Unprecedented threat for UK trees from pests

All species are vulnerable to potential attacks - from ecologically vital oaks to non-native ornamental species, such as lawson cypresses.
The biggest risk, it warns, comes from non-native organisms, which - in their natural range - are kept in check by natural predators and environmental conditions.
However, if they are able to become established in the UK's natural environment then there are often no natural controls to curb their spread, resulting in a potentially devastating impact on the landscape.
In October 2011, UK Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman launched the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Action Plan, warning that millions of trees could be lost in the next few years unless urgent action was taken.
The Commission recently published biosecurity guidance, offering advice on steps that can be taken to avoid accidentally spreading damaging organisms on clothes, footwear, vehicles, etc.
"The fact that we are an island has helped us, because we are fairly impoverished compared with the European mainland," explained Hugh Evans, head of Forest Research in Wales.
"So even the 20 miles of water is enough to protect us from the pests that are quite dangerous on the mainland."
But our relative isolation has come at a cost, he warned.
"If pests do get through, then they arrive without the spectrum of natural enemies and that is one element that can make the effect within the arrival country much worse than in the country of origin."

Growing trade

Richard McIntosh from Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera) says the growing volume of international trade is one reason for concern. "Trade is becoming increasingly global, and there is an ever-widening diversity of plants and plant material being traded around the world," he told BBC News.
"There are examples of where pests or pathogens have been introduced, and it is very difficult to respond to them once they are within the EU.
"Prevention is much better than cure but identifying all of the risks is not always the easiest thing to do."
Probably the most widely publicised pathogen is Phytophthora ramorum, a fungal organism which was suspected of being introduced to these shores via the plant trade. There is no treatment; infected trees have to be felled and removed from the natural environment.
Although it had been present at low levels in the UK for a number of years, in 2009 there was a sudden change in the pathogen's behaviour. It was recorded infecting and killing the commercially important Japanese larch trees in South-West England.
It was the first time in the world that P. ramorum had been found on a species of conifer. It has since been recorded affecting larch trees at sites in all four UK nations.
John Morgan, head of the Forestry Commission's Plant Health Service observed: "We are still are pursuing a policy of reducing the level of the disease so then it does not spread further.
"If, over a number of years of felling, we can reduce its spread we can then preserve what we have left in terms of larch in forests."
Dr Morgan added that the disease would not be eradicated: "Once something like that is established then we are purely looking at a policy of containment.
"P. ramorum is definitely in the realms of containment strategies. By the time it was discovered in larches, it was too late."
Experts say the symptoms to look out for on larch trees include dead and rtipaally flushed trees present in groups, patches or distributed throughout a stand. An affected tree's crown and branches die back, and there is a distinctive yellowing or ginger colour beneath the bark.

Unwelcomed guests

Another pest that was introduced to the UK as a result of human activity was the great spruce bark beetle. 

"It clearly came into this country via wood that had not been debarked properly," said Prof Evans.
"What was interesting - and I think this is [a] somewhat typical story - is that although we found it in 1982, our subsequent research found that it had been in the country at least 10 years prior to that."
The beetle breeds under the bark and destroys the cambium (a layer of growing tissue that produces new cells to carry water, sugars and nutrients around the tree). This weakens the tree, and in most extreme cases, the damage can kill the tree.
As part of their research, Prof Evans said scientists quickly identified a possible "bio-control" option. They introduced a natural predator - another species of beetle called Rhizophagus grandis.
"We were able to bring that beetle in to the country; we got the very first licence for the release of a non-native species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
"It proved to be incredibly successful," he told BBC News.
"[The great spruce bark beetle] did kill quite a few trees, but after the predator was introduced and we continued to monitor it for a few years, its population has dropped to a relatively low level. It is still spreading, but the predator seems to be following it."

Preventing pests

Dr Morgan said UK control measures involved four stages.



"We try to prevent pest and diseases entering the country; then, if they have arrived, we switch to a policy of eradication to try and stop them becoming established," he said.
"If they do become established then we try and follow a policy of containment which is to try and slow or stop the spread of the pest.
Finally, if all previous three efforts have failed then we operate a way that we can live with the particular pest or disease."
There are a number of ways that scientists are able track the global or regional spread of a pest or pathogen, such as the EU Plant Health Directive that requires nations to report new outbreaks or new pathogens.
Another way data is shared among researchers is via bodies such as the European Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization and the International Plant Protection Convention.
"Both of these organisations have notification systems where countries are able to report developments that might be of wider interest," revealed Fera's Richard McIntosh.
"We monitor that sort of intelligence, together with information that might be coming out via publications, and also what we are finding - such as what we are intercepting at the national borders."
Mr McIntosh said this information is used to produce a document known as a Pest Risk Analysis (PRA), which looks at the risks, possible impacts and control of each organism within a UK context.

Wider impact

Andrew Sharkey, head of woodland management for the Woodland Trust, said the impact of pests and diseases often had ramifications that were felt beyond the individual trees that were infected.

"Two of our sites have been affect by [Phytophthora ramorum]... so we had to fell the larch on those sites," he said.
"We are comfortable with this because it is good practice but it means that it has disrupted all of the site plans for those sites.
"The larches on one of the sites were on what we call 'planted ancient woodlands', which we were trying to restore back to native woodlands.
"This has an immediate impact on our biodiversity work and planning work."
In 2011, Natural England's Keith Kirby warned that the future well-being of the UK's oak trees was at a crossroads because of the potential threat from a disease known as Acute Oak Decline (AOD), which experts warned could be as devastating to the treescape as Dutch elm disease.
Dr Kirby told BBC News that research was helping shed more light on dynamics of the mysterious disease.
"We are becoming more and more certain that it is basically a bacterial issue, and a beetle is involved in its spread. It appears that the problem is also exacerbated if the tree is under stress," he said.
"But we are not that much further along in terms of knowing exactly how abundant or widespread it is.
"At the moment, it does not look as if it has gone beyond the East Midlands and southern England area, where most of the records have come from."
As one of the UK's leading woodland ecologists, Dr Kirby said people had to be philosophical about the fact that the composition of woodlands were going to change.
"We cannot attempt to maintain the mixtures that existed in the past," he observed. "We have to accept that there will be change, and manage the dynamic situation.
"If you have got a changing environment, you cannot expect the communities and assemblages of species of past environments to survive."


Source : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19167307

Greenomics Indonesia Open Statement in Response to Interview with Scott Poynton in REDD-Monitor

First of all, we at Greenomics Indonesia would like to express our appreciation to Chris Lang (REDD-­Monitor) for posing important questions arising from Greenomics Indonesia reports to Scott Poynton (Executive Director of TFT) in an interview that was carried by redd-monitor.org on 23 August 2012. The questions put by Chris Lang are key questions based on Greenomics Indonesia reports on the agreement between TFT and GAR. Chris Lang provided space in REDD-Monitor for Greenomics Indonesia’s views when we strongly criticized the collaboration between TFT and GAR. We are thankful therefore for the support that has been provided by Chris Lang and REDD-Monitor.
Greenomics Indonesia now feels called upon to respond to the points raised by Scott Poynton in the said his constructive and productive comments on the Greenomics Indonesia reports, particularly the report of our investigation into the first year of operation of the collaboration agreement between TFT-­GAR in respect of three GAR concessions in West Kalimantan Province.
In Greenomics Indonesia’s view, the points set out herein need to be raised for the purpose of clarifying what was said in the interview.

• The criticism levied by Greenomics Indonesia against the TFT-­GAR Agreement is not based on antipathy on the part of Greenomics Indonesia to the agreement, but rather the need to have regard to a report by the Indonesian State Audit Board stating that the greater part of GAR palm concessions in Central Kalimantan Province are located in areas that are legally designated as forestland. Greenomics Indonesia’s criticism is therefore not based on the perceptions, or indeed prejudice, on the part of our organization, but rather on an audit report issued by the Indonesian State Audit Board.
• We also need to avail of this opportunity to update TFT and Greenpeace about the latest report from the Indonesian State Audit Board (2012), which is based on samples of legal violations of forestry law by palm companies in Central Kalimantan Province. This report states that 3 of the 17 palm companies found to have committed legal violations are actually GAR companies. The report also reveals that GAR has palm concessions blocks that are located in designated forest zones based on the Central Kalimantan spatial plan. This means that these GAR palm concession blocks are operating in violation of the Central Kalimantan government’s own spatial plan. Consequently, it will be clear that Greenomics Indonesia’s criticisms continue to be highly relevant, namely, even based on the Central Kalimantan spatial plan, GAR still operates palm concession blocks that are located within designated forest areas. TFT and Greenpeace need to take head of these serious legal violations.
• Clear legal evidence that the bulk of GAR palm concessions in Central Kalimantan Province are located on land that is legally designated as forestland is provided by Government Regulation No. 60 of 2012, which was signed by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on 6 July 2012. This Government Regulation proves that Greenomics Indonesia’s criticism of the TFT-GAR Agreement is well-founded and valid from the legal perspective. The President’s signature on this Government Regulation clearly shows that the majority of GAR palm concessions in Central Kalimantan are sited on legally designated forestland and therefore require forestland relinquishment permits. The issuance of this Government Regulation proves beyond doubt that the Greenomics Indonesia criticism of the TFT-GAR Agreement is more than just an exercise in cynicism.
• One of the proofs that Greenomics Indonesia is not acting cynically in respect of the TFT-GAR Agreement is that fact that following the issuance of Government Regulation No. 60 of 2012, Greenomics Indonesia took the initiative of holding discussions with the President Director of PT Smart Tbk, Daud Dharsono. PT Smart is the GAR subsidiary that manages all of the GAR concessions in Indonesia, including those operating in Central Kalimantan. The said discussions were intended to ascertain the extent to which the GAR concessions can obtain forestland relinquishment permits following the issuance of Government Regulation No. 60. It is found that thanks to Government Regulation No. 60, forestland relinquishment permits can be obtained by GAR in respect of palm concessions located in convertible production forest, by paying compensation for timber that had been cleared without the obtaining of timber clearing permits. Meanwhile, for GAR concessions in permanent production forest, the GAR concessions can obtain forestland relinquishment permits by providing substitute land to be set aside as permanent production forest and paying compensation for timber that had been cleared without the obtaining of timber clearing permits.
• TFT, Greenpeace and GAR should pay close attention to this Government Regulation bearing in mind that it represents the position of the President of the Republic of Indonesia and is highly relevant to the legal reality that the majority of GAR palm concessions in Central Kalimantan Province continue to be legally designated as forestland.
• Scott Poynton stated in his interview with REDD-Monitor that “We made maps with Greenpeace and areas were marked ‘Go’ and ‘No-­‐Go’”. This statement shows that TFT and Greenpeace played key roles in determining the areas that could be cleared and those that could not on the GAR concessions. In its report, Greenomics Indonesia investigated three GAR concessions in West Kalimantan Province, and revealed that in the interests of forest conservation, changes were made in the areas designated for clearance so as to avoid clearing natural forest that was still relative intact and connected with relatively extensive forest blocks. From the conservation perspective, such choices were correct.
• However, these conservation choices nevertheless violated forestry law as the changes in the locations to be cleared were not accompanied by revision of the relevant timber clearing permits (IPK). Under forestry law, the punishment for this is a fine of 10 times that amount of forestry royalties that have been paid to the state. Bearing in mind that TFT and Greenpeace played an instrumental role in determining the “Go” and “No-Go” areas for land clearance, accordingly TFT and Greenpeace have a legal responsibility to ask GAR to pay such a fine.
• The payment thereof should be seen as proof of a high level of commitment to the GAR forest conservation program and a willingness to transfer land clearance from blocks that have relatively intact forest cover to locations that are considered as no longer capable of supporting the forest conservation program, notwithstanding the obligation to pay a fine. This would set a good example for other palm oil companies operating in Indonesia. However, if the fine were not to be paid by GAR, this would by contrast set a bad precedent. In fact, both TFT and Greenpeace could be seen as promoting violations of forestry law. Accordingly, this legal responsibility to encourage GAR to pay the fine should be discharged as expeditiously as possible. Greenomics Indonesia has already informed Daud Dharsono that it would be more than willing to provide input and technical facilities to hold the company fulfill its duty to pay the fine. This also shows that Greenomics Indonesia is not acting cynically as regards the TFT-GAR Agreement.
• Greenomics Indonesia has also exposed a number of GAR palm operations that are located within designated forest areas in South Kalimantan Province. The report in question is serious and far from being an exercise in cynicism aimed at the TFT-GAR Agreement. Rather, it represents an attempt by Greenomics Indonesia to remind TFT and Greenpeace that the TFT-GAR Agreement has the potential to give rise to legal action against GAR palm concessions located in designated forest areas. As an update for TFT and Greenpeace, top GAR/PT Smart executive responsible for the management of GAR palm concessions in South Kalimantan Province have been detained by the police and are being processed according to law, primarily in connection with GAR’s operation of palm concessions located on designated forestland. It would be far-fetched indeed to claim that the police moves in this respect are also motivated by cynicism towards the TFT-GAR Agreement.
• Greenomics Indonesia firmly believes that sustainability must be brought about in line with the relevant legal parameters so as to ensure best practice. Sustainability must not be used as an excuse for failing to respect legal rules and boundaries.

In conclusion, Greenomics Indonesia would like to once again express its sincere appreciation to Chris Lang and Scott Poynton for, among other things, discussing the Greenomics Indonesia reports related to the TFT-GAR Agreement in the REDD-Monitor interview. Greenomics Indonesia believes that the GAR Forest Conservation Program has the potential to serve as an excellent example for the development of the palm oil industry in Indonesia, particularly on Borneo Island. But first, the problems related to licensing in Central Kalimantan, the issue of fines in West Kalimantan and the overlapping of GAR palm concessions in South Kalimantan will all need to be resolved as expeditiously as possible.
Source : redd-monitor.org

SBY Vows to Protect Forests

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on Tuesday stated his commitment to ensure sustainable development of the country’s environment and forests.

“I will continue my work and dedicate the last three years of my term as president to deliver enduring results that will sustain and enhance the environment and forests of Indonesia,” Yudhoyono said in a speech in his opening address at the Forests Indonesia Conference.

The president said the country’s people, economy, environment and way of life are tightly intertwined with its forests.

“Our success in managing our forests will determine our future and the opportunities that will be available to our children,” Yudhoyono said.

But he will need to work hard to convince the nation’s environmental groups, who have previously accused the government of making grand statements on conservation but failing to deliver results.

The conference was hosted by the Center for International Forestry Research and was attended by 900 participants from the government, the business community and civil society as well as foreign donors.

Its purpose was to discuss the future of forests in Indonesia, which has the third-largest amount of tropical forest in the world.

While many now recognize the importance of safeguarding the country’s many forests, however, they remain under “tremendous” pressure, Yudhoyono said.

“As a developing country, we are prioritizing economic growth and poverty eradication. But we will not reach those aims by sacrificing our forests,” Yudhoyono said.

Indonesia should be able to find a balance, he said.

“We must change the way we treat our forests so that they are conserved even as we drive hard to accelerate our economic growth,” he said.

Yudhoyono said he did not want to have to tell his granddaughter someday that the country failed to save its forests.

To alleviate the pressure on forests, Yudhoyono said the government had set up programs to enhance agricultural productivity as well as ensure an adequate stock of staple food, including rice.

The government has also launched a tree-planting campaign that will aim for at least one billion new trees annually, Yudhoyono said.

“It is said that ‘an apple a day keeps the doctor away.’ I would like to say: ‘A billion trees a year shields the world’s lungs from decay,’ ” he said.

Yudhoyono also said that Indonesia remained steadfast in its pledge to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 26-41 percent by 2020.

Globally, deforestation accounts for up to 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. In Indonesia, however, that figure is 85 percent, making the country one of the highest emitters in the world, the president said.

“A long journey still awaits us. We know we must do more to address the primary sources of our greenhouse emissions, such as illegal logging, forest encroachment, forest and land fires and peat land drainage,” Yudhoyono said. “And indeed we are working hard and comprehensively to overcome these challenges.”

Yudhoyono emphasized the long-term importance of caring for the country’s forests while continuing to pursue a path of development.

Cifor director general Frances Seymour said that leadership was needed not only from the government but also from business and civil society to chart the best way forward for Indonesia .

“While there are some win-win opportunities to reconcile forest management to meet both global and domestic objectives, there will also be some trade-offs that will require leadership,” Seymour said.

Source : http://www.thejakartaglobe.com