Landscape architecture sits at an awkward position in relation to UK biosecurity: whilst the majority of the UK guidance relates to the specification, supply and management of plants, the work that we do is affected by and affects our ecosystems in many ways, some of which are not yet well understood. The typical project for a landscape architect has biosecurity implications at every stage, from project feasibility to landscape assessment, plant selection, hard landscape materials provenance and packaging, contract management and landscape management. Whilst many industries are rightly concerned with ensuring that healthy plants are grown by nurseries, it is possible that many of us either are not aware of the influence we have or are unaware of the issues in sufficient detail to ensure that we play are part in the biosecurity continuum effectively. As outbreaks of Ash Dieback, Oak Processionary Moth and Phytopthera sppcontinue and Xylella fastidiosalooms on the horizon, it is more important than ever that CMLIs embed a risk-based approach to biosecurity into all stages of our work.
The biosecurity regulatory framework
The regulatory framework for biosecurity is administered by UK Plant Health Services, the umbrella body that brings together Defra and the devolved administrations across the two phytosanitary regions of Great Britain and Ireland. Although plant health is the responsibility of devolved administrations, all parties work within the framework of EU plant health directives to achieve consistent approaches with specific policies where necessary. In response to ever-faster means of trade, communication and travel, the regulatory framework is developing rapidly: the ‘Plant biosecurity strategy for Great Britain’[1]sets out the overarching principles of the UK’s approach to biosecurity and the regulatory framework that policies are developed within, including the UK Plant Health Risk Register,[2]and the recent 25 Year Environment Plan[3]and Tree Health Resilience Strategy[4]develop further detail, with more issues currently under consultation by the Plant Health Alliance relating to quarantine proposals for imported plants[5]. As Brexit unfolds, we hope that these policies will be developed to ensure that the UK produces a robust strategy to secure resilient ecosystems: it is unclear at this stage what compromises will be reached to ensure that international trade is not adversely affected by border control but it should be remembered that whilst some of the UK’s regulatory framework is derived from EU directives, legislation in the UK is based upon an Act that predates the EU (The Plant Health Act 1967), whilst the UK is also a signatory to a range of supra-national agreements that require the UK to develop biosecurity protocols. As such, our future status as a Third Country brings both opportunities to develop robust policies (including Pre-Border and Border controls) and challenges in developing and enforcing a regulatory framework that aligns with those of our trading partners.
How biosecurity affects landscape architects and the work we do
When most people think about biosecurity they tend to think about plant specification: what species are specified, where the plants come from, how were they grown or replanted, how were they transported and what biosecurity measures were used to plant them on site. But biosecurity has wider impacts than this: for example, packaging of hard landscape materials (which often uses wood with loose bark) is a major vector for pests and diseases, especially for quarried materials from Brazil, India and China, and guidance is developing in response. However, this picture reflects the fact that most of the work into this field has been supported by the horticultural and agricultural trades and as important as these are, landscape architects need to also think about areas that are unique to our professions, such as the potential impacts for feasibility assessments, liability, planning and strategic landscape development.
A survey to explore the role of landscape architects in the biosecurity continuum
To better understand the role of landscape architects within the biosecurity continuum, the LI Biosecurity Working Group conducted a survey of CMLIs in January and February 2018. A summary of the findings is set out below and will shape the work that the group does in supporting CMLIs and helping to shape national policies.
Summary of the findings
Around 4% of CMLIs working in educations, private and public practice responded to the survey and statistical analysis was carried out to ensure that the responses were normally distributed and representative. The survey comprised two sections: first part tried to identify how interested CMLIs are in biosecurity and how aware they think they are of biosecurity issues, the second asked respondents to answer questions relating to particular projects that they have worked on.
We found that although most respondents took an active or occasional interest in biosecurity news[6]and the significant majority felt that they have a good understanding of the issues,[7]this interest is often not supported by the organisations that they work in.[8]Generally, the picture that results from the survey is that CMLIs is one that supports the idea that landscape architects tend to be generalists rather than specialists, having an awareness of biosecurity but not detailed knowledge of its risks or the processes that should be followed to adapt to or manage the threats. This is most clearly borne out in the findings from the second part of the questionnaire that looked at case studies that respondents had worked on: many designers did not know where the plants they specified had been grown,[9]whilst for most projects CMLIs do not take steps to ensure that biosecurity regulations such as Plant Passports are followed.[10]The survey also highlighted an issue that has long been identified by CMLIs that exacerbates the challenges we face in implementing biosecurity policies: too often clients do not instruct landscape architects to manage substitutions or variations to proposed designs, making it impossible for consultants to ensure that biosecurity protocols are followed[11]and very often the built or planted scheme is different to the plans that were proposed by the CMLI.[12]Further, CMLIs are frequently not instructed to oversee the implementation and a large number of designers do not inspect the scheme once it has been carried out.[13]
Next steps
The survey shows that helping CMLIs access guidance and develop protocols for working that can be incorporated into contractual agreements has to be a priority for the LI, so a Biosecurity Toolkit for a Landscape Architects will be published in the autumn of 2018 and CMLIs that want to develop a specialism in biosecurity issues may wish to apply to join the Plant Health Professionals Register, administered by the Royal Society of Biology.
In the meantime, the Biosecurity Working Group are developing a biosecurity CPD day for Spring 2019 and can advise at branch level for CPD more locally or on more specialist issues. The working group meets quarterly at locations around the UK and all CMLIs are welcome to attend the meetings, so do get in touch if you would like to either
[2]https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/phiw/riskRegister/
[5]https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-quarantine-proposals-to-protect-englands-trees
[6]Q1: 44.7% reported that they take an active interest in biosecurity news, 32.5% of respondents reported an occasional interest; Q7: 68.4% read industry and LI news to inform themselves about biosecurity news rather than being supported their practice or by undertaking CPD.
[7]Q2: 52.6% reported a general understanding of the issues, 30.7% reported a good understanding of the key issues.
[8]Q4: 54% of respondents reported that their organisations either have not discussed biosecurity issues or have discussed the issues but have not taken any action as a result; Q5: 24.5% of organisations do not have a biosecurity policy in place, 50% of organisations are thinking about creating a policy but do not believe that it is a priority; Q7: 20% of respondents reported that their practices actively support them to take biosecurity CPD.
[9]Q9: 29.4% of respondents did not know where the plants they specified had been grown, 16.5% knew where a few of the plants they specified had been grown, 20% knew where all the plants they had specified had been grown.
[10]Q11: 75.9% of respondents did not specify that Plant Passports were required for the appropriate plants whilst 7.2% of respondents reported that they had required Plant Passports for some of the specified plants.
[11]Q12: 9.7% of respondents reported that the final scheme was exactly as specified, 37.8% reported that the final scheme was largely as specified, 24.4% did not know whether the scheme was carried out as specified.
[12]Q13: in over half of the cases (53.5%), the respondent was either not consulted about variations to the proposals.
[13]Q14: 26.7% of respondents have not visited the site post construction whilst 11.4% only visit the site post construction in an unofficial capacity.
