|
Online workshop on the risk of exotic forest pests and their impact on trade in wood and wood products Kerry O. Britton, moderator Internationally renowned experts participated in a two-week internet discussion of the risks of exotic forest pests and their effect on trade in wood and wood products. The workshop was endorsed and sponsored by over 15 professional scientific organizations. Experts from all over the world were selected to initiate the discussion by posting papers on 43 selected topics. The following page summarizes these papers and the discussion which followed. Exotic forest pests reduce biodiversity, and can destroy ecosystem structure and function. Authors representing each continent described the devastating economic and ecological costs of exotic pest invasions. Exotic pathogens tend to be more invasive than native pathogens, because they have not co-evolved with their new host, which often lacks any genes for resistance. Insects and weeds are imported without the natural enemies that keep their populations in check at home. The biology of the most successful invaders were discussed, and useful up-to-date information is provided on the status of many important exotic forest pests. High risk characteristics of successful invaders include a cryptic nature, which helps them avoid detection; extended diapause, which helps them survive the period of transit; parthenogenesis, which reduces the minimum population size needed to establish in a new land; the presence of related hosts (usually at least in the same genus as the original host); and importation in association with host material, such as nursery stock or seeds. The discussion of the pathways used by exotic pests to enter new lands was limited, for logistical reasons, to trade in wood chips, logs and unmanufactured wood, solid wood packing material (SWPM), hitch-hiking, seeds and propagative material, and wood products. The discussion was particularly timely because the International Plant Pest Convention (IPPC), a committee of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, is currently developing standards (suggestions for adoption by individual member nations) for many of these products. The efficacy, economics and ecological costs of various strategies to kill exotic pests prior to shipment were discussed. The major mitigation strategies for SWPM under consideration are heating and drying requirements, fumigation, external preservatives applied with and without pressure, and irradiation. In some cases, little information exists regarding treatment efficacy. The processes of risk assessment and regulation development were explained and discussed by representatives from different countries. Public input in this process is invited in many countries, but responses are often limited to special interest groups. One challenge the IPPC faces in developing guidelines for pest risk assessments is reconciling differences between "open" and "closed" approaches. "Open" countries admit any import not specifically regulated. "Closed" countries prohibit all commodities until they are specifically evaluated and permitted. Regional Plant Protection Organizations assist in developing standards, encourage cooperation among member nations, and reduce costs by sharing information. National plant protection agencies contribute expertise to develop regional and international standards, but are also charged with developing and implementing national regulations. In the case of SWPM, the task is monumental. In the US, 35% of all softwood consumed is imported, and as much as 70% of all international cargo is supported by SWPM! Lively discussion of the relative merits of pathway analysis versus individual pest risk analyses centered around the ultimate value judgment of how broadly each government should interpret risks, and the trade-offs between protecting ecosystems and promoting free trade. Concern for allegations of market protectionism in some cases has led governments to regulate shipments from a country, with proven high risk for a certain pest, while not regulating the same commodity from another country, where the same pest exists. SWPM is a unique case, where all sources may become subject to regulation, because pallet recycling and reuse make source identification impractical. Because the volume of trade has increased 100 times in the last 10 years, port inspectors face a nearly impossible task detecting pests in transit. It was argued that treatment prior to shipping to kill pests in wood products and solid wood packing materials would be a safer course than analyzing the risk and regulating individual pests from individual countries one at a time. Caution was advised that we should not risk ecosystem integrity in the interest of enhancing free trade. But compliance with proposed requirements may increase the cost of SWPM anywhere from 10-100%, and such restrictions under current WTO policy must be based on data regarding known potential pests. Trade negotiations since the adoption of GATT in 1948 have focused on reducing barriers to globalization. The 1994 Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures accepts the sovereign right of nations to regulate trade if necessary to protect human, animal, or plant health. But WTO members have agreed that regulations must be based on accepted international standards developed by the IPPC, or transparently based upon scientific evidence gathered through accepted risk assessment procedures. The WTO is the accepted "court" which rules in allegations of trade protectionism. Risk management strategies are required to minimize the negative impact on trade. The IPPC is currently developing draft standards for SWPM, but debate is expected to continue until at least April, 2002. A number of critical information gaps were identified. Information on pest potential is lacking for many pests of concern. Efficacy data is needed for several proposed mitigation strategies. More effective broad-spectrum monitoring methods are needed for use in port facilities. Taxonomic uncertainties prevent precise identification of many potential pests. Improved communication would help everyone concerned. Shippers need information on import regulations from every receiving country. Harmonization of regulations would reduce confusion, but might increase costs. Regulators want better international communication to help identify risks, develop more cost-effective mitigation strategies, predictive models and monitoring methods, and to help them rapidly deploy effective eradication methods for pests that do establish. In most countries, better public education is needed to support increased vigilance resources and to increase regulation compliance in the traveling public.
|