Containment and Eradication

Transcription

1 Containment and Eradication Robert Black Department of Law, University of Greenwich, Old Royal Naval College, Park Row, Greenwich, SE10 9LS, UK. April Introduction 1.1 The scope of containment and eradication 1.2 Containment and eradication programmes 2. International guidelines for pest eradication programmes 3. The legal basis for pest containment and eradication 4. Contingency plans 5. Deciding to start the programme: 5.1 Initial pest detection and reporting 5.2 Deciding to proceed with containment and eradication 6. The eradication programme: 6.1 Assembling the management team 6.2 Surveillance 6.3 Containment 6.4 Treatment and control 7. Declaring the pest eradicated 8. Review of the programme(s) 9. References 1. Introduction 1.1 The scope of containment and eradication In phytosanitary/plant quarantine terms, containment and eradication is a consequence of the introduction of a quarantine pest into an endangered area, usually a national territory under the jurisdiction of a National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO). [In a federal or devolved system, responsibility for containment and eradication may lie with the authorities of the province or state affected, e.g. provincial Department of Agriculture.] The capacity to deal with such an outbreak of an introduced quarantine pest is an essential part of the armoury of phytosanitary services. The infrastructure necessary for containment and eradication will in part have been developed for domestic, non-quarantine aspects of plant

2 protection (such as extension and education of farmers), but the rationale and legal basis for these actions are derived from international plant quarantine. It is essential to note that we are usually dealing with quarantine pests in this situation. The pest is not present in the (national) area under consideration or, if it is present, then it is of limited distribution and under official control. The latter situation applies to the establishment of a pest free area (PFA); the quarantine pest may have been introduced into the PFA and requires eradication from that area for it to be re-established as a PFA. On a smaller scale, the maintenance of pest free places of production and pest free production sites is affected by pest introduction. The purpose of containment is to prevent economic damage by the pest or to limit the area in which it is already causes damage. The area initially affected may be an area where outbreaks occur repeatedly but where the pest causes little or no economic damage. Such a situation may occur, for example, with tephritid fruit flies which can be detected by pheromone or food bait traps around a point of entry. If the outbreak can be contained, there is the possibility of eradication and re-establishment of pest absence either in the whole national area or in the PFA. If eradication is not feasible or has failed, then containment could be applied on a permanent basis so that the pest is excluded from some areas, at least where it would cause economic damage. The pest would still qualify as a quarantine pest and so measures to prevent further introduction would be justified under international trade law (the SPS Agreement). Furthermore, a PFA might formally be set up (cf. Requirements for the Establishment of Pest Free Areas (ISPM No. 4); also relevant is the equivalent ISPM No. 10 for pest free places of production and pest free production sites). The containment and eradication activities to be considered in this article are emergency measures applied to a pest outbreak. An established pest may also be eradicated. This has been done with fruit flies in several localities, mainly islands and areas such as California isolated by geographical barriers. Eradication here leads to the establishment of PFAs rather than their re-establishment. According to latest information and guidelines from the Secretariats of the IPPC and the Convention on Biological Diversity, pests could include invasive alien species and genetically modified organisms or GMOs (living modified organisms or LMOs). In addition, the environmental harm resulting from pest introduction is fully recognised through Revision 1 of ISPM11 (Black, 2003; IPPC, 2004a, b). Thus containment measures under the legal authority of plant quarantine laws might be invoked to deal with introductions of pests in these categories that were deemed to be harmful to the area under consideration. To summarise, containment and eradication comprises the following: Measures in place for containment of quarantine pests which are not fully established throughout the area and would cause additional economic damage if they spread; Eradication of pests if feasible; If not feasible, "permanent" containment so that a PFA could be set up if desirable; Established pests might also be eradicated non-emergency (establishment of pest absence).

3 1.2 Containment and eradication programmes According to the laws in force, there should only be one organisation with primary legal responsibility for phytosanitary services in each area (cf. the requirement on contracting parties to the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) to provide for a national plant protection organization (NPPO)). This is usually the government ministry responsible for agriculture or a department/section within this ministry. However, a wide range of official and non-governmental bodies and individuals are likely to be involved in containment and eradication programmes, and any successful programme will be a complex event. The NPPO, in conjunction with its parent ministry should consult with all appropriate parties in the planning for such a contingency. The outcome of such consultations will be to ensure that an emergency management team is formed at short notice to carry out the programme and that this team has appropriate powers and budget. These provisions will also be useful in preparing a non-emergency programme for eradication of an established pest. The programme itself on completion will either have been fully successful in containing and eradicating the pest, partially successful in only achieving containment, or unsuccessful. Whatever the outcomes, there should be a review of the programme to learn lessons that can be applied to future programmes and to strengthen measures to prevent re-introduction of the same pest or introduction of other pests. 2. International guidelines for pest eradication programmes Guidelines for Pest Eradication Programmes are available as International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 9 from the Secretariat of the IPPC, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). This is henceforth referred to as ISPM No. 9. These guidelines provide a formal framework for containment and eradication within the IPPC, indicating the responsibilities of the NPPO. The present text is not intended as a substitute for ISPM No. 9 but provides practical operational guidance. For ease of comparison between the guidance here and the formal requirements in ISPM No. 9, the arrangement of the latter has largely been followed. 3. The legal basis for pest containment and eradication The NPPO (or state or provincial authority in a federal or devolved system) will derive its powers from national legislation and these powers should be consistent with the IPPC. However, the primary legislation does not give unlimited powers to the NPPO. Rather, the powers are quite precisely laid down; exceeding these powers in any activities conducted could take the NPPO beyond the law and render it liable to challenge under domestic law (e.g. an ultra vires ruling in Judicial Review) or to challenge by another trading partner under World Trade Organization rules. There is a distinct possibility that with legislation not significantly updated since the advent of the modern international trade era, an adequate statutory framework for containment and eradication may be lacking (Black, 2000). For example, before eradication of moko disease of banana and plantain (Ralstonia solanacearum race 2) could begin in Belize, the Banana Act had to be amended because it gave the Banana Control Board sole jurisdiction over all banana-related plant protection in the whole country, not just in the export crop growing areas (Black and Delbeke, 1991).

4 Examination of the laws of African countries shows inconsistencies in the definition and treatment of pests of economic or quarantine importance that could give rise to problems. Thus instead of a definition equivalent to quarantine pest, the national legislation may still refer to something equivalent to notifiable pest. As a prelude to the contingency planning process, or in parallel with it, legal opinion should be sought on the state of laws in force and any necessary updating or amendments put in train. It could be potentially embarrassing for a Ministry of Agriculture to embark on a collaborative eradication programme only to realise too late that it lacked the legal authority for such action. The legal basis for emergency action and other aspects of plant quarantine in the UK has been reviewed by Black (2003). This includes the scope of plant quarantine in relation to invasive alien species, GMOs and pests causing environmental damage (see 1.1). The necessary powers fall into two categories: standing powers and powers relating to emergency measures: Standing powers Declaration of (quarantine) pest status Powers of entry into farm and commercial premises (normally without a warrant except for dwellings) Powers of inspection, sample taking, confiscation* Powers of destruction or treatment of plants and plant material* * These powers apply at points of entry as well Emergency orders Declaration of a quarantine area Power to control movement of designated plants and plant material Each provision should be supported by an up-to-date definition in that part of the law dealing with Definitions or "Interpretation". See section in ISPM No. 9 for the treatment and control measures that might be used in an eradication programme. 4. Contingency plans It cannot be predicted with any certainty what pests might be introduced or where the outbreaks might occur, although certain pest species might be introduced time and again (adventive pest populations). However, planning can take place on a general basis, bearing in mind the difference between pests that spread independently (flying insects and pathogens, and some arthropods carried by wind and water) and those that spread with other things (plants and plant materials, vehicles, animals, clothing).

5 The NPPO should liaise with all relevant key organisations to develop a contingency plan. Suggested organisations are given in Box 1. It is important to include nongovernmental organisations, farmers groups or representatives, and community organisations, because of the potential economic and social impact of the programme (e.g. stripping and destroying fruit from trees). In addition, the perceived environmental impact could be dramatic if pesticide application is involved, even if the actual impact is considered low. Hence, it is necessary to have health and environmental organisations (official and non-governmental) and the media involved. The other important provision is finance, because an eradication programme will be costly. Arrangements must be made for the government funding to be made available should it be necessary to invoke a contingency plan. Box 1. Organisations to involve in contingency planning Outside Ministry of Agriculture Farmers, village councils Public/consumers Growers associations Media Police/army Public transport Customs/port authority/airport authority Pesticide industry Ministries of Finance, Health, Environment Within Ministry of Agriculture NPPO Extension Plant protection (farm level) Regional departments Finance Officer Information Officer The control of movement of plants and plant material requires a quarantine area to be designated and enforced with road blocks and restrictions on other means of transport as appropriate. This is a difficult and sensitive process with farmers, traders and the public understandably concerned and indeed irate about the damage to their interests. It will be essential try to engage the support of the media and be ready to provide publicity and explanations of what is happening, especially to preempt adverse media comment that might be politically inspired. If pesticides are to be used, reassurances should be given about their impact on public and animal health and the environment. This aspect of the planning process is covered in ISPM No. 9 under 1.3 Reporting Requirements and Information Sharing. In the author s experience, the police may lack the resources and possibly the authority to enforce restrictions alone, especially in rural areas. It may be necessary to request use of the armed forces. (e.g. troops were used both in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001). Finally, it will be necessary to reinforce current measures to prevent

6 further pest introductions during the eradication process pending a full policy review on completion. The main risk of pest introduction may occur seasonally with particular pressure on customs and the port and airport authorities at a certain time of year. 5. Deciding to start the programme 5.1 Initial pest detection and reporting To 6.4 The eradication programme will be triggered by the detection of a pest that has been identified as a quarantine pest in pest risk analysis. ISPM No. 9 rightly stresses the importance of accurate identification of the pest as the one in question. This may involve sending specimens to a recognised international authority, if necessary outside the country. The reader is also referred to ISPM No. 8 Determination of Pest Status in an Area. Particularly useful is the section on reliability of pest identifications and records (2.2). Once the pest is confirmed, then the NPPO should immediately inform an international body (see 7. below) and relevant trading partners to meet its obligations under the IPPC. It cannot be denied that there has been considerable reluctance to report pest introductions when the national authorities perceive that this will have drastic economic consequences. However, an eradication programme can hardly be conducted in secret, so once this is decided upon there seems little motive to withhold information. 5.2 Deciding to proceed with containment and eradication If the pest had been recognised as a quarantine pest with a high risk of introduction, then it is quite likely that there will already be a surveillance programme in operation. Indeed, it is commonly through surveillance that the pest was detected before it was introduced (see 6.1). Further surveys will be necessary to determine the extent of the pest s distribution. This will involve intensifying any surveys or monitoring operations, such as trapping, already in progress. The extent to which the pest has gained entry will be one of the factors to be considered in the feasibility of an eradication programme. According to ISPM No. 4 Requirements for the Establishment of Pest Free Areas, "Data collected during a preliminary investigation should be used to estimate the potential for spread and the anticipated rate of spread, and to identify endangered areas." This will take into account the biology of the pest itself, potential hosts and potential internal pathways for spread. It may be necessary to consult with experts on the pest from abroad in this respect. Other factors to be considered in assessing the feasibility are the resources needed for the eradication and whether they are available, and the potential benefits from eradication compared with regarding the pest as established, i.e. the economic and social impact of pest establishment needs to be determined. 6. The eradication programme

7 6.1 Assembling the management team Once the NPPO in consultation with the Ministry had decided to initiate the programme, the management team to supervise it must be assembled quickly. The team s responsibilities are outlined formally in ISPM No. 9. In view of the factors considered under Contingency Plans, the team should consist of experienced people from most or all of the organisations involved in the planning process. ISPM No. 9 refers to the appointment of a "steering committee" or "advisory group" in the case of a complex operation, the implication being that the management team is largely formed from within the NPPO. In reality, advice and support from outside the NPPO will almost always be necessary because of the inevitable public impact of an eradication programme. In the author s opinion, therefore, the management team is often synonymous with the steering committee or advisory group. The management team as so defined should be considered as having overall responsibility for the programme. Not all the members of the team need to be involved in day-to-day decision making and operations: that should be supervised by an operational team within the NPPO. The lines of responsibility and authority between the operational team and the management team should be clearly established at the outset (having been considered in the planning process). It is vital that the operational team knows what they are able to do without reference to higher authority, particularly in relation to expenditure. Eradication is a costly process and a failure to make funds available or dispute about whether authority was given for certain expenditure will seriously hinder the programme. 6.2 Surveillance Back to 5.2 Surveillance is an essential component of the eradication programme, informing the management team of the initial pest status and the subsequent impact, if any, of the programme. Without definitive data from surveillance a pest cannot be declared eradicated. The corollary is that surveillance might indicate that the programme is not stopping further spread or establishment of the pest and should either be modified or abandoned. Surveillance is especially important if there is a pest free area in the national territory. There are international Guidelines for Surveillance (ISPM No. 6) which provides some of the formal requirements for a surveillance programme. These are not referred to in further detail here. It is worth mentioning however, that surveillance may be done in two ways, surveys and monitoring. Surveys might be appropriate for some pathogens and relatively static arthropods, including those dispersed passively by wind; monitoring (e.g. trapping) is used for actively mobile pests (e.g. fruit flies). Surveys are relatively inexpensive; monitoring can be very costly. Surveillance programmes were originally set up at the insistence of and with the support and scrutiny of the importing country. 6.3 Containment In conjunction with an Order or Statutory Instrument defining a quarantine area for the pest in question, every possible measure must be taken to prevent further

8 spread of the pest. In cases where pest spread occurs through pathways other than by independent movement, this will involve restriction on the movement of plants, plant produce, vehicles and even people, pets and livestock. Certain plant material will be prohibited from leaving the area; this will involve control and restriction on the goods which private, commercial and public transport vehicles and travellers on foot may take out of the area. Some examples of restricted materials that might be controlled in this way are given in Box 2. Box 2. Examples of material that could be restricted in a quarantine (containment) order Commodity Fruit Vegetables Cut flowers, pot plants Cereal grains Vegetative germplasm (specified species) Sand and gravel Pest Fruit flies (Tephritidae) Lepidoptera, Coleoptera and other insects White flies, thrips Seed-borne fungi, bacteria Plant pathogens Weeds The movement of vehicles, people or animals themselves cannot realistically be prohibited but there may be requirements to disinfect wheels, footwear, tools and hooves and to fumigate empty containers. Plant produce may be allowed to leave the area under a permit for processing at a specified factory. 6.4 Treatment and control The eradicative measures themselves are referred to as "treatments" in ISPM No. 6. The eradication methods are listed with annotation in Box 3. Box 3. Treatments for pest eradication Treatment Host destruction Disinfection of equipment and facilities Chemical or biological pesticide treatment Comments Used in conjunction with other methods Mainly for plant pathogens Used in traps and baits as well as treating contaminated or infected produce and vehicles

9 Soil sterilants Leaving land fallow Host-free periods Use of cultivars that suppress or eliminate pest populations Restriction of subsequent cropping Trapping lures or other physical control methods Inundative release of biological control agents Processing or consumption of infested crop Mostly banned because of toxicity or being withdrawn under Montreal Protocol (ozonedepleting) Mainly for plant pathogens and soil-borne arthropods As above As above As above For flying insects Mainly for flying insects E.g. fruit stripping It is important to ensure that any treatments used have legislative backing (see 4. Contingency plans) and that appropriate Notices are served on the owners or occupiers of affected land or premises. Most of these treatments involve the use of techniques requiring inputs from technical experts. To carry out the treatments effectively will require good logistics, resources and management. For an example of a programme to eradicate a plant disease (moko), see Black and Delbeke (1991) and Thwaites et al. (1999). 7. Declaring the pest eradicated It is to be hoped that the programme will be successful and that the pest can be declared eradicated. Declaring the pest "absent: eradicated" according to ISPM No. 8 and ISPM No. 9 will depend on negative data from surveillance. How long negative records need to be collected before the appropriate status can be declared depends on the situation, as described in ISPM No. 9. At the time of writing, there is no truly global reporting system of international status. Procedures for reporting pest outbreaks and eradication, and correcting erroneous records through FAO, are cumbersome and beset by bureaucracy. Furthermore, FAO has no current periodical for disseminating such information. Individual NPPOs (or parent ministries) are advised to report pest records (detection, eradication, correction) to their Regional Plant Protection Organization (RPPO), or indeed to the RPPO of trading partners. Thus Mauritius reported the eradication of Bactrocera dorsalis (oriental fruit fly) through the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO Reporting Service).

10 Back to Review of the programme(s) Even if the programme is successful, the programme and the contingency planning should be reviewed to see what lessons could be learned for the future, but this is especially true if the pest has become established. Also to be reviewed are measures to prevent the pest s introduction, including legislation and the operation of controls and inspections at points of entry. It cannot be over-stressed that all measures taken should be valid under current legislation. It may be necessary to amend primary legislation if some of the powers needed for the programme are not actually available under the law. Fig. 1 shows how a review might take place within the operation of a plant quarantine system.

11 9. References

12 Black R, Can phytosanitary services in African countries meet the challenges of globalisation? In: Proceedings of BCPC Pests & Diseases Conference 2000, Back R, The legal basis for control of imports of animal and plant material into the United Kingdom. Environmental Law Review, 5: Black R, Delbeke A, Moko disease (Pseudomonas solanacearum) of Musa in Belize. Tropical Science 31: IPPC, Requirements for the Establishment of Pest Free Areas. ISPM No. 4. Rome, Italy: IPPC. IPPC, Guidelines for Surveillance. ISPM No. 6. Rome, Italy: IPPC. IPPC, Determination of Pest Status in an Area. ISPM No. 8. Rome, Italy: IPPC. IPPC, Guidelines for Pest Eradication Programmes. ISPM No. 9. Rome, Italy: IPPC. IPPC, Requirements for the Establishment of Pest Free Places of Production and Pest Free Production Sites. ISPM No. 10. Rome, Italy: IPPC. IPPC, New Revised Text of the International Plant Protection Convention. Rome, Italy: IPPC. IPPC, 2004a. ISPM11 Rev.: Pest Risk Analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks. IPPC, 2004b. Supplement to ISPM No. 11 (Pest Risk Analysis or quarantine pests) on Pest Risk Analysis for living modified organisms. Draft International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs). Thwaites R, Eden-Green S-J, Black R, Diseases caused by bacteria. In: Jones, DR, ed. Diseases of Banana, Abacá and Enset. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, WTO, Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Geneva, Switzerland: World Trade Organization. Back to Contents page