Summary of Discussion Session VIII
Unresolved problems that limit our effectiveness to prevent exotic pest importation and establishment.

Kerry O. Britton, moderator

Our ability to prevent pest introductions is limited by both biological information gaps and political policy processes. These issues sparked lively discussion, it was interesting to get a global perspective on these issues. The following briefly summarizes the discussion:

Biological information gaps
Better detection methods are needed to find pests before they are established, and achieve more economical eradication. For example, broad-spectrum pheromone attractants could be deployed at port cities to detect shipments contaminated with both known – such as Asian long-horned beetles - and previously unknown pests. On this point there was universal agreement: billions spent on pest eradication programs could be saved in this way.

Modern molecular techniques such as "real-time" PCR offer the possibility of rapid detection and identification of a broad array of pests. Mechanized processors and standard pest DNA libraries are needed to achieve the scale of high throughput needed to facilitate trade.

Molecular protocols are also needed to identify genetic variants, which, by adding biodiversity to the pest population, offer pests the opportunity to increase their virulence or host range. The second Dutch Elm Disease epidemic, resulting from an unrecognized variation in the causal fungus, exemplifies the need to avoid such hazards.

Better mitigation strategies are needed– ecologically and economically sensible ways to treat wood and wood products to kill pests before they are exported. Treatment protocols for solid wood packing materials have been mainly developed to kill insect pests. Little is known about the heating/drying requirements to kill fungi in wood products, particularly hardwood. The duration of effectiveness of wood preservative treatments, such as pressure treatment, is unknown. Such information is essential in the face of the expected phase-out of methyl bromide.

Political policy questions that must be resolved:
Under the World Trade Organization (WTO)'s phytosanitary agreement – principles require that the pest status of the exporting country must technically justify the requirements of the importing, regulating country. This has been interpreted to mean goods are "clean until proven dirty".

The debate centered on whether or not the benefits of the resulting " free trade" outweigh the risks to natural resources. For solid wood packing material, enough pathway hazards have been identified to suggest that preshipment treatment requirements might be justified without individual pest risk assessments for specific potential pests from specific exporting nations. The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), a branch of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)- a United Nations Agency- is working to develop harmonized standards that will support broad, universal requirements in the absence of specific threats in this special case. It is hoped that agreement can be reached on these standards by 2002 or 2003. However, such standards are only binding to signatories of the World Trade Agreement.

One problem with the current technical requirements is the time it takes to first determine that a pest is being imported from a specific country, and then gather enough data on the risks and potential impacts, and mitigation options, to support regulation. Asian long-horned beetle provides a good example of what disastrous consequences can result when an agency with resources strained to the extreme is constrained by such requirements.

A second problem with specific hazard identification is that forest pests aren't always significant pests in their homeland. Pinewood nematode is a case in point…. These pathogens do not cause disease in pines native to the US, but have wreaked havoc in Japan and China. It wasn't until after these ecological disasters occurred that cause was found to regulate and mitigate pinewood nematode.

This brings us to what is perhaps the prime area for consideration and debate: the choice between the "clean until proven dirty" approach, and the "dirty until proven clean" approach to product regulation. This is ultimately a political decision.

Who pays for risks?
Historically, in many countries, private enterprise has been the primary beneficiary of risk taking, whereas the taxpayers and citizens tend to pay the costs of pest introduction.

Where pests have been detected upon entry, the exporter pays a significant price, as merchandise is destroyed or re-exported. This deterrent to shippers would be more effective if our detection methods were more efficient.

Armed forces materiel movements are demonstrated pathways in the movement of forest pests, such as the Asian strain of gypsy moth, termites, and canker stain of sycamore. Much military equipment is stored on pallets that have not been treated to current standards, and the effects of heat treatment on stored munitions are unknown. Replacement costs for such pallets in the U.S. alone is estimated as high as $600 million. Although official policy requires military compliance with import regulations, such concerns are unlikely to surface in the "fire-fighting" atmosphere of war.

General agreement was reached that the political balance of free trade and natural resource protection has shifted. While this choice is a political one, it is one that should be made consciously, weighing the costs and benefits of such a decision. Regulatory agencies in the past felt their charge was "preventing introduction of pests while not interfering unduly with trade", they are now being told to "facilitate trade while doing their utmost to prevent pest introduction".

Grave concern was expressed by all participants responding on this point: the job is too big for current budgets, the cracks are widening, and pests are slipping through.

We need to reconsider this choice, and the long term consequences of its continuance. And if we persist in this path, we need to allocate more resources to the job, for it is mammoth.