Laboratory, York

Participants are listed in Annex 1

This note is a summary of the main points made at the plenary discussion session following discussion in breakout groups,

The workshop addressed 3 questions:

1. It is a long established principle that the first line of defence against plant pests lies with those managing and handling plants. This being the case:
a. What information or support is required ?
b. How is this best communicated?
c. Who should provide it?

It was concluded that information and support is required and that there is already a large volume of information available. However for people running businesses this information needs to be targeted and readily digestible, with warnings that can be signposted and picked up readily.

A variety of communication mechanisms are available including the trade press, consultations, advisors, suppliers and conferences. Face to face communication was considered to be best although clearly was not always possible. Using web based information alone can be rather passive and it was noted that posters are still very important and are seen around many nurseries.

There is a wide range of interested groups and associations and these groups could help with communication for example by feeding potential problems into group meetings.

A more co-ordinated approach is required to the release of information from the range of information providers e.g. levy boards, PHSI, CSL. There is duplication. A formal network for information dissemination could be developed.

There is guidance for exporters, but guidance was considered limited for importers – this needs to be developed.

In terms of professional development, workshops are held but not all are formally recognised (e.g. BASIS points). If they were, this would encourage people to attend.

Better publicity is needed of what information is already available - should this be advertised in the press?

There was some disagreement that first line of defence lies with those managing and handling plants. Some viewed this as lying with exporting countries and then with PHSI to check documentation. Growers were felt to be the third line of defence. The concept of shared responsibility needs to be strengthened.
There were some concerns about how information could be cascaded to the bottom 20% low-tech companies in the industry.

The PHSI is very well trained but training is needed beyond PHSI. There is an issue with a low level of skills of industry newcomers.

2. Keeping the quarantine status of pests under review sometimes results in the decision that quarantine status is no longer appropriate. Are there issues in this transition and how can they be resolved?

The Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) was viewed as the starting point and should be developed with industry input and communication. They should be more widely publicised and it should be made clear that they are updated as knowledge progresses.

Cost/ benefit was the key to considering if there is a need to maintain quarantine status.

There should be no withdrawal of quarantine status without availability of a clear control strategy e.g. breeding resistance to Rhizomania. Pesticide availability needs to be continually reviewed and availability of pesticides (in Europe and other countries) under ‘special licence’ could be considered. It was noted that chemical controls are not the only control methods.

Establishing the thresholds for withdrawal is difficult but could include issues such as numbers of outbreaks, areas affected.

There needs to be a clear strategy for withdrawal with clear information to manage this.

It was considered that there is a role for assurance schemes and plant health audits. Assurance schemes are one of the key developments within the industry in the last few years.

Research is needed for the transition to understand pests and diseases and this needs to be ongoing throughout the transition period. It was felt that there are blurred lines on funding this, particularly within government.

For some the primary issue was a lack of support for industry (no compensation). Growers first affected bear the full cost of eradication but subsequent growers may not if quarantine status is removed.

It was proposed that there is a need to move away from ad-hoc information to a more pro-active steering group between government and industry.

Transition must be a flexible process. Perhaps a timetable should be announced at the outset. Issues that need to be considered are host range, and whether edible or ornamental crops are involved and environmental impact.

3. Taking plant health across the board, what are the priorities for science and how are these best met?

There is a clear need for science/research in the decision-making process for plant health including socio-economics.

Current research was considered to be mainly ‘fire brigade’ – facing today’s problems with no balance for looking ahead. It was crucial to look ahead through horizon scanning. Concerns were raised regarding organisms that don’t have quarantine status, but can change/adapt to create problems. Need strategies in place and prioritisation.

A big concern was about the erosion of the skills base, especially quarantine pest skills, which are even more specialist. Whole organism approach is in decline with a focus on molecular techniques.

It was felt that there is a need to engage universities. Universities currently have a problem attracting people to relevant courses – there may be some encouragement if they could be reasonably certain of jobs at the end. There is a general disengagement by universities. Bursaries at MSc level are an option but has been tried before and failed due to lack of funding. This could be viewed as market failure.

A House of Lords Report in 2002 had proposed a co-ordinating body for taxonomy and systematics within the UK which has so far not been developed.

There is a need to maintain the critical mass of expertise and plan for continuity.

The issue is bigger than plant health and impacts on science in general. A key issue is how to generate interest. One example was a Gatsby five year grant for a summer school to enthuse potential students in plant sciences.

International engagement could be improved. There are initiatives at the EU and EPPO.

Non-chemical control is a priority in the future given the environmental pressure to reduce pesticide input. Biologicals controls have met a perceived regulatory stalemate. There was a suggestion to look at US situation.

Move to less intensive production requires a more holistic approach and appropriate skills.

Summary of key points:

1. Communications

Overall a joint communication strategy is required for Defra and external stakeholders.

Defra information has to be accessible and digestible.

Use trade press and codes of practice to raise awareness of quarantine issues and best practice.

More formal training could be provided.

Requirements for importers are not as clear as those for exporters.

Should target lowest 20% where we see it as a need.

A forum for the Defra and external interests is proposed noting that major retailers are an important element.

2. Exit Strategies

Better communication is required of the strategy and development of control methods.

Information transfer to industry needs to be addressed.

Who funds transitional R&D is an important issue.

Flexibility is important in transition.

There may be economic thresholds but the issue of public good and biodiversity also need to be considered.

3. Science

Concern over future expertise at all levels from first training to PhD level is causing concern. This is a world-wide problem and requires international co-operation.

Science programmes within Defra need better co-ordination with the right priorities.

Research priorities should focus on non-chemical controls and horizon scanning/modelling including pest adaptation.

Effective knowledge transfer is important.

Annex 1 (Participants)

1 Howard Atkinson, University of Leeds, Centre for Plant Sciences
2 Matthew Bell, Horticultural Crop Sciences, Defra, Deputy Head of Unit
3 Rob Black, University of Greenwich, Reader in Biosecurity Law & Risk Assessment
4 Terry Brokenshire, States of Guernsey Commerce and Employment Department, Head of Plant Protection Services
5 David Brown, Horticultural Trades Association, Horticultural Consultant
6 John Buxton, ADAS, Research Consultant
7 Bill Carlile, Nottingham Trent University, Head of Microbiology and Environmental Biology
8 David Chandler, Warwick - Horticulture Research International, Plant Health Officer
9 Jane Chard, Scottish Agricultural Science Agency (also representing Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department)Head, Plant Health Section
10 Neil Giltrap, Central Science Laboratory , Contract Manager
11 Andrew Halstead, Royal Horticultural Society , Principal Entomologist
12 Richard Harris, Plant Health Division, Defra, Head of UK Plant Health Policy Branch
13 Roger Herbert, Forestry Commission , Head of Country Services
14 Steve Hill, Central Science Laboratory , Head of Plant Health Group
15 Stephen Hunter, Plant Health Division, Defra, Head of Plant Health Service
16 Alan Inman, Plant Health Division, DefraScientific Advisor
17 Stephen Jackson, National Assembly for Wales Agriculture Department, Plant Health and Biotechnology Branch
18 Malcolm Kelly, Isle of Man Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Plant Health Inspector
19 Lindrea Latham, Horticultural Development Council, Technical Manager Hardy Nursery Stock
20 Marcus Lazenby, Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate, Plant Health and Seeds Inspector
21 John Magee, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Northern IrelandDeputy Principal
22 John Mansfield, Imperial College London, Plant Sciences
23 Rob Mason, Plant Health Division, Defra, Project Manager
24 Martin McPherson, Stockbridge Technology Centre, Technical Director
25 Stuart Milner, Association of Port Health Authorities, River Tees Port Health Authority
26 Julie North, Plant Health Division, Defra, Workshop Co-ordinator
27 Chris Payne, Assured Food Standards(also representing National Horticultural Forum)
28 Sue Popple, Pesticide Safety Directorate, Director of Policy
29 Fay Richardson, British Bedding and Pot Plant Association (BBPA)
30 Phil Russell, British Society of Plant Pathology, President
31 Peter Ruysen, Bulb Distributors Association
32 Ian Senior, Horticulture and Potatoes Division, Defra
33 David Slawson, Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate, Defra, Chief Plant Health and Seeds Inspector
34 Mike Storey, British Potato Council, R & D Director
35 Alistair Taylor, Natural History Museum, Biodiversity Liaison Officer
36 Keith Walters, Central Science Laboratory Team Leader (Environmental Entomology and Plant Pathology)
37 Graham Ward, National Farmers Union, Member of the NFU NE Board for Horticulture and Potatoes