Trees
are suddenly high on the public agenda.
We take them and their contribution to our landscapes and ecology very much
for granted, until they are under threat.
For anyone old enough to remember the ravages of Dutch elm disease in
the 1970s, the current debate about ash dieback has particular resonances. But why have we been taken so much by
surprise? Ash dieback is one of many
diseases that are currently affecting our native woodland and moorlands. Policymakers and stakeholder organisations have
known for several years that these problems are increasing. The first interdisciplinary research into
plant disease was carried out by researchers working within the Relu programme
and “Growing
Concerns: animal and plant disease policy for the 21st century”
was published just over a year ago.
Several themes emerged very strongly in this policy briefing paper:
animal and plant diseases are also spread by people, so we need to understand
human behaviour as well as the science of pathogens; public awareness of these
problems is low and consequently there is little willingness to pay for
biosecurity measures; environmental change is likely to exacerbate the
problems; international trade poses particular challenges. It is also very unclear where responsibility
for either implementing precautionary measures or meeting potential financial
losses should lie, particularly when the horticulture industry is very
disparate and involves many small companies.
Global supply chains are often long and complex, with many stakeholders
involved, so it can be difficult to pinpoint failings. But the paper does make the point that we
have sources from which policymakers can learn, including experience gained in dealing
with animal disease. Researchers have
urged a more rounded response, including a thorough analysis of socio-economic
drivers and how it affects human behaviour, alongside technical assessments of diseases. We know that stakeholders’ responses may,
sometimes unwittingly, exacerbate risk or limit the effectiveness of
precautionary measures. Flexibility is
also called for, as threats change all the time. It may be, as some commentators suggest, that
we are already too late to save our ash trees.
A more optimistic response would be that at last we do have the level of
public awareness we need in order to have an effective debate about the wider
questions of plant biosecurity. Perhaps we need to seize that opportunity now
and decide where our priorities lie: free global trade, protection of our
native flora, or crop and food security.
We also need to decide who should take on responsibility for biosecurity
and its failures.
Memory
and Prediction in Tree Disease Control
PPN 25 http://www.relu.ac.uk/news/policy%20and%20practice%20notes/25%20Potter/PPN25.pdf
Plant
Disease Risk, Management and Policy Formulation PPN 31
No comments:
Post a Comment