Standards to reduce the spread of plant pests and diseases were in the spotlight at a meeting of the governing body of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) which is overseen by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The participants discussed ways to increase international consciousness about plant health in a post-pandemic world and put forward a number of measures of a more nature. With this in mind, the question arises as to how effective these new measures and standards will be in the context of globalization.
The first meeting of the 15th session of the IPPC governing body, the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, took place on 16 March, focusing on “new strategic objectives and a development agenda to advance global plant health over the next decade”.
The adoption of 11 new standards for phytosanitary measures and phytosanitary treatments were at the core of the Commission’s Agenda. Among others, these included the determination of the pest status of an area, requirements for national plant protection organizations when authorizing entities to perform phytosanitary actions as well as the treatment of a range of quarantine pest species such as the Queensland fruit fly or Mediterranean fruit fly which are considered highly invasive insects with high dispersive ability.
Can phytosanitary measures override globalization?
The importance of ensuring plant health and reducing the spread of diseases is unquestionable. Hence this issue is worth considering in depth in order to understand what has driven the spread of pests and diseases in the first place. More specifically, it concerns the so-called Invasive Alien Species (IAS), or exotic species which are living organisms “that are introduced accidentally or deliberately into a natural environment where they are not normally found, with serious negative consequences for their new environment.”
IAS can permanently alter ecosystems with devastating consequences for the environment and the economy. For instance, national experts counted 429 invasive plants species established in Australia with “the economic cost of weeds to the Australian economy within agricultural areas alone estimated to be approximately $4 billion annually.” It also concerns invasive insects in agricultural production which cause “losses of $4.7 billion annually and cost up to $8 billion annually considering all impacts and expenses”. However, without referring to IAS, FAO confirms that approximately 40% of global crop production, worth approximately $200 billion, is simply lost because of the plants’ pests and diseases. While there is a variety of factors contributing to this, the spread of exotic species is certainly one of the aspects deserving particular attention.
It goes without saying that biological material that is invisible to the human eye which includes seeds, pollen, and microorganisms can be easily transferred from one country to another by traded goods as well as by people themselves. Thus, according to existing evidence:
“At the global scale, commercial trade propels rising annual and cumulative rates of invasion due to the development of new source and recipient regions, trade routes, and markets, as well as new products, larger and faster ships, and increased air transport.”
So, global trade, which is not among the standards and measures agreed by the Commission, is one of the drivers of plant pests and diseases. In addition to the opportunities it brings, global trade also introduces a range of risks and, therefore, invites us to look at food production and distribution models that require less transport which, among other things, is also more energy-efficient.
See also: Energy-smart agricultural systems: decoupling oil from food production
Potential of short supply chains
One of the ways to prevent and reduce the spread of plants pests and diseases is to favour local and short supply chains. As a matter of fact, evidence suggests that the interest among policy and decision-makers in Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs) is increasing. Thus, a research project funded by the European Union concludes that:
“Short food supply chains (SFSCs) can act as a driver of change and a method to increase sustainability, trust, equality and growth in agricultural, food, business, social, health and rural policy areas.”
This model represents an alternative to the globalized agri-food production and trade. Not only does it reduce the risk of introducing unknown pests and diseases, it also fosters a closer relationship between producers and consumers making it a win-win case. This idea is echoed by the European Economic and Social Committee, the EU advisory body, and the institution representing organized civil society:
“Short-chain sales offer a real opportunity for small structures to build up the added value and profitability of farms. This re-localisation‑ brings jobs and local dynamism, with a strong commitment on the part of farmers who are bringing it about. For consumers, it is a source of fresh, high-quality produce that is enriched by its history and the human relations involved, and acts to stimulate interest and educate people about food and the value of products.”
This being so, short food supply chains have the potential to address a range of issues at once including that of plants and crop health, at least in part. While promoting locally produced food, it also fosters the development of rural economy and can save billions of taxpayers’ money e.g., by preventing the introduction of exotic species. It is, therefore, sensible for governments to look more closely at the opportunities to explore the potential of this pre-globalization food production model.
