G20 Transboundary and Emerging Plant Pests: Cross Cutting Issues Discussion Group - a Global Overview

G20 Transboundary and emerging plant pests: Cross cutting issues discussion group - A global overview

Alan MacLeod1, Kiyofumi Abe2, Shoki Al-Dobai3, Özlem Altindisli4, Rebijith Kayattukandy Balan5, Odile Carisse6, EC DG AGRI7, Baldissera Giovani 8, Hiroshi Honjo2, Nico Horn 9, Aynur Karahan4, Masayasu Kato10, Suat Kaymak4, Victor Kommerell11, Cezarina Kora6, Ulrich Kuhlmann12, Christian Lannou13, Yasuo Ohto14, Helen Pennington1, Françoise Petter9, Rajan15, Philippe Reignault16, Erich Rudj17, Mike Sutton-Croft1, Sengottaiyan Vennila15 and Rebecca Weekes18

1 Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom 2 Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan 3 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO 4 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Turkey 5 Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand 6 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Canada 7 Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission 8 Euphresco - European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) 9 European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) 10 Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences, Japan 11 The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) 12 Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI) 13 National Institute for Agricultural Research, France 14 National Agriculture and Food Research Organization, Japan 15 Indian Council of Agricultural Research, India 16 French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, France 17 US Department of Agriculture, USA 18 Fera Science Limited, United Kingdom

Contents G20 Transboundary and emerging plant pests: Cross cutting issues discussion group - A global overview ...... 0 Executive Summary ...... 4 Introduction ...... 4 Reference laboratories and collaboration ...... 4 Research collaboration ...... 5 Biovigilance ...... 5 Contributions to the International Year of Plant Health 2020 ...... 6 Acronyms ...... 7 1 Introduction ...... 8 2 Designation of reference laboratories and establishment of networks among them ...... 9 2.1 Introduction ...... 9 2.2 Designation of reference laboratories ...... 10 2.2.1 Authorization in CGIAR laboratories ...... 11 2.2.2 Referral laboratories ...... 11 2.3 Triggers for establishing National Reference Laboratories ...... 12 2.3.1 Europe ...... 12 2.3.2 USA ...... 14 2.3.3 CGIAR reference laboratories ...... 15 2.4 Main tasks of diagnostic reference laboratories ...... 15 2.4.1 National reference laboratories of NPPOs ...... 15 2.4.2 Diagnostic and reference laboratories in CABI and the CGIAR consortium ...... 16 2.5 Challenges in establishing National Reference Laboratories ...... 17 2.5.1 Identifying responsibility for designating NRLs ...... 17 2.5.2 Lack of suitable infrastructure ...... 17 2.5.3 Accessing and maintaining reference material ...... 18 2.5.4 Staff skills ...... 18 2.5.5 Keeping up to date ...... 18 2.5.6 Finance ...... 19 2.6 Existing networks for international cooperation between reference laboratories ...... 19 2.6.1 Networks in related areas ...... 22 2.7 The benefits of networks and international cooperation ...... 24 2.8 Challenges with international cooperation ...... 25 2.9 Future directions for reference laboratories and networks between them ...... 27 3 Biovigilance ...... 28

3.1 Introduction ...... 28 3.2 Awareness of emerging pests: current systems and challenges ...... 29 3.3 Staff resources used to assess and prioritise emerging and transboundary pests ...... 32 3.4 Prioritisation ...... 35 3.5 Issues around pest reporting ...... 36 3.6 Biovigilance: Directions for collaborative research to improve early warnings ...... 37 3.7 Biovigilance: Future needs to improve pest management ...... 38 3.7.1 Contingency planning for quarantine pests ...... 39 3.7.2 Future needs for the development, validation and implementation of pest management measures to minimise impact and reduce spread ...... 40 3.7.3 Mobile Apps for crop pests/ disease diagnosis, surveillance networking and management guidance ...... 43 4 Research collaboration ...... 44 4.1 Introduction ...... 44 4.2 Euphresco: A model framework for international research coordination ...... 44 4.2.1 Euphresco: A brief history ...... 44 4.2.2 How does Euphresco operate? ...... 45 4.2.3 Future directions ...... 46 4.3 Other examples of collaboration ...... 46 4.3.1 EU support for plant health research ...... 46 4.4 Future features of research collaboration ...... 47 4.4.1 Immediacy of research ...... 47 5 Contributions to the International Year of Plant Health: IYPH 2020 ...... 49 5.1 Introduction ...... 49 5.2 Objectives...... 49 5.3 Helsinki conference ...... 50 5.4 Planning activities ...... 50 5.5 Sample activities ...... 51 5.5.1 Scientific events ...... 51 5.5.2 Events with industry...... 52 5.5.3 Educational events (school age) ...... 53 5.5.4 Public events ...... 53 5.5.5 Media activities ...... 54 5.5.6 Cultural events ...... 54 6 References ...... 55 Appendix 1: Introduction to the G20 ...... 59

Appendix 2: Centres in the CGIAR Consortium ...... 60 Appendix 3: Desert Locust Monitoring and Early Warning System ...... 61 A3.1 FAO Desert Locust (Schistocerca gregaria) Monitoring and Early Warning System ...... 61 A3.2 FAO Locust watch in Caucasus and Central Asia (CCA) ...... 62 Appendix 4: The epidemiosurveillance (ESV) platform ...... 63 Appendix 5: Transnational research collaboration: Recently agreed EUPHRESCO projects ...... 65 Appendix 6: eDNA ...... 67

Executive Summary Introduction During the annual Meeting of G20 Agricultural Chief Scientists (MACS-G20) in April 2019 participants discussed emerging and transboundary plant pests. Overarching themes and cross-cutting issues relevant to international collaboration on such pests were explored in more detail via exchanges of a virtual discussion group which operated between mid- September and late-November 2019. The discussion group was tasked to consider four main topics (i) designation of reference laboratories, the establishment of networks among them and with research institutes, and universities; (ii) challenges and future directions of collaborations; (iii) biovigilance, and (iv) contributions to the International Year of Plant Health 2020. The present document represents the findings of the discussion group which were summarised at a workshop in Tsukuba, Japan, 27-29 November 2019.

Reference laboratories and collaboration To minimize impacts of emerging and transboundary plant pests and diseases, their early detection and correct diagnosis is essential. The need to coordinate activities and harmonize and optimize analysis quality standards between diagnostic laboratories has driven the development of national reference laboratories (NRLs). The challenges of establishing and maintaining a NRL includes the lack of long term funding, shortage of skilled staff, difficulty in accessing reference material and keeping staff and equipment up to date with technological developments. A lack of financial resources also contributes to such ongoing challenges. Most NRLs undergo some level of cooperation with other institutes both domestically and internationally. Collaborating NRLs seek to explore and develop solutions to problems they have in common such as the most appropriate diagnostic methods to use. There are clear benefits and advantages to operating and cooperating within a network of diagnostic laboratories. Indeed, as the number of pest and disease threats increase so too does the importance of diagnostic networks in which laboratories collaborate in sharing knowledge to rapidly and precisely identify harmful organisms. Such networks have become crucially vital for the deployment of appropriate control and/or mitigation measures. Cooperation between laboratories also broadens capacity to respond to a wider range of pest groups. Regional Plant Protection Organisations (RPPOs) can support member countries by establishing regional standards for diagnostics and sharing and coordinating technical meetings. Recognising that most invasive plant pests are transboundary in nature, international cooperation is key for knowledge-sharing. IPPC puts global phytosanitary research coordination and diagnostic lab networking among its priority areas for the IPPC development agenda 2020-2030 under the draft IPPC Strategic Framework 2020-2030. Regional reference laboratories and centres of excellence, such as the five European Reference laboratories for plant Health and the laboratories in the CGIAR consortium, and ICIPE (International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology), can provide a means of increasing regional capacity for pest detection and disease diagnosis. Staff exchanges between laboratories builds and strengthens relationships easing collaboration. Nevertheless, hurdles between countries remain and inconsistent funding can hinder cooperation. International cooperation at a regional and

global level should be encouraged and strengthened with a focus towards implementing IPPC objectives in dealing with transboundary and emerging plant pests and pathogens. At a time when the skills in traditional morphological identification are being lost worldwide, developing technologies are changing the ability to discover and identify new pests and diseases, not only in laboratories, but also in the field. High throughput systems and in situ diagnostic methods can partly compensate for the loss of some skills but such technology is not available across the globe. Combing traditional methods with new technologies provides an opportunity for researchers and taxonomists to better work together to increase efficiency and take advantage of new tools. Research collaboration Although the likelihood of species introductions has grown as a result of increased global trade and transport links, with climate change also contributing, public resources and budgets to invest in research, including national phytosanitary research budgets, has in many cases declined. Combining resources to investigate problems that countries have in common and to develop solutions of mutual benefit can address some of the difficulties faced by researchers and their funders alike. A working model framework for international research coordination is provided by Euphresco. This network of organisations funding plant health research projects consists of research programme owners, research programme managers, policy makers, regulators and scientists. The network facilitates international communication and collaboration and more coordinated actions of plant health players such as researchers, regulators and the policy makers who use research results and findings to inform decisions over new pest risks. Euphresco provides a model on which other regional networks for research collaboration could be based. Links between related networks could establish a platform for global coordination. Biovigilance Systems to improve biovigilance through expanding and enhancing existing networks as well as thorough integration of information flows are needed. Such a proposal aligns with the draft IPPC strategy for the development of a pest outbreak alert and response system and with recent calls in literature for the development of global surveillance systems. Extension workers and those involved on the ground in “plant clinics” could contribute to a wide base forming the front line of a diagnostic network and early warning system. Early warning and transparency are essential factors in protecting the plant health status of each country. As contracting parties to the IPPC, NPPOs are responsible for communicating immediate or potential danger from the occurrence, outbreak or spread of a pest that is a quarantine pest in the country in which it is detected, or a quarantine pest for neighbouring countries and trading partners. Failing to share information about an emerging pest or disease can endanger the phytosanitary status of neighbouring countries and trading partners. Despite best efforts, it is inevitable that pests will continue to spread internationally and NPPOs and partners should be prepared. RPPOs can support member countries and NPPOs by providing a horizon scanning service within the region (e.g. EPPO Reporting Service, NAPPO Pest Alert). Whilst NPPOs may have generic emergency response plans and mechanisms to deal with new pest incursion there is scope for improving collaboration and sharing contingency plans. Such

contingency plans speed up reactions to incursions and make eradication efforts more likely to succeed. For pests where eradication is not the objective, there is a need for the development, validation and implementation of pest management measures to minimise impact and reduce spread of emerging and transboundary pests. Contributions to the International Year of Plant Health 2020 The International Year of Plant Health 2020 provides an ideal opportunity to raise global awareness on how protecting plant health can help end hunger, reduce poverty, protect the environment, and boost economic development. It allows all plant health stakeholders to come together and commit to improving awareness of plant health. G20 members and stakeholder organisations are planning a broad range of scientific, industry focussed (e.g. agricultural, horticultural and silvicultural sectors), educational, public, media and cultural events that are designed to capitalize on this unique opportunity and to make IYPH a success with a lasting legacy.

Acronyms AAFC Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada ANSES French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (includes Plant Health Laboratory) CGIAR formerly the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (known by its Spanish acronym CIMMYT for Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo) CPM Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (of the IPPC) EFSA European Food Safety Authority EMPRES Emergency Prevention System EPPO European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization EU European Union EURL European Union Reference Laboratory EUPHRESCO European phytosanitary research coordination FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations G20 Group of 20 ICARDA International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas ICIPE International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics IHME Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation IICA Inter-American Institution for Cooperation on Agriculture IPPC International Plant Protection Convention ISPM International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures IYPH International Year of Plant Health MACS Meeting of Agricultural Chief Scientists NGO Non-governmental organization NAPPO North American Plant protection Organization NPPO National plant protection organization PRA Pest risk analysis RPPO Regional plant protection organization SMTA Standard Material Transfer Agreement UN United Nations USAID United States Agency for International Development

1 Introduction The 8th Meeting of G20 Agricultural Chief Scientists (MACS-G20) in Japan (25-26 April 2019) recognized that transboundary plant pests pose a serious threat to food security and the environment and that collaboration and international research is needed to implement effective action against such pests. This report is the result of using basic questionnaires to collect information, opinions and ideas on specific cross cutting issues and “virtual discussion”, primarily via e-mail, by participating members of G20 and invited organisations or individuals with relevant expertise on cross cutting issues across the range of emerging and transboundary plant pests. In addition, members of the CGIAR consortium of International Agricultural Research Centres contributed to the discussion to bring a global south1 perspective. The discussion group was tasked to summarize the current condition of the following issues: • designation of reference laboratories for plant pests and the establishment of networks among them, • bio-vigilance (i.e. identification and mitigation of potential threats before they impact the agricultural sector), • the challenges and future directions of research collaborations, and • contributions to the International Year of Plant Health, 2020. Each of the issues above is reported in specific chapters that follow. Challenges facing reference laboratories, workers operating within a biovigilance framework and researchers working transnationally are described in chapters 2, 3 and 4, together with suggestions for future directions for each of these three major cross cutting issues. With global attention focused on the crucial issue of plant health at last, the International Year of Plant Health 2020 is an ideal opportunity for all plant health stakeholders to come together and commit to improving awareness of plant health. Chapter 5 summarises the objectives of IYPH and outlines some of the scientific, industry focussed, educational, public, media and cultural events that discussants, or their organisations, are involved with during 2020. A broad range of events has been designed to capitalize on this unique opportunity and to make IYPH a success with a lasting impact.

1 Global south is a term used to refer to low and middle income countries located in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean and is preferred to earlier terms such as developing countries or Third world.

2 Designation of reference laboratories and establishment of networks among them

2.1 Introduction As plants and plant products are moved around the world, NPPOs monitor potential pathways for the introduction or spread of regulated pests. Material may be randomly sampled or sampled on suspicion that it is contaminated, for example by a regulated pest. Whilst specific field diagnostic kits have been used in some countries to diagnose specific pests for some years (e.g. Danks & Barker, 2000; Tomlinson et al., 2005), it is more common to send samples to diagnostic laboratories for pests to be identified and diseases to be diagnosed. Conversely, to support the international movement of plant material such as germplasm, material can be tested in diagnostic laboratories to confirm its plant health status prior to shipping. A reference laboratory is required when the effectiveness of official controls and other official activities depends on: (i) the quality, uniformity and reliability of the methods of analysis (e.g. pest diagnostic methods used in official laboratories), and (ii) the results of the analyses, tests and diagnoses performed by official laboratories. Some countries have several diagnostic laboratories, especially if they are large countries, or when responsibility for plant health is devolved to a sub-national level, e.g. to regions or states. The laboratories involved are authorized by the NPPO to perform diagnostic activities and to provide official analysis results for regulated pests; they can be regarded as “official laboratories”. Guidelines on the authorization of diagnostic laboratories have been published for use in the EPPO region (EPPO, 2016). A reference laboratory is required when there is a need to promote uniform practices in relation to the development or use of the methods for analysis, test or diagnosis across a number of “official laboratories”. IPPC puts global phytosanitary research coordination and diagnostic laboratory networking among its priority areas for the IPPC development agenda 2020-2030 under the draft IPPC Strategic Framework 2020-2030 (FAO, 2019). National Reference Laboratories (NRLs) have been established in some countries to harmonize and coordinate diagnostic activities of diagnostic laboratories. Some CGIAR Centers form part of NRLs (e.g. ICRISAT in India, CIAT in Colombia). Amongst other tasks, NRLs work on the validation of laboratory tests, conduct tests on samples received from their own country and countries elsewhere, share reagents for laboratory test validation by certain national reference laboratories, provide diagnostic laboratories with reference samples and organise inter-laboratory proficiency tests. In the EU, each Member state has designated NRLs to work with each of the five European reference laboratories (EURLs) on bacteria, fungi and oomycetes, insects and mites, nematodes, and viruses, viroids and phytoplasmas, i.e. national reference laboratories work with regional reference laboratories.

Information on why reference laboratories have been set up, the tasks they conduct and their links to existing networks were gathered systematically using a simple one page questionnaire sent to members of the cross cutting discussion group. Contributions were received from NPPO reference laboratories and laboratories supporting NPPOs but whose main mandate is not necessarily linked to an NPPO, such as diagnostic laboratories in the CGIAR consortium and CABI laboratories. Below we present a summary of findings.

2.2 Designation of reference laboratories In general NRLs need some form or recognition, such as being recognised by an accreditation or standards system. Several NRLs operate in accordance with ISO 17025 (General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories). NRLs must also be competent in all the methods of laboratory analysis, test or diagnosis required, impartial and free from any conflict of interest and equipped with the necessary tools to perform their tasks in emergency situations. NRLs should also use suitably qualified staff which have had adequate training in the diagnostic techniques required; have the infrastructure, equipment and products necessary to carry out the required tasks; ensure that staff have good knowledge of international standards and practices; take into account the latest developments in research at national and international level and comply with relevant biosecurity standards. The procedure for designating a NRL varies between countries but could involve the laboratory seeking accreditation being provided with scoping documents describing what is required including details of the necessary protocols for making valid pest diagnoses for regulatory purposes. The laboratory should then provide evidence of the competency of its staff and describe the laboratory infrastructure. There could be site visits to evaluate the laboratory. If the diagnostic laboratory meets the necessary requirements it can be designated as a diagnostic reference laboratory by the government or other competent authority. Some of the NRLs have recognised international systems of accreditation, such as ISO 17025. Other laboratories, acting as an agent for a NPPO, have contractual or other types of arrangements between the NPPO and the laboratory, such as a Memorandum of Understanding, a third party oversight body or other procedures. Such laboratories must take part in proficiency testing organized by NRLs to ensure standards are maintained. In the EU, the NRLs have to be accredited for the methods used in the frame of official activities, according to ISO 17025. In the USA, the National Plant Pathogen Laboratory Accreditation Program (NPPLAP) evaluates laboratories that use molecular diagnostics for APHIS PPQ to ensure their capability to make accurate diagnostic determinations for regulatory purposes. In addition to ensuring laboratory capability within PPQ and other agencies in the USDA, NPPLAP engages the

National Plant Diagnostic Network2 (NPDN) and state agricultural department laboratories in this process to increase diagnostic capacity and proficiency in a dispersed laboratory network (Stack et al., 2006). The goal of this program is to ensure diagnostic capacity for USDA regulatory programs and to establish a state of readiness when needed by PPQ in emergency situations. NPPLAP also fosters the adoption of practices that promote continuous improvement and accreditation standards suitable for use by plant diagnostic laboratories and serves to develop functional Quality Management systems for plant diagnostic laboratories. NPPLAP currently accredits laboratories to diagnose Phytophthora ramorum and the causal agent of Huanglongbing (citrus greening) pathogen, and certifies laboratory diagnosticians to test for Phytophthora ramorum, citrus greening, and plum pox virus. USDA APHIS PPQ also manages an extensive permitting process under which laboratories, including State and university facilities, can be authorized to receive and hold plant pests, pathogens, and other organisms of regulatory interest. Licensing arrangements for holding and researching regulated plant pests are also in place in other NPPOs.

2.2.1 Authorization in CGIAR laboratories The main responsibility of CGIAR-GHUs is to ensure production, maintenance and distribution of propagation material free of harmful quarantine pests. Germplasm exchange is a regulated process governed by the phytosanitary standards of the IPPC and the policies and procedures of NPPOs that implement IPPC standards. CGIAR centres have adopted a strict code of practise, to ensure phytosanitary compliance executed by the purpose-made Germplasm Health Units (GHUs) that were established as per IPPC recommendation (6th International Plant Protection Congress, August 1993). The diagnostic procedures and protocols used in GHU centres are accredited methods of ISTA. The exchange of breeding genotypes and genetic resources is guided by the International Treaty on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. A duly filled and signed Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA) is compulsory to access the materials for conservation and use in research, breeding and education.

2.2.2 Referral laboratories Growers are often familiar with the common pests and diseases that may be expected on the crops they grow. The pests and diseases are recognisable and can be managed appropriately. However, when plant health stakeholders such as extension workers, crop consultants and growers encounter something unusual they may seek help in identifying a pest or disease so as to manage the plant resources they are responsible for. Local laboratories may be called upon to help with a diagnosis. If the laboratory is unfamiliar with the symptoms or has difficulties in identifying the pest they might refer to another laboratory and pass on a sample for diagnosis elsewhere. A subsequent diagnosis may be part of a commercial transaction which also includes advice regarding pest management. If a quarantine pest is diagnosed the

2 The NPDN is a consortium of Federal, State , and university based laboratories engaged in pest and pathogen diagnostics

NPPO should be informed and it is likely that another diagnosis will be performed for official purposes by an official laboratory or by a NRL.

2.3 Triggers for establishing National Reference Laboratories There are a variety of triggers used to set up national reference laboratories. Primarily it is the need to coordinate and harmonize activities between diagnostic laboratories that leads to the development of NRLs. In addition, NRLs provide a given country with official diagnostic methods and give reassurance that pests are correctly identified when taking risk management and/or phytosanitary decisions. NRLs have a recognised competence and can develop new detection and diagnostic technologies which are used to support action against quarantine and transboundary pests. It is worth noting that in the human health, food safety and animal health arenas there is a hierarchy of diagnostic laboratories ranging from diagnostic laboratory to national reference laboratory, to regional reference laboratory, to global reference laboratory at the top. Plant health diagnostic laboratories have not developed to this extent although in Europe they are beginning to develop the first three tiers of such a hierarchy. For example five regional reference laboratories have been established in the EU, as European Union Reference Laboratories, EURLs. Amongst the G20 discussants it was considered unnecessary to develop global reference laboratories for plant health purposes in the current circumstances.

2.3.1 Europe 2.3.1.1 National Reference Laboratories In 2017, the Smarter Rules for Safer Foods (SRSF) package of regulations was introduced by the EU with the aim of strengthening the enforcement of health and safety standards for the whole agri-food chain. As provided in the Official Controls Regulations (EU) 2017/625, each EU member state has a legal obligation to establish NRLs. In each member state of the EU the NPPO must designate official laboratories that carry out the laboratory analyses, tests and diagnoses on samples taken during official controls and other official activities. A member state may also decide to designate a NRL from another country as their National Reference Laboratory. The member state must also designate NRLs to work with each of the five EURLs. The lists of these NRLS will be made publicly available on the EURL websites. In the EU, NRLs:

• coordinate the activities of the official laboratories • validate reagents • maintain relevant databases • participate in proficiency tests organized by the EURLs • participate in training organized by the EURLs • disseminate the information received from the EURLs

2.3.1.1.1 Regional Reference Laboratories in the EU The plant health regulation 2016/2031 sets out controls for protecting plants from pests and diseases. The official controls regulation is a cross cutting piece of legislation which sets out

12 how the rules are monitored and enforced and covers different fields in addition to plant health. The Responsibilities and tasks of European Union reference laboratories are defined in the Regulation 2017/625 and are as follows (extracts of the regulation presented) European Union reference laboratories (EURLs) shall contribute to the improvement and harmonisation of methods of analysis, test or diagnosis to be used by official laboratories. a) providing national reference laboratories with details and guidance on the methods of laboratory analysis, testing or diagnosis, including reference methods; (b) providing reference materials to national reference laboratories; (c) coordinating the application by the national reference laboratories and, if necessary, by other official laboratories of the methods referred to in point (a), in particular, by organising regular inter-laboratory comparative testing or proficiency tests and by ensuring appropriate follow-up of such comparative testing or proficiency tests in accordance, where available, with internationally accepted protocols, and informing the Commission and the Member States of the results and follow-up to the inter-laboratory comparative testing or proficiency tests; (d) coordinating practical arrangements necessary to apply new methods of laboratory analysis, testing or diagnosis, and informing national reference laboratories of advances in this field; (e) conducting training courses for staff from national reference laboratories and, if needed, from other official laboratories, as well as of experts from third countries; (f) providing scientific and technical assistance to the Commission within the scope of their mission; (g) providing information on relevant national, Union and international research activities to national reference laboratories; (h) collaborating within the scope of their mission with laboratories in third countries and with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), …; (i) assisting actively in the diagnosis of outbreaks in Member States of foodborne, zoonotic or animal diseases, or of pests of plants, by carrying out confirmatory diagnosis, characterisation and taxonomic or epizootic studies on pathogen isolates or pest specimens; (j) coordinating or performing tests for the verification of the quality of reagents and lots of reagents used for the diagnosis of pests of plants; (k) where relevant for their area of competence, establishing and maintaining: (i) reference collections of pests of plants and/or reference strains of pathogenic agents; (ii) reference collections of materials intended to come into contact with food used to calibrate analytical equipment and provide samples thereof to national reference laboratories; (iii) up-to-date lists of available reference substances and reagents and of manufacturers and suppliers of such substances and reagents; and

(l) where relevant for their area of competence, cooperate among themselves and with the Commission, as appropriate, to develop methods of analysis, testing or diagnosis of high standards. As regards point (i) of point (k), the European Union reference laboratory may establish and maintain those reference collections and reference strains by contractual outsourcing to other official laboratories and to scientific organisations.

Five EURLs have been established following a formal selection process. They are formed of consortia between different National Reference Laboratories and have been established for the different taxa (see below, in brackets countries of NRLs participating in the consortium) the only exception being the EURL for fungi which is operated by France (ANSES) alone. • Bacteria (NL (NVWA) + BE, IT, SI) • Fungi (FR (ANSES)) • Insects & mites (FR (ANSES) + AT) • Nematodes (FR (ANSES) + BE) • Virology (NL (NVWA) + IT, SI)

2.3.2 USA In the USA, there are four main USDA APHIS PPQ NRLs. They are in Mission, Texas; Buzzard Bay, Massachusetts (the Otis Lab); Fort Collins, Colorado; and Beltsville, Maryland. Each was established for slightly different reasons.

• Molecular diagnostic functions at the USDA APHIS PPQ Laboratory in Mission, were first established to support the study and identification of insects used for biocontrol and pest management. It has since expanded its molecular identification emphasis to support insect identification of domestic captures from trap/surveillance programs and from port interceptions. It serves as the primary institution for identification of fruit flies of economic significance. The laboratory provides identification of insects and other invertebrates (snails/slugs) to confirm species identity of specimens and identify population variants of a species to support pathway studies. • The Otis laboratory was established as a joint APHIS ARS laboratory to research the incursion of the European gypsy moth. Since then the laboratory has developed molecular diagnostics for gypsy moth and to distinguish between the non-flight capable European GM females and the flight capable Asian GM females. • The laboratory at Fort Collins (FCL) was developed to perform research on Old World bollworm when it was first discovered in the New World. Currently, the FCL molecular laboratory develops diagnostics for a variety of Lepidoptera species and other insect plant pests. • The Laboratory for Plant Pathogens in Beltsville was established as the PPQ methods lab and Karnal bunt (Tilletia indica) was one of the first pests to work on. Since then the laboratory scope has expanded to cover all PPQ regulated plant pathogens including PCN (potato cyst nematode).

2.3.3 CGIAR reference laboratories CGIAR Centers work together with many reference laboratories worldwide e.g. on wheat rusts with Aarhus Uni. (Denmark) and Kansas State Uni. (USA). CGIAR reference laboratories were established to provide accurate confirmation of pest and pathogen identity and molecular diagnostics capacity in countries where they operate and collaborate with. They were also established to provide training and sometimes act as stop-gap reference laboratories for a developing country NPPO partners (e.g. IITA/striga). Some CGIAR Centers’ Germplasm Health Units ‘officially’ perform national/NPPO functions, such as diagnosis tests and required treatment for exports. CGIAR Centers and NPPOs also collaborate in regional monitoring networks, such as RustTracker.org. The CGIAR Big Data Platform supports innovation in disease diagnostics. CGIAR Center and NPPO/NARS scientists do joint research to identify sources of resistance or tolerance (germplasm, agronomy- or policy-driven). They do this bilaterally or in networks that often bridge developed and developing countries’ partners. See 2.6 and 2.6.1, below. 2.4 Main tasks of diagnostic reference laboratories 2.4.1 National reference laboratories of NPPOs EPPO (2017) lists the tasks that EPPO member countries identified as essential for a NRL to carry out. Whilst the Official Controls Regulations (EU) 2017/625 lists the responsibilities and tasks of the EU NRLs. Table 1 lists the tasks and identifies which are conducted by NRLs in our sample of G20 NPPOs.

Table 1: Tasks of National Reference Laboratories of NPPOs in G20 countries

Canada France India Japan New Zealand UK USA How many diagnostic NRLs have been 4 6 1 1 3 4a established? Are the NRLs limited to a group of pests? No No No No No Nob Yes c Main tasks, to… establish official diagnostic protocols        perform validation of tests (assays)       collaborate on the development of diagnostic      protocols d provide confirmation of a diagnostic result        provide training of staff of other laboratories        organize proficiency tests      participate in proficiency tests       provide information on new developments in        diagnostics provide information on reference material       provide reference material       provide technical-scientific support to the        NPPO

a US highlight 4 main NRLs in Mission, Texas; in Buzzard Bay, Massachusetts; Fort Collins, Colorado; and in Beltsville, Maryland. USDA/APHIS/PPQ has 5 other locations that provide for added lab support services as may be required by the Agency. These facilities are located in Miami, Florida; Raleigh, North Carolina; Phoenix, Arizona; Biloxi, Mississippi; and Salinas, California. Not all labs conduct all tasks. The number of ticks indicates how many of the 4 main NRLs perform each task. b except AFBI (NI) which is limited to nematology c Laboratories specialise d e.g. IPPC / regional protocols

2.4.2 Diagnostic and reference laboratories in CABI and the CGIAR consortium CABI is an international not for profit organisation, which frequently liaises with NPPOs from the 49 CABI Member Countries and countries associated with the Plantwise programme on issues relating to plant health, including pest and disease diagnostics. CABI offers free-diagnostic services to help identify and confirm new and emerging problems within developing countries. In addition, CABI has a Microbial Identification Service, which is a UKAS accredited testing facility No. 0353 and offers commercial molecular identification of fungi, yeasts and bacteria. 11 CGIAR Germplasm Health Units collaborate with NPPOs in 35 countries, to ensure safe international germplasm exchange. CGIAR Germplasm Health Units (CG-GHUs) are not part of any specific NPPO but they work very closely with NPPOs, almost on a daily basis in relation to phytosanitary testing of plant propagation material imported and exported from CGIAR genebanks and breeding programs, as well as their national partners. There is at least one NRL available in each of the countries of operations. Table 2: Tasks of Reference Laboratories in CABI and the CGIAR consortium

, b

Main tasks, to… C A CGIAR GHU ICARDA ICARDA GHU ICRISAT GLDC Mozambique Stellenboch Tanzania establish official diagnostic protocols        perform validation of tests (assays)       collaborate on the development of         diagnostic protocolse provide confirmation of a diagnostic        result provide training of staff of other         laboratories organize proficiency tests    Participate in proficiency tests     provide information on new       developments in diagnostics provide information on reference       material provide reference material       provide technical-scientific support to         the NPPO

a Mozambique, Stellenbosch and Tanzania are NPPO Laboratories collaborating with CGIAR in a research program on roots, tubers and bananas.

b Global Programme on Prevention of Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense (Foc)) disease of Banana, not a NRL but a global Foc TR4 characterization lab.

2.5 Challenges in establishing National Reference Laboratories Discussants identified several challenges in establishing and maintaining a NRL. The challenges can be grouped into six themes. Each is described below. 2.5.1 Identifying responsibility for designating NRLs In the EU, the eligibility and exclusion criteria for designation for an NRL are described into the Official Controls Regulation (EU) 2017/625 (Article 100), as well as their responsibilities and tasks (Article 101). However, in some parts of the world it is not always clear where the responsibility lies for designating NRLs. There can be overlap between the roles played by different sectors and organizations e.g. government, local governments, governmental research organizations, universities, academic societies relevant to plant pests, and private test companies. There can be differences between laboratories with respect to the mandate they are responsible for, such as those corresponding to particular plants or crops and specific transboundary pests. Establishing the scope of services and protocols to follow that fit with the staff and needs of the parent organization (e.g. NPPO) can be a challenge. Note that table 1 indicates that there is variation between tasks performed by NRLs although all tasks were identified as essential activities, at least for NRLs in the EPPO region (EPPO, 2017). CGIAR feedback also suggests that there can be a lack of clarity on which authority is responsible for nominating “national reference laboratories” within governments. Some default assumptions prevail. For instance, on matters of quarantine pest diagnosis, monitoring import and export material, surveillance and first report of pests, NPPOs claims default responsibility; and domestic seed certification by the national seed certification agency.

2.5.2 Lack of suitable infrastructure Not all countries that are contracting parties to the IPPC have sufficient infrastructure in place to build and maintain a NRL. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa many national programs lack some basic requirements needed to operate diagnostics laboratories. This includes lack of suitable buildings and equipment, support services (regular electricity, water supply, internet, and computers) and access to consumables. For example the procedures for importation of research consumables, equipment and reagents are cumbersome. It can take several weeks to obtain import permits and additional weeks for customs clearance of imported material. This process increases the cost of consumables by several fold. These procedures are like commercial importations and not easy for researchers or research laboratories to understand and implement efficiently.

Having built and equipped an NRL, accreditation, e.g. to ISO 17025 if desired, is also a key challenge. It is a big undertaking for laboratories who are starting this from scratch. There are other ongoing challenges with regard to maintaining a NRL.

2.5.3 Accessing and maintaining reference material There can be difficulties with the acquisition of reference material that include exotic species and in obtaining permission to use field collected specimens from other countries. This has become more difficult since the adoption and entry into force of the Nagoya protocol on access and benefit sharing. Sharing of DNA or DNA sequences can be challenging. It can be expensive to properly maintain the curation facility for the maintenance and storage of biological samples, e.g. viruses, phytoplasmas and nematodes on living plant material. The development of a quality management system (QMS) for a NRL can also be a difficult issue to solve. Often a database system is needed at a NRL. This requires expertise, investment and maintenance. To overcome some of these difficulties encountered by the EU NRLS, the EURLs can coordinate, if needed, the setup of reference material collection, or gather and provide information on the source of such material, in synergy with the EPPO and the resources available in the EPPO databases. 2.5.4 Staff skills A major issue identified by some discussants was the shortage of taxonomic expertise, i.e. the lack of suitably qualified scientists to work in NRLs, an issue linked with the taxonomic impediment (de Carvalho et al., 2007). Not only is there a lack of qualified staff, but there are insufficient resources available to train scientists and to provide their ongoing professional development. Experienced staff may specialise and develop taxonomic expertise in a narrow range of pests. In the EU, the EURLs have been entitled to provide training courses for staff from the NRLs, and if needed from other official laboratories. Retention of staff working at an NRL was identified as problematic; for example trainees often leave and move into another area of biology and trained staff leave to take-up other jobs. For staff that stay, their skills are not upgraded e.g. as new methods and data become accessible. Staff performance and the potential for staff development is also impeded by the factors listed above and below. 2.5.5 Keeping up to date As global trade increases in volume and speed (e.g. Rodriguez et al., 2013) and as countries increase the diversity of material imported (Levine & D'Antonio, 2003; Bradley et al., 2012), demands on diagnostic services increases and there is a need for new and improved fast diagnostic techniques (e.g. use of biosensing). Developing the appropriate services is a constant challenge both in terms of diagnostic methods and trying to train staff, keeping them up to date.

2.5.6 Finance Ultimately all the challenges can be traced to lack of money and the need for long-term sustained investment. Insufficient funding is a perennial problem to maintain laboratories and ensure proper operations. Some diagnostics laboratories operate on “limited” project funding and do not have a sustainable business plan. Operations in new facilities halt as soon as the project ends. In CGIAR laboratories new high profile outbreaks, such as maize lethal necrosis, bunchy top, brown streak and more recently the spread of fall armyworm, has attracted donor investment and often these funds are invested in new facilities rather than to use the funds to improve existing capacity.

Lack of investment in NRLs in some countries is an economic and political choice and could be the result of plant health issues not having a sufficiently high profile. The 2020 International Year of Plant Health provides an opportunity to raise the profile of plant health and could stimulate progress in overcoming some of the challenges identified above.

2.6 Existing networks for international cooperation between reference laboratories Most NRLs home some level of cooperation with other institutes. Domestic links (i.e. within countries) can be more well-established and stronger than international links. NRLs in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA are part of the Quadrilateral Group (Quads), a cooperative framework for plant and animal health. Quad members do not necessarily seek to harmonize protocols but to explore solutions to problems they share in common (Sequeira & Griffin, 2014). Member Countries of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) have agreed in 1998 to initiate a programme to prepare diagnostic protocols for pests recommended for regulation in the EPPO region. Panels of experts have been established in the different disciplines to prepare pest specific diagnostic protocols (bacteriology, entomology, mycology, nematology, virology and phytoplasmology). A horizontal Panel discussing horizontal issues (mainly quality assurance) has also been established. Experts from laboratories (mainly from National Reference Laboratories) from the EPPO region participate in Panel meetings which are organized on a regular basis (e.g. annually of at least every 18 months or more depending on the work programme). The diagnostic protocols are written by drafting teams according to a common format and are then reviewed by experts in the relevant diagnostic Panels. Panel meetings provide the opportunity of discussing how testing is performed in different laboratories, the final aim being the harmonization between countries. It is also an opportunity for networking, and this facilitates direct contacts between experts in between meetings. In addition to pest specific diagnostic protocols experts from the EPPO region also discuss issues related to quality assurance and regional Standards have been developed thanks to the collaboration of experts who share their experience. Regular conferences and Workshop (including training workshops) are also organized to facilitate cooperation between experts. Diagnostic Standards are approved following the regular EPPO Standards approval procedure (written consultation of member countries) which gives the opportunity to experts who are not Panel members to provide their input. These Workshop

are usually open to participation from non EPPO countries (this was the case recently with the Workshop on High-Throughput Sequencing where 45 countries including 12 countries which were not EPPO Member countries participated). Working together EPPO experts have been able to develop around 140 diagnostic Standards including horizontal Standards on quality assurance in particular one standard providing guidance to laboratories preparing for accreditation according to ISO 17025. Since 2006 Euphresco (see 4.2) has provided an opportunity for European laboratories to collaborate and work together on projects of common interest in diagnostics (e.g. development of new tests, organization of inter-laboratory comparisons). The enlargement of Euphresco to non EPPO countries has also provided opportunities for a much wider collaboration (e.g. current project on HTS led by Australia or a project on the validation of molecular diagnostic method for detection on Tomato brown rugose fruit virus led by Mexico). This collaboration at regional level is also a basis for international harmonization and the EPPO Secretariat with the support of its regional experts is contributing to the development of IPPC Diagnostic protocols for plant pests. Some sub-regional network initiatives also exist, such as the Nordic-Baltic laboratory network which is more than 10 years old. It has annual meetings where on-site proficiency testing is done. In the USA, the Fort Collins laboratory has been collaborating with the Dutch NPPO on general Lepidoptera pest issues (taxonomy, identification, etc.) for the past 10 years. For molecular diagnostics, Fort Collins collaborated with Netherlands NPPO on developing a molecular diagnostic assay for Helicoverpa armigera (Old World bollworm), and are currently collaborating on a similar assay for Thaumatotibia leucotreta (false codling moth). US NRLs have also participated in studies with EUPHRESCO on optimizing and validating DNA barcoding protocols for plant pests. In Europe, ANSES in France is a European reference Laboratory with a mandate for fungi & oomycetes, insects, mites and nematodes and hence has a network of NRLs within the EU which it works with. ANSES also has bilateral agreements with non-EU countries concerning scientific and technical training. The sharing of information and resources at a bilateral level may be in direct relation to a specific trade issue, such as diagnostic training for a specific pest of concern (Sequeira & Griffin, 2014). Also in France, INRA (a research institute), collaborates with other laboratories, notably the French ANSES to develop diagnostic protocols. In the UK, NRLs participate in Euphresco to undertake small research projects with laboratories in other countries. Such projects are short term and somewhat ad hoc. In the EU, five EURLs bring support to the EU national competent authorities and to the NRLs for the diagnosis of regulated existing and emerging pests, in order to contribute to a more rapid and focused intervention at EU borders and in the EU territory. Three EURLs are led by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES, France): the EURL on insects and mites, which is also composed of the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES, Austria); the EURL on nematodes, together with the Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO, Belgium); and the EURL on fungi

20 and oomycetes. Two EURLs are led by the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority-National Reference Centre Plant Health (NVWA-NRC, The Netherlands) : the EURL on viruses, viroids, and phytoplasmas, also composed of the Research Centre for Plant Protection and Certification (CREA-DC (DIALAB), Italy), and the National Institute of Biology (NIB, Slovenia); and the EURL on bacteria, also composed of the Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO, Belgium), the Research Centre for Plant Protection and Certification (CREA-DC (DIALAB), Italy), and the National Institute of Biology (NIB, Slovenia). The CGIAR System Organization is a formally established partnership and network that unites international organizations engaged in research for a food-secured future. Appendix 2 lists the international agricultural research centres in the CGIAR Consortium which are spread around the world, which collaborate with national and regional agricultural research institutes, civil society organizations, academia, and private sector partners. For a description of existing international collaborations, see 2.6.1. Most of those collaborations are project- funded (e.g. no permanent, core funding). New, emerging international initiatives: Within the CGIAR, CIAT is leading on the Global Surveillance System initiative and the CGIAR System Organization is considering an Emergency Rapid Response initiative and a partnership with Denmark on antimicrobial resistance. Some of the national and international plant disease diagnosis networks are summarized in Table 3 (adapted from Vakilian, 2017). Plant clinics are included in Table 3. Vakilian (2017) summarises the major activities of plant clinics as:

• providing reliable, accurate, and fast disease diagnosis for farmers and agro-industry agents; • giving useful advice to farmers who have difficulties with pests and pathogens, or other unknown stresses in their farms; • training local phytopathologists, volunteers, and graduate agricultural students to create expert human resources for better cooperation with farmers; • recording disease occurrences in a geographical region through time; • sharing information internationally either by communication with other plant clinics or by publication in scientific journals.

Plant clinics are the smallest elements of plant disease diagnosis networks. Research and academic institutions, plant companies, government NPPOs and international organizations, which have cooperative activities in the field of plant disease diagnosis, are other elements of the networks (Miller et al., 2009) as described above.

Table 3: A summary of some of the national and international plant disease diagnosis networks Network Name Coverage Plant wise (Global Plant Clinic-Centre for More than 3,000 plant clinics in 10 African, 7 Asian, Agricultural Bioscience International, GPC- 4 South American and 1 Central American CABI) countries National Plant Diagnostic Network (NPDN) USA International Plant Diagnostic Network Central America, East and West Africa (IPDN)3 Pest Information Platform for Extension and USA Education (PIPE) European Union virtual biosecurity A virtual biosecurity research and diagnostic framework network for Europe Foundation for Technological Development Nicaragua of Agriculture, Livestock and Forestry of Nicaragua (FUNICA) Plant Health Australia (PHA) Online plant biosecurity toolbox available for Australian and Southern Asian farmers Plant Pest Management Network (PPMN) Taiwan XS Growth plant health clinic An online diagnosis system in India European Reference Laboratories in Plant Five laboratories in the EU Health National Horticulture Mission More than 120 plant clinics in India

2.6.1 Networks in related areas Lessons can be learned from networks in related areas. For example the preservation of crop diversity. In the case of plant genetic resources, dedicated bodies have been established to promote coordination (e.g. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture) and even to provide funding support for gene banks such as the Crop Diversity Trust Endowment Fund for the CGIAR Genebank Platform. CGIAR and NPPO scientists collaborate in bilateral, regional and international networks that often cut aross G20 and developing countries. The networks mostly focus on a particular crop & pest or disease, for example the Fall Armyworm R4D International Consortium, the wheat blast consortium, the JIRCAS-led rice blast research network, or banana TR4. IITA works with CABI and ICIPE on invasive species in Africa. The Turkey-ICARDA Regional Rust Research Center (RCRRC), part of a global wheat rusts research network, researches pathogenic variability of the cereal rust pathogens and tracks their movement. Its “Regional Precision Wheat Rust Phenotyping Platform” serves national breeding programs and support national rust laboratories in the region. CIMMYT and KALRO (Kenya) operate a rusts screening precision phenotyping platform that serves researchers worldwide.

3 IPDN was initiated by USAID to develop local capacity for plant health management and disease diagnosis using communication and data-sharing networks

In Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America, the CGIAR-GHU network (11 Centers) collaborates with NPPOs and regional bodies to ensure phytosanitary protection and compliance with phytosanitary regulations of germplasm movements (e.g. from genebanks or breeding programs), in about 35 countries around the world. Another relevant organisation to consider is CABI which has a network of laboratories providing plant health diagnostic services within developing countries. Whilst recognising the importance of international links, it is worthwhile to consider the benefits of links between laboratories within a country. For example, Canada has national, provincial and private entities engaged in regular data collection and whilst they mainly target established pests, their work can also result in detecting emerging pests. As the NPPO, the CFIA is the designated authority for diagnostic testing of quarantine pests. Canada has linked plant diagnostic networks for the NPPO and informal networks with the provinces and other Federal departments. More formal examples of networks include:

• Prairie Pest Monitoring Network • Provincial phytosanitary networks (e.g. Great Lakes and Maritimes Pest Monitoring Network; Réseau d'avertissements phytosanitaires) • EDD Maps Ontario - Province of Ontario is part of the North American web-based early detection & mapping system for documenting invasive species occurrence In addition, Canada is part of the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds and regularly reports cases of confirmed resistant weed types.

In India, the NPPO operates 34 plant & seed quarantine examination laboratories at seaports, 14 at land custom stations, 12 at airports and 11 at foreign post offices. In addition there is a network of 12 locust monitoring stations and 35 centres that provide advice on integrated pest management. The USDA is a party to, or a sponsor of, several US based plant protection networks, including: • The National Plant Diagnostic Network (NPDN) – a consortium of plant diagnostic laboratories to quickly detect and identify pests and pathogens of concern. Laboratories are located in most all of the 50 US States. • The National Clean Plant Network (NCPN) – a network of laboratories specializing in the diagnostics and therapeutics of select specialty crops for plant pathogens. Clean nuclear stock is housed under controlled conditions with pathogen tested material made available to industry. Laboratories and associated entities, referred to as clean plant centres, number about 30 and are located in 15 States and U.S. territories. They serve the entire country. • The Sentinel Plant Network (SPN) – a collaborative effort with American Public Gardens under which numerous public garden professionals are trained to detect and quickly respond to plant pests and diseases. Relationships are built between the public garden community, diagnosticians, and regulatory officials.

At a larger scale, Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI) host the International Plant Sentinel Network (IPSN) a network of botanic gardens and arboreta called for by Kramer and Hird (2011) and established shortly afterwards (Barham et al., 2015). The IPSN provides a platform for coordination, information exchange and support for sentinel plant research within its members. As well as member gardens, the network includes NPPOs from around the world. The IPSN has developed standardised approaches for monitoring and surveying and has facilitated links to diagnostic support that can help the early detection and rapid response to new pest incursions and contributes to increased biovigilance (Barham et al., 2016). Examples of international networks between government plant health scientists, although not necessarily diagnosticians, include the International Forestry Quarantine Research Working Group (IFQRG) and the International Pest Risk Research Group (IPRRG). IFQRG has been recognised by the IPPC as a collaborating partner for some years whilst IPRRG has only recently developed closer links with the IPPC. Both groups seek to support the IPPC by providing scientific advice on pest issues.

2.7 The benefits of networks and international cooperation Discussants identified clear benefits and advantages to operating and cooperating within a network of diagnostic laboratories. Overall, such cooperation between laboratories broadens the service’s capacity to respond to enquiries from a wider range of pest groups and enables the service to benefit from local knowledge on non-native pests. It is recognized that most invasive plant pests are transboundary in nature hence international cooperation is key for knowledge-sharing, cross-learning and formulating mitigation strategies. Having established networks eases communication, collaboration and coordination on matters of interest. It provides for rapid sharing of pest and disease information, and diagnosis protocols, procedures, technical expertise and troubleshooting. Developing and sharing information on diagnostic protocols and reference/positive control material are key benefits. Links between laboratories facilitate the easier exchange of regulated organisms for purposes such as reference materials among facilities with established collaboration agreements and traditions. Sharing diagnostic protocols and cross validation of procedures can help in attaining an equal level of competency amongst laboratories. In the EU, the EURLs aim at promoting uniform and high standard practices in relation to the development or use of the methods of analysis, test or diagnosis employed by the NRLs. Proficiency tests on bacteria and viruses have been achieved and the outcome of these will serve as input for dissemination of improved practices, as new validation data and for possible implementation of international diagnostic standards. An important aspect of cooperation is the exchange of staff between laboratories. UK NRL gained a lot from visiting other laboratories for training along with collaborations on projects and writing manuscripts for journal publication. By formalising and funding the establishment

of EURLs there is a consistent means of sharing protocols, reference material, training and proficiency testing in the EU which is a major benefit to EU NRLs. Cooperation could lead to gains in efficiency and can benefit institutional development and improvement, not only with respect to science but in management and administration. Recognizing that finance can be a constraining factor, network members can cooperate and build strong partnerships when fund raising of bidding for research projects. Such cooperation improves resource use efficiency through avoidance of duplicate and redundant research Good links between laboratories eases communication and facilitates early warning and sharing of pest distribution data which contributes to the global surveillance of known major pests and emerging pests and pathogens through the national, regional and global nodal connections. For example, by monitoring, race analyses and pathotyping of the rust isolates sent from different countries, the network linked to RCRRC allows coordinated responses to develop following the emergence of new rust strains and allows the identified races to be used in the development of durable rust resistance cultivars and the genetic study of rust resistance in wheat germplasms. Within the CGIAR consortium, networks have established a common strategic framework focused on (i) phytosanitary service “safe germplasm” distribution activities; (ii) research for improving diagnostics of seed-borne pests; (iii) having a common mission of preventing the risk of accidental spread of pests and pathogens along with the germplasm; and (iv) advocacy and outreach to augment policies and capacity for timely access to phytosanitary safe germplasm to the end users.

2.8 Challenges with international cooperation Despite the obvious benefits of international collaboration between laboratories, there remain challenges which restrict the ease of collaborations. First due to legitimate phytosanitary concerns and the desire to maintain biosafety standards, there are differences in plant quarantine regulations and legislation between countries which means exchange of material can be hindered. For example, sharing of reference materials such as specimens and nucleic acids that are needed to perform identification and the sharing of reference libraries such as digital data files that might include unpublished information can generate resistance to cooperation between laboratories. Laboratories may not have the equal access to capital equipment and facilities to enable similar test performance; there can be differences in protocols used, for example if the protocol is not available in the relevant languages. As noted, there can be differences in proficiency tests between laboratories. This could lead to issues of trust and accuracy over diagnostic methods. There can be disagreement that methods used by one lab are appropriate in different countries or locations and under different conditions. In the case of EPPO, standards are produced that provide NRLs with the technical basis ensuring the highest level of homogeneity between methods performed across the different NRLs.

A major concern will be pressure form regulated industries who are concerned about market access and that all partners are equally transparent.

Countries can be inward-looking and challenges can stem from a lack of trust causing an unwillingness to share information which can be linked the pressure to publish original work in peer reviewed journals. One way to foster trust is to have an exchange of staff between laboratories but this can be difficult to fund. Good co-operation is often the product of the personalities working in laboratories together and inevitably the most fruitful co-operation comes from face-to-face discussions, but international travel costs time and money which isn’t always available. A Euphresco project (BUILD), was designed to fund diagnosticians visiting other labs and it really helped establish good links and exchange useful information, building trust. However, if there are only a few staff involved in collaborations, staff turnover can break links and it can take time to re-establish links and collaborations. The challenges identified in establishing and maintaining a NRL were also recognized by discussants as challenges hindering international collaboration. For example, inconsistent funding prevents medium to long term planning such as a networks capacity to develop joint strategies. The lack of suitable infrastructure and equipment constraints such as laboratories not being established to international standards and the lack of quality management systems prevents the development of staff skills and can prevent laboratories from cooperating. There can be a lack of resources to comply with network obligations. Issues related to equity and equality for access to resources and opportunities can hinder collaborations as can the shortage of qualified and skilled laboratory personnel. Once a collaborative network is established unclear expectations and a lack of common understanding on the purpose and objectives of the collaboration can cause it to fail. There can be divergence in the priorities of participating laboratories. In addition there can be different interests and levels of engagement of the parties in a collaboration, for example staff may drop out of a collaboration due to having other priorities and sub-working groups then become too small resulting in few or no deliverables leading to questions arising about the value of the collaboration. Recognising that plant health related networks developed in the past have not always been sustained, it may be possible to learn lessons from an earlier network such as BioNet. BioNet was a global partnership (of people and institutions) of sub-regional networks that mobilised, developed and shared taxonomic capabilities and resources in support of sustainable development. The BioNet International Fund was an international co-funding mechanism established to provide the financial resources needed to develop and maintain BioNet International as a self-sustaining global partnership of sub-regional networks. The fund was established in 1995 with a funding contribution of 2.5M USD from the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC). The Fund was maintained and administered by CABI, however after 10 years it was difficult to secure international donor contributions to sustain the network. CABI explored opportunities to integrate BioNet into its global programme Plantwise, however, the BioNet secretariat at that point in time was not keen to focus only on agricultural plant pests (the focus of Plantwise). Without on-going donor financial support BioNet was not viable.

2.9 Future directions for reference laboratories and networks between them Discussants suggested that international cooperation at a regional and global level should be encouraged and strengthened with a focus towards implementing IPPC objectives in dealing with transboundary and emerging plant pests and pathogens. Although this workshop is organised by G20, new pests could emerge from any country and it will be important to channel financial resources and research capacity in order to support international research efforts and build national capacity in all countries. Technology is allowing information to be gathered and shared more quickly and NRLs should embrace such technology to ease communication. Practical suggestions included being transparent when establishing reference laboratories, e.g. with the tools and methods used in the NRL, to enable other countries to develop similar laboratories and allowing use of harmonized methods (the EURLs will achieve this). Recognising that NRLs are expensive to establish and maintain, there could be increased cross-border collaboration, i.e. a reference laboratory could be used by two or more countries. For example, in the EU, Sweden is working with laboratories in other countries. Short-term training secondments and exchanges of staff should be established and encouraged to foster trust and build relationships between institutes; this will also help develop capacity. As the benefits of diagnostic networks increase and become more widely known, additional networks are likely to be developed; increased co-ordination among such networks will result in improving plant health at the local and global scale (Stack, 2010). The OECD has funded conferences on plant health which have proven very helpful in nurturing international collaboration (e.g. Kriticos & Venette, 2013; MacLeod et al., 2016). The OECD’s funding has also broadened the range of participating countries. Similar conferences focussed on specific issues would be welcome in the future. The EURLs and the EU NRLs identify the pests for which diagnostic methods and their harmonization would be of interest as regards of the possible threats for the internal market but also for introduction of pests not to be known in the EU territory. Involvement of third countries in some of their discussion or activities could therefore be envisaged.

3 Biovigilance 3.1 Introduction Biovigilance can be considered as a multi-step, multidisciplinary forward-looking system of plant protection and research with the objective to prevent potential threats before they impact the agricultural sector (Carisse et al., 2017). It is an approach to anticipate and understand how pests, their natural enemies and environmental conditions may change over time and how pests may spread naturally and through human activities. It enables increased preparedness and informs plant protection decision making to better mitigate threats. Being biovigilant can include making efforts to be prepared for emerging pests4 and the arrival of transboundary pests. There are a variety of approaches used to improve preparedness against emerging plant pests and transboundary pests. For transboundary pests such as the desert locust there are well established systems such as FAO Locust watch (Appendix 3: Desert Locust Monitoring and Early Warning System), used to monitor regional situations and provide forecasts5. More recently the FAO developed the Fall Armyworm Monitoring and Early Warning System (FAMEWS). The system consists of a mobile app used by farmers to collect data and a global platform for mapping the current situation. The data is analysed and shared to produce advice and early warning for all stakeholders. For wheat rust there is CIMMYT Rust tracker (monitoring, tracking) and MARPLE (Mobile And Real-time PLant disease; diagnostics), linked to the Aarhus University Global Rust Reference Center. FAO has plans to develop additional systems for other pests, such as red palm weevil (Rhynchophorus ferrugineus). Carisse et al., (2017) describe six steps in a biovigilance program. Table 4 summarises the steps and merges them into three steps.

Table 4: Steps in a bio-vigilance program (modified from Carisse et al., 2017) # Step Content 1 Awareness and detection/ Be on the lookout for relevant changes, know what to look identification for; check for presence.

2 Understanding and Gather information to create knowledge and assessment /prioritization understanding of the changing pest risk, evaluate the risk, compare against other risks.

3 Appropriate mitigation Based on 2, design and apply mitigation measures and check that measures applied do not have unintended consequences.

4 Emerging pests can be (i) pests that are newly identified and to which significant exposure may occur (e.g. new pests on known pathways), or (ii) new, unexpected or increased exposure to known pests (e.g. new pathways for known pests).

5 The Locusts and Transboundary Plant Pests and Diseases Group at FAO Headquarters is responsible for assisting Member Countries in managing migratory pests, mainly locusts, and diseases through early warning and early reaction. The Group consists of staff at FAO HQ as well as in Algiers, Algeria and Cairo, Egypt.

Information on the approaches used to become aware of emerging pests, the resources used to assess and prioritise pests and methods used to select mitigation measures, together with associated challenges, were gathered systematically using a simple questionnaire sent to members of the cross cutting discussion group. Contributions were received from NPPO reference laboratories and laboratories supporting NPPOs but whose main mandate is not necessarily linked to an NPPO, such as diagnostic laboratories in the CGIAR consortium and CABI laboratories. Discussants identified ways to improve biovigilance through expanding and enhancing existing networks as well as through integration of information flows. Such ideas align with the draft IPPC strategy for the development of a pest outbreak alert and response system (IPPC Secretariat, 2019). Below we present a summary of findings focussing on steps 1 and 2 in Table 4, i.e. the methods used to collect, evaluate and prioritise information (3.2 – 3.6). Step 3, appropriate mitigation and pest management, is discussed in section 3.7. 3.2 Awareness of emerging pests: current systems and challenges To minimize spread and potential future impacts of emerging pests, early detection and appropriate action is essential (Stack et al., 2014). Regarding the detection of transboundary or emerging pests, many NPPOs conduct surveys and monitor border points seeking to identify presence and incursions early. With respect to becoming aware of emerging pests around the world, which could eventually threaten a country or region, NPPOs and RPPOs conduct intelligence gathering activities to maintain vigilance. Conventional methods include scanning and monitoring of scientific journals and other print media either by hand or more likely using digital technologies such as web browsing, Google Alerts and Web of Science Alerts. Such approaches can be considered "horizon scanning” techniques, and are essential to protect plant health; “fore warned is fore armed”. However, there are inevitable delays between detection of a pest and an article reporting the pest appearing in a publication. Such delays might be shorter when media are scanned for reports of the findings of pests as a result of official surveys or by the affected stakeholders. In calling for a global surveillance system for crop diseases, Carvajal-Yepes et al. (2019) recognises that coordinated and swifter action would help slow pest and disease spread. Table 5 summarise findings from questionnaire responses and outline the approaches used for horizon scanning such that organisations become aware of transboundary and/ or emerging pests. The challenges associated with approaches are also summarised.

Table 5: Approaches used by organisations so as to become alerted to transboundary and/ or emerging pests, and their associated challenges Approach Associated challenges 1. Approaches used on the ground / in field / lab

In country national surveillance to detect newly introduced In a large country many pests (e.g. Canada, Turkey, India, Japan and USA). In Japan, sampling sites are target pests for surveillance are listed by national required for reliable risk regulations. EU member states conduct surveys for regulated estimation or early pests and other newly introduced pests. As stipulated in warning. Regulation 2016/2031, multiannual surveys programmes for quarantine pests will be a legal obligation

There may be limits to the capacity for identification Surveillance around entry points such as airports and port Some NPPOs would like to areas or along major roads for countries with land borders; identify if there are “hot- inland areas can also be surveyed, e.g. around packing spots” for introduction houses or places where a lot of wood packaging material is and could use multi- handled and stored. Japan has 10,000 survey points. variate analyses to detect spots for introduction and In France, the ANSES Salsa sanitary alert system gathers potential establishment, suspected or confirmed alerts in ANSES before passing them leading to more targeted to the French NPPO. surveillance

In Turkey 81 provincial directorates and research institutes Information can be slow contribute to national surveillance of plant pests. to return from some districts due to lack of infrastructure Several DNA-based tools for early detection are available and Difficult to keep up with under development; they can reveal new species (potential the disposition of emerging pests) emerging or unknown pests & pathogens identified through new technologies such as high throughput sequencing. The actual distribution of pests newly detected by high throughput sequencing is not known, they may have been widely distributed for a long time already. NPPOs work with universities, provincial and municipal Difficulties in ensuring all governments, non-government organisations, and informed sightings observed by citizens who have some expertise and capacity to alert various stakeholders are NPPOS when potential pests are thought to be present handled the same way, and treated with similar diligence as expertise and introduction frequency vary greatly. Only useable for a part of all pests, especially insects. When several organisations are involved with surveillance there can be overlapping mandates with roles and

responsibilities not delineated. Pest monitoring networks (provincial and private) e.g. in USA Privacy issue when data the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) program are coming directly from conducts pest surveillance activities on target pests to growers proactively detect emerging pests. In India there is the Crop Limit of detection related Pest Surveillance and Advisory Project (CROPSAP) to the technologies used Capacity for identification The Plantwise network of plant clinics based in 34 Working in developing developing countries in Africa, Asia and the Americas countries is challenging receives information from extension agents, on the pests due to weakness in and diseases in country. This information is stored in the training and infrastructure Plantwise Online Management System (POMS), a secure of the organisations information repository for Plantwise countries to monitor involved. The Plantwise the occurrence of pests and diseases. New problems are programme is helping to often detected in the clinics long before they are recognised strengthen these services by the NPPOs. by providing information and bring together different stakeholders in national plant health systems. Plantwise is part of numerous networks where extension It can be difficult to agents regularly share images of pest problems encountered monitor all of the in their countries. This is a form of citizen science that can networks as there is a identify emerging problems in the field. large volume of information and images being shared. Pesticide companies and other organisations with an interest It can take time for NPPOs in pest control can proactively disseminate information on and authorised the occurrence of a new pest in a country. organisations to provide official confirmation of pest presence.

2. Office / desk based approaches

Plant Health risk assessors scan literature in science journals High numbers of articles looking for reports on new pests and diseases, reports of pest and reports need to be spread or shifts in host range. screened. Tools include Lack of standardised Google Alerts and Web Of Science which target websites with platform systems which target pest names or words such as “first report” + “pest enable data repository, name”… management and Plant health Daily Digest6 an automated internet scanning tool information sharing for for Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) effective coordination

6 https: //ibis.intelliriver.systems/source/home

development of automatic survey tools - some already exist but not necessarily adapted to pest surveillance ; searching journals is not adapted to early (rapid) detection

The CABI Plantwise programme regularly monitors the This is an ongoing service literature for new reports of pests and disease worldwide that requires inputs and and sends out pest alerts to those who have signed up for investment. the service

Alert systems provided by others e.g. CABI Plantwise, EPPO Each system provides Reporting Service, EPPO Alert List useful information but (https://www.eppo.int/ACTIVITIES/plant_quarantine/alert_list), outputs are independent EFSA monitoring of science journals and news media and not integrated, and are (MediSys : EFSA Plant Health Email Alert), NAPPO therefore not efficient. Phytosanitary Alert System (www.pestalerts.org) ProMed-Plant Digest Mail, USAID The NAPPO phytosanitary alert system was designed and is The risk of some pest are maintained by a group of experts from each of the national not the same across the plant protection organizations of the three NAPPO countries three NAPPO member (Canada, USA, Mexico). It is a web based system that allows countries. up-to-date sharing of pest information regarding pests of significance to NAPPO countries

3.3 Staff resources used to assess and prioritise emerging and transboundary pests Many NPPOs have a compliment of specialist pest risk assessors, or pest risk analysts who use information from pest monitoring and from the wide variety of sources described above to assess risks to plant health from emerging and transboundary pests (MacLeod, 2015). Assessment and analysis methods used align with IPPC standards for risk analysis (e.g. ISPM 2 (FAO, 2007) and 11 (FAO, 2013)). USDA PPQ has at least 100 risk analysts and scientists dedicated to gathering, synthesizing, and analysing information. Canada has a team of plant health risk assessors in botany, entomology and pathology who are trained in risk assessment of plant pests. UK has a team of 5, France 7. In addition there is a joint INRA-ANSES team in France for data processing and risk analysis using a recently launched French national epidemiological survey platform dedicated to plant health (ESV, epidemio-surveillance, see Appendix 4 for more details). The joint group includes working groups for specific pests, stakeholders and agricultural organizations. In Japan the Plant Protection Station has a research department that collects information on pests in cooperation with other departments. About 50 plant protection officers are assigned.

CABI have approximately 19 staff linked to the development and maintenance of Compendia products. These staff commission and acquire information such as pest datasheet from pest

experts. The information is synthesized and made available through CABI products. There are also a number of technical specialists who help to validate the information before publication. The Plantwise and Action on Invasives programmes make use of approx. 50-60 staff spread across the countries where CABI works. These people have diverse roles within the programme. Within the FAO a number of expert staff from across various units contribute to the production of the “Food Chain Crisis (FCC) Early Warning Bulletin for Food and Agriculture” (https://www.ippc.int/en/news/fcc-early-warning-bulletin-page/). The quarterly reports began in 2011 and are aimed at informing FAO and other international organizations, countries, scientific experts, and decision makers of forecast threats to animal and plant health and food safety that have a potentially high impact on food and nutrition security for the three months ahead. The plant health threats are transboundary plant pests and diseases including forest pests. Information used in the bulletins are compiled from official and unofficial sources. The Early Warning Bulletin results from collaboration between various parts of FAO:

• Intelligence and Coordination Unit of the Food Chain Crisis Management Framework (FCC-ICU), • FAO Emergency Prevention System (EMPRES) for transboundary animal and plant pests and diseases and food safety threats, • FAO Global Early Warning System for transboundary animal diseases, including zoonoses (GLEWS), and • the Global Information and Early Warning System (GIEWS). As with diagnostic reference laboratories, NPPOs reported a key challenge was the lack of staff available to conduct horizon scanning activities and the amount and diversity of information available to evaluate. It takes time to train risk assessors and despite the vast amount of information that can accessed, relevant detailed information to inform decision making is often lacking. Information collected by staff during horizon scanning has to be adapted into a local context which often requires skill and experience. Ensuring consistency and quality in how information is dealt with is also a challenge. For example, the Plantwise programme generates a lot of information. Some of this data can be quite ‘messy’ and input is required to make sense of the information. Data provided in questionnaires was used to populate Table 6 which summarises the tools used by staff to better understand and interpret the information collected on emerging and/ or transboundary pests, together with the associated challenges.

Table 6: Tools used to assess and prioritise emerging and transboundary pests and associated challenges Resource tools and systems Associated challenges When assessing a pest risk, risk assessors often gather Efficiencies can be gained by closer information systematically. A number of organisations cooperation in risk assessment have developed tools to support risk assessors. activities, coordination and standardization of protocols In USA, PestLens contributes to a wider bio-vigilance There are challenges in detecting weak system. PestLens continuously gathers newly emerging signals of an emerging pest issue; pest information from online and other sources and synthesising data captured and shares it with PPQ action leaders for evaluation. Any translating the information into decisions taken based on the information are tracked in decisions and actions is difficult PestLens. USDA APHIS PPQ has a database of risk assessments and It is difficult to search for specific other technical reports to ensure all documents are pieces of information within readily accessible, conclusions are transparent, and documents in the database or easily knowledge is built over time. summarize results from multiple documents Outside the G20, CABI has developed a number of All resources require maintenance to resources to help with pest risk assessment. The Pest keep them up to date and relevant. Risk Analysis tool is a decision support tool that presents scientific information from the CABI Crop Protection Compendium (CPC) to aid the assessment of risk in accordance with ISPMs, and in selecting of appropriate measures for reducing risk and facilitating the movement of plants and plant products associated with a commodity pathway. CABI has recently released the CABI Horizon Scanning Only as good as the information that Tool, which is a decision support aid to help users goes into it, so if the databases are not identify potential invasive species threats to a country, fully up-to-date (eg NPPOs don’t make state or province. All users can access the filters (for pest reports to IPPC) the output is not pathways, habitats and taxonomic group), view the full accurate. The output still requires species results list, or output a CSV file of the results. experts to evaluate the risks for each species. CABI is developing a Pest Risk Information Service This project is testing the feasibility of (PRISE) for sub-Saharan Africa. This project aims to providing forecasting services to forecast the risk of pest outbreaks, using a novel farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. There combination of earth observation technology, satellite have been many technological and positioning, and plant-pest lifecycles. Expansive, crowd infrastructure challenges in designing sourcing observations are also being used to strengthen the system and validate the system. https://www.cabi.org/projects/prise-a-pest-risk- information-service/ USDA house a Global Pest and Disease Database (GPDD) Workload in keeping it up to date e.g. the Compendium of Fruit Fly Host Information. It systematically gathers and maintain relevant information on high-priority quarantine pests. The GPDD contains information on over 5,000 pests and is used as a key tool in developing pest risk assessments.

3.4 Prioritisation NPPOs and related organisations are constrained by limited resources and must prioritise actions, such as whether or not to invest time and resources to risk assess a particular potential emerging pest when there are many such species to consider (Devorshak, 2012; Baker et al., 2014). So as to make the best use of limited resources, some countries have developed systems to prioritise pests and allocate resources accordingly. For example, NPPOs may meet or consult with researchers and extension services to establish policy priorities, as happens in Turkey. Such prioritisation can still be necessary despite NPPO efforts to narrow down the number of potential pest species to focus on using the system of “pest categorisation” as described in ISPM 11 (FAO, 2013). Pest categorisation allows organisms that do not have the characteristics of a quarantine pest (FAO, 2013), or those of a regulated non-quarantine pest (FAO, 2004), to be screened out and allows NPPOs to avoid expending resources analysing an organism in-depth when the organism is of no phytosanitary importance to the NPPO area (MacLeod and Korycinska, 2019). In the USA, USDA/APHIS/PPQ use various methods to prioritize pests and resource allocations, including: the Objective Prioritization of Exotic Pests (OPEP) methods for prioritizing pest surveys and other actions; cost-benefit analysis; prediction models. In Canada the CFIA prioritizes quarantine and regulated pests according to feasibility of control and economic impact. Some countries have system to prioritise and rank pests e.g. In France, ANSES uses ‘BioR2’ (Moignot and Reynaud, 2013), UK has a prioritised pest risk register (Baker et al., 2014). RPPOs collect and share pest information with members. Since 2000 EPPO has operated an Alert List (https://www.eppo.int/ACTIVITIES/plant_quarantine/alert_list). The main purpose of the Alert List is to draw the attention of EPPO member countries to certain pests possibly presenting a risk to them and so achieve early warning. It can also be used by EPPO to select candidates which may be submitted to a Pest Risk Analysis (PRA). The Alert List is also complemented by a monthly publication, the EPPO Reporting Service. This publication compiles events of phytosanitary concern (e.g. new pest outbreaks, new host plants, new diagnostic methods). It focuses mainly on regulated pests (including invasive alien plants), as well as on emerging pests that may present a risk to the EPPO region. EPPO maintains an A1 and A2 list of pests recommended for regulation by its member countries. (https://www.eppo.int/media/uploaded_images/ACTIVITIES/plant_quarantine/pm1-002- 28-en.pdf). Only pests assessed by PRA are placed on this list and is a prioritization for its member countries based on the risk and the impact these pests pose. There are a number of challenges with prioritisation. Information about an emerging pest can be scant leading to a high degree of uncertainty which makes it hard to provide reliable prioritization. Political factors can come into play and are difficult to account for. When many pests are considered and ranked together, it can be very challenging to keep information up to date. The frequent appearance of new pests adds to the complexity of prioritisation and reprioritisation.

CABI has a number of online information products that provides information which can help NPPOs assess and prioritise pests including: the Crop Protection Compendium; Invasive Species Compendium; Horticultural Compendium, Forestry Compendium, CAB abstracts and CAB Direct https://www.cabi.org/product-training/cabi-compendia/ CABI is looking to build on these tools to provide more support to pest risk assessment, including more data/information streams. CABI note that maintaining and improving the CABI tools is an ongoing challenge, e.g. it takes time and resources to update and validate the records of pest distribution and finding experts who are willing and able to update species data sheets is not always easy. CABI also leads a new initiative, the Global Burden of Crop Loss. Modelled on the IHME’s Global Burden of Disease (for humans), it will provide objective data on the losses due to pests, providing the basis for prioritisation by countries and funders, including the necessity for actions against then. There will be numerous challenges in developing the appropriate models, sourcing data, and building the necessary global consortium of partners. Discussants note that there is much scope for greater use of retrospective analysis to learn lessons from past successes and failures. It can be a challenge to argue for additional funding to take action against an emerging pest when there is little evidence of impact materialising; yet when funds are eventually made available they can often be late and NPPOs end up taking sub-optimal action (Ward, 2016). 3.5 Issues around pest reporting As contracting parties to the IPPC, NPPOs are responsible for communicating immediate or potential danger from the occurrence, outbreak or spread of a pest that is a quarantine pest in the country in which it is detected, or a quarantine pest for neighbouring countries and trading partners (Article VIII 1a of the International Plant protection Convention). In the animal health arena, a study in 2010 by OIE found that whilst animal health Reference Laboratories were mandated to inform OIE HQ of findings of notifiable diseases, there was a lack of consistency in reporting by Reference Laboratories. Positive results confirming notifiable diseases were not always being shared with OIE for two main reasons (i) there was a perceived contradiction in having to deal with confidentiality, and the requirement to pass on information to OIE, and (ii) some OIE member countries asked Reference Laboratories not to pass on diagnoses of notifiable diseases for political or economic reasons (Jebara, 2010). With globalisation, increasingly mobile human populations and the development of international trade in plants and plant products, early warning and transparency are essential factors in protecting the plant health status in each country. Failing to share information about an emerging pest or disease can endanger the phytosanitary status of neighbouring countries and trading partners. When significant plant pests spread internationally a lack of transparency can jeopardise the plant health status and biosecurity of neighbouring countries and trading partners. An aim of the IPPC is to ensure transparency in, and knowledge of, the world plant health situation. To support such ambition, the IPPC Strategic Planning Group has included the development of a global system to share information on emerging pest risks and changes in pest status in a draft action plan (IPPC Secretariat, 2019). Responses within the questionnaires from discussants indicate that members of the cross cutting discussion group had similar suggestions and are supportive of the idea.

Collecting data on presence of emerging pests per country is, however, not enough. An analysis of these data on the region, continent or global level is needed to observe trends and draw conclusions on which pests may be emerging or transboundary. Such a mechanism for analysis is lacking. 3.6 Biovigilance: Directions for collaborative research to improve early warnings Ideas for collaborative research ranged from important and seemingly straightforward ideas, such as collaboration on the development of diagnostic protocols, trap and lure development, and survey methodology to ambitious suggestions regarding the development of a global pest alert system. For instance, by integrating and adding to existing methods to detect signals for emerging pests that are already used by NPPOs and organisations operating in the phytosanitary sphere. This idea is similar aims outlined in the draft IPPC Strategic Framework for 2020-2030 (FAO, 2019). The Euphresco Strategic Research Agenda https://zenodo.org/record/1116801#.XIpsSyhKjcu, identified common international research priorities to improve inspection and surveillance, and empower diagnostic capacity, in particular for the on-site detection and identification of pests (i.e. priorities 4, 5 and 6) To a large extent, the success of preventing harm from an emerging pest can depend on the ability to anticipate that a particular organism has potential, or is likely, to become a pest and to implement timely and appropriate mitigations. For recognised pests, it can be the detection of pests at low incidence that is an important factor which enable mitigation strategies to be established before the pest becomes a problem. With delay in early detection, the likelihood of pest and disease management or eradication decreases while the cost of control increases significantly (Colunga-Garcia et al.,2010). Early detection before establishment and identification of key native and exotic insect pests are time-honoured strategies towards developing an effective control or eradication strategies against such pest populations, but implementation is limited by the difficulty of detecting them in the early stages of infestation due to their small numbers. This calls for a method of identification by which rapid, accurate, sex and developmental stage non-limiting inventory of species is achieved, incidentally helping classification and management efforts. Availability of such a method would also help in quick and accurate discrimination of native and exotic alien species at the port of entry which is important from the view of biosecurity and quarantine. The use of environmental DNA (eDNA) will be of great use in addressing these issues by amalgamating with high-resolution, real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay. Appendix 6 provides detailed examples of the use of eDNA. In a global context, established pests in one country can become transboundary pests in other countries. In protecting plant resources NPPOs aim to prevent, forecast and monitor transboundary pests so an area for potential future research and collaboration could be on developing systems to better collect information, identify early (weak) signals within the data, and distil useful information, improving the flow of information so that it can be used and evaluated or prioritised and applied to models to forecast the likelihood of transboundary pests establishing, assess the consequences of establishment and identify efficient

management measures. Such plans require multi-disciplinary teams to integrate existing systems that already tackle each of the components described. Indeed discussants strongly felt that there are benefits to be had in combining information collected from the various existing systems that gather information on emerging and transboundary pests. A more “joined up” system using multiple information sources, not only regarding pest reports in literature, but from “on the ground” sources such as plant clinics (e.g. operated by CABI), and interception records (shared from NPPOs), news media scanning (e.g. MediSys and others) and trade-related databases, together with recent meteorological data, new pest reports (IPPC, RPPOs), other alert services (PestLens, ProMed, Plantwise Knowledgebank, FAO Early Warning Bulletin), online communities (e.g. PestNet). Findings ways to evaluate and combine information from multiple sources would help to give the best picture of potential threats from pests and diseases. To be useful to countries the information needs to be synthesized and expert insight provided to guide countries on the possible significance. Machine learning (artificial intelligence) could contribute to identifying the most relevant factors that create risk situations within the huge and diverse data collected. Calls by discussants for the development of more integrated systems echo the conceptual global surveillance system for crop disease as described recently by Carvajal-Ypes et al. (2019) in which five inter-connected networks of (i) diagnostic labs, (ii) risk assessment teams, (iii) data standardization and management specialists, (iv) regular expert communication and (v) a distributed operations management system, each operate at a global scale. IPPC, CGIAR, NPDN and RPPOs were seen as examples of key members of the system. As well as calling for the development of a system to integrate existing data capture and storage methods, discussants recognised that some regions of the world report pest issues less than other regions. For example, for the Unites States the Caribbean region is considered a potential pathway for the introduction of pests, yet less information is generated compared to other regions in the world regarding potential threat pests in the Caribbean. In the longer term, climate change affecting which crops are grown where and affecting where pests and pathogens are able to find new areas in which to establish. Research is needed on how trade and climate change will change pests’ ecological niches and to identify which organisms are most likely to emerge as new pests and which may re-emerge (also Euphresco Strategic Research Agenda priority 2, https://zenodo.org/record/1116801#.XcfFBVdKjIX).

3.7 Biovigilance: Future needs to improve pest management During e-mail exchanges and through responses to questionnaires, discussants identified a number of needs to improve pest management. A distinction must be made between action taken against regulated (quarantine) and unregulated plant pests. For pests with quarantine status, and transboundary and emerging pests that are not yet widespread and not yet regulated, the objective of an NPPO is often to eradicate, contain or slow the spread.

3.7.1 Contingency planning for quarantine pests Despite our best efforts, it is inevitable that some pests will spread internationally and NPPOs and partners should be prepared. USDA/APHIS/PPQ relies on the emergency response framework (National Plant Health Emergency Management Framework) to outline an effective response strategy to work with partners to detect pests through detection and delimiting surveys in order to reduce or prevent pest spread. NPPOs could develop contingency plans so when new pests are detected plans are already in place to deal with the situation. Contingency plans speed up reactions to incursions and make eradication efforts more likely to succeed. In UK the NPPO has an overarching Generic Contingency Plan which is a guide to help eradicate or minimise the impact of regulated plant pests when outbreaks occur. It describes how the NPPO and partners prepare for, and would respond to, an outbreak of a plant pest or disease. More detailed, pest specific, contingency plans describe how the NPPO will respond to outbreaks of known high risk pests where additional measures over and above those set out in the overarching generic contingency plan for plant health are required. Contingency plans are being developed in EU countries for all priority quarantine pests. Components of a contingency plan are likely to include:

• details on how events are managed, i.e. the command structure with roles and responsibilities of participants provided • communication strategies, including when and how to consult stakeholders • a description of the pest or disease, including notes on the biology and ecology of the organism • details on detection methods, such as traps, and their availability. • details of diagnostic methods approved to confirm the identity of the organism • availability of diagnostic capacity at different laboratories • a summary of the risk the pest presents • the official action to be taken following the suspicion or confirmation of an interception • the official action to be taken following the suspicion of an outbreak • the protocol for surveys to determine whether there is an outbreak • details of the official action to be taken following the confirmation of an outbreak • action to take to prevent spread • action to take when seeking eradication • criteria for declaring eradication or a change of policy • plans for post event evaluation and review of the contingency plan • In cases of prolonged official actions there may be stages for review of actions built into the plan Quarantine pests are regulated pests. For non-regulated pests that are present and widespread in a country, the objective of farmers is often to minimise economic losses, perhaps taking advice from agricultural support and extension services. The text below focuses on emerging and transboundary pests that are non-regulated.

3.7.2 Future needs for the development, validation and implementation of pest management measures to minimise impact and reduce spread Testing and validating control measures can be difficult especially for new pests entering new geographic ranges. The control measures need to consider the country context including the country’s infrastructure and political frameworks. There is a need to quickly identify and test control measures for emerging pests including biological, cultural and chemical methods that are effective, affordable and locally available.

3.7.2.1 Pesticide policy Policy affects the way in which pests are controlled. While IPM is the preferred approach for non-quarantine pests, often policy intentionally or unintentionally promotes pesticides. However, this may encourage pesticide use that in the long run is not sustainable. The perceived short-term benefits must therefore be weighed carefully against the potential long- term costs such as human health hazards, development of pesticide resistance and destruction of beneficial natural control agents. Some discussants suggested that in low income countries governments and development partners should consider subsidising lower risk pesticides and biological pesticides (e.g. temporary tax breaks) to reduce cost of market development and entry. Note that this policy only affects the pests that are already present and pesticides for their control are registered or in the process of registration. For emerging pests industry is not yet registering products for their control. An important part of pesticide policy is the pesticide registration regime: registration is a legal requirement for a pesticide to be imported, sold, stored, distributed, advertised, packaged or used. To register a pesticide, data must be submitted, including the product’s identity, formulation, biological properties, toxicology, and environmental impact. Data from field trials of efficiency may also be required, but the more data that is required, the higher the cost, and often, the longer the process. Products that are lower risk but are for smaller or niche markets can face significant challenges regarding registration. A registration system designed to reduce risk may thus inadvertently end up promoting the use of broad-spectrum mass-market products, and prevent lower-risk products from entering the market. One way to improve pesticide registration is therefore to use harmonised procedures across a number of countries to reduce repeat costs for manufacturers in introducing new and effective, specific-use or lower-risk narrow spectrum products. The successful management of new and emerging pests requires coordinated action from multiple stakeholders, operating within an enabling framework set by national governments and regional or international institutions. Moreover, the assessment of biological control agents before pests arrive in a country is another way to be prepared for pests that are identified as emerging and expected to arrive in a country in the near future, e.g. Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis) moving westwards in Europe.

3.7.2.2 Validate control methods To quickly implement and validate control measures, research resources should be allocated to activities that focus on developing upstream mitigation strategies rather than only prioritizing research on current problems. Such mitigation strategies should be validated in

growers’ fields or in demonstration plots which closely resemble commercial crop production settings. A network of multilateral experts to foster concerted research between countries, to reinforce communication and sharing of common methodologies and mitigation strategies and to ensure that control measures are pre-validated before they are implemented would be a great benefit. Such a network would address many pest management needs including rapid, early, inexpensive and user-friendly molecular detection and discrimination methods which are needed to supply the certification programmes and for diagnostics and design of effective management.

3.7.2.3 Insect pest management by modern technology Overuse of chemical insecticides such as organophosphates, pyrethroids, and endosulfan in managing notorious insect pests (eg: melon aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover), resulted in insecticide resistance. Their extensive use not only resulted in substantial environmental hazards but also lead to high levels of insecticide resistance. To combat the above we need to look for modern, alternate, safe and eco-friendly approaches in managing these insect pests. There, the ribonucleic acid interference (RNAi), a reverse genetics tool in silencing the target genes will be of extreme useful as this is highly sequence-specific mechanism triggered by double-stranded ribonucleic acid (dsRNA). The efficiency of RNAi is reliant upon several factors, viz. concentration of dsRNA, mode of delivery, gene targets, insect species, etc.

3.7.2.4 Eradication programs employing gene drive systems and SIT Discussants suggested the need to research novel, alternative, safe and eco-friendly approaches for futuristic eradication programs. At this juncture, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) and the CRISPR-associated gene Cas9 genome editing technology can be of great use in developing a novel gene drive strategy for a given invasive insect species. In brief, the Cas9 along with the single guide RNA (sgRNA) cleaves the complementary target DNA sequence adjacent to the Protospacer Adjacent Motiff (PAM), thereby creating a double stranded break (DSB) in the DNA sequence. DSBs can be repaired either by Non Homologous End Joining (NHEJ), will give rise to insertions/deletions (indels) mutations that disrupt open reading frames (ORFs) of the target genes or by Homology Directed Repair (HDR) can be used to insert sequence of interest/ specific mutations. To date, the CRISPR/Cas9 system has been successfully applied in several insect taxa, including Drosophila, silkworms, mosquitos, and lepidoptera (Ma et al., 2014, Li et al., 2015, Awata et al., 2015, Kistler et al., 2015, Zhu et al., 2016).

Gene drive refers to the increase in the frequency of particular genes by bias inheritance. Based on the CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing system, a mutagenic chain reaction (MCR) method was developed to conduct gene drive in Drosophila (Gantz & Bier, 2015), in which MCR converted heterozygous mutations to homozygosity at the yellow locus in germlines with 96% homing efficiency by copying themselves onto the homologous chromosome through Homologous Recombination. This study demonstrated that MCR technology was highly efficient in Drosophila and could be applied in other insect species (Hammond et al., 2016). The reduction in female fertility has the potential to substantially reduce that particular species of insect populations, within a short span of time. The CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system

that enable super-Mendelian inheritance of transgene have the potential to modify the insect population over a time frame of few years. The recent development in high-throughput genome sequencing of insects (e.g. i5K project - http://i5k.github.io/) not only provide the raw materials for further comparative and evolutionary genomic studies, but also bring about efficient gene function identification through newly emerged genome editing technologies, resulting in breakthroughs in the genetic manipulation of non-model organisms. RNA interference (RNAi) based sterile insect technique (SIT) or the Sterile Insect Release Method (SIRM) is an authentic technology can be of great use in developing male sterile lines for a given invasive insect species an alternative technique to radioactivity. SIT is an environmentally friendly, biological and non-insecticidal tool to reduce the size of pest populations for the management or eradication of key insect pests from the fields. In the FAO glossary, the Sterile Insect Technique is defined as "a method of pest control using area-wide inundative releases of sterile insects to reduce reproduction in a field population of the same species". It is therefore a type of "birth control" in which wild female insects of the pest population do not reproduce when they are inseminated by released sterile males. SIT is a very popular technique, especially for the control of tephritid fruit fly, tsetse fly, screw worm and mosquitoes (Dyck et al., 2005). Currently, sterilized male flies are produced either by chemosterilants (eg: TEPA, Chloroethylamine, etc.) or by radiation. Among these methods, radiation is quite effective but limited by huge investment for proper radiation facility and also can cause significant somatic damage reducing the competitive ability of male flies with the wild females. We have been witnessed the failure of traditional SIT in the olive fruit fly recently due to the altered mating behavior in SIT flies. However, the genetically enhanced SIT showed great potential to control the pest population, with the use of Bol gene dsRNA treated male olive fruit flies. RNA interference (RNAi) based SIT is an authentic insect pest management approach with proper target genes. Recent studies showed that spermless male were developed by interfering with germ cell differentiation and azoospermia related genes (Ant et al., 2012).

3.7.2.5 Consistent communication to aid implementation Governments may not be able to provide advice to all farmers, but they should ensure consistent advice is disseminated through multiple channels and advisory services, and that advice is updated as new information is collected. A combination of communication methods (in both the public and private sectors) is required, considering the information to be communicated and the control methods being promoted. Again, there is an important role for government in monitoring whether farmers are receiving the advice they need, and finding ways of addressing gaps. Communication methods, such as radio phone-ins and plant clinics can provide useful feedback in this context. An IPPC guide to pest risk communication has recently been developed which provides advice in this area (IPPC, 2019). Potential unintended effects or consequences should be identified and explicitly indicated for pest control measures (products and practices), monitored as part of the demonstration activities, and information shared with end users

3.7.3 Mobile Apps for crop pests/ disease diagnosis, surveillance networking and management guidance In India several apps developed by public and private agencies allows farmers to identify pests and diseases using their mobile phones and provides remedial measures is the latest addition to using modern digital tools to benefit smallholder farmers. A key feature of the mobile app ‘Plantix’ is automated disease diagnosis. Farmers can upload a photo of their infected crop and the app will provide a diagnosis. Besides giving a diagnosis and steps to mitigate the disease, the app also provides information on preventing the disease in the next cropping season. Farmers are also presented biological treatment options for pest and disease control. Given the rampant overuse of chemical pesticides in India the app will also help disseminate best practice methods to reduce pesticides. The app also features a library of diseases which farmers can refer in case there is no connectivity The database also facilitates pest and disease outbreak monitoring and can send early warning messages for specific locations. In fact, the app partly takes on the role of an agriculture extension worker. Cases where a farmer cannot identify the disease through these apps are rare and in such cases farmers can always contact the extension agent. There are apps with Artificial Intelligence being tested in India, and across many countries and available for free downloading. “Yellow leaf spot and Fusarium wilt are the major fungal diseases in India and farmers spend a lot of money on fungicides. Apart from the fungal disease, the viral disease such as Banana Bunchy top virus is a big problem in hilly areas of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Northeast region of India. The App can tell the farmers in advance bringing down the treatment costs. The National Research Centre for Banana (NRCB) and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) are developing such Apps.

4 Research collaboration 4.1 Introduction Although awareness of plant pest risks may have increased and the likelihood of species introductions grown with global trade (Levine & D'Antonio, 2003; Hulme, 2009) financial resources to protect plant health, including resources for national phytosanitary research budgets has in many cases declined in real terms. Sharing resources to investigate problems that countries have in common and to develop solutions of mutual benefit allows more efficient use limited resources. Here we provide a description of an international network set up to coordinate phytosanitary research. 4.2 Euphresco: A model framework for international research coordination 4.2.1 Euphresco: A brief history The European Phytosanitary Research and Coordination network (EUPHRESCO) began as a European Research Area Network (ERA-NET) in 2006. It is a network of science funding organisations that organises joint research calls in phytosanitary topics and was established to facilitate knowledge and information sharing and to increase the efficiency of resources available for plant health (quarantine pests and regulated non‐quarantine pests) and emerging pests (Giovani et al., 2015). The first iteration of EUPHRESCO (EUPHRESCO I, 2006-2010) included 23 partner organisations from 17 countries. It also involved six observers and an advisory group which comprised of EPPO, the EFSA plant health panel and the European Commission’s Directorate General for Health and Food Safety (DG-SANTE). EUPHRESCO I funded research projects for a total value of € 2.1 million. This represented approximately 10% of the total national budgets for phytosanitary research of partner countries. EUPHRESCO II (2011-2014) expanded to 31 partners from 22 countries, with 14 observers. The increased participation was particularly due to representation in the Nordic-Baltic area, the Balkans and South-Eastern Europe. EUPHRESCO II funded research projects for a total value of € 6.8 million, representing approximately 12% of the total national budgets for phytosanitary research of partner countries. The final goal for EUPHRESCO iterations I and II was to establish a long-term, sustainable, research funding network. This network has existed since 2014 and is hosted within EPPO. As of May 2019, the network includes approximately 70 organisations from more than 50 countries worldwide, including many outside of Europe (Table 7).

Table 7: Euphresco growth since inception Years Partners Countries Observers Funded projects (million) 2006-2010 23 17 6 € 2.1

2011-2014 31 22 14 € 6.8

2014-2019 approx. 70 > 50 - approx. € 12.0

The network has clearly grown over the years, building a platform to enhance communication and transnational research collaboration between different national players such as research programme owners, research programme managers, policy makers, regulators and scientists from official laboratories, academia and private companies. An important feature of Euphresco is to facilitate international communication between partners such as researchers and the policy makers who use research results and findings to inform decisions over pest risks.

Figure 1: Euphresco members as at February 2019 (New Zealand will join from January 2020)

4.2.2 How does Euphresco operate? Euphresco coordinates national funds, serving national and international policy needs. It does this by reducing the isolation of plant health research, increasing transnational collaboration and reducing the occurrence of research silos. Five cycles of funding, two within EUPHRESCO I (2006-2010) and three within EUPHRESCO II (2011-2014), have allowed European phytosanitary research programme owners and managers to establish links, to get to know each other, to share information on best practices and national priorities and provided opportunities to test the collaboration of national funders to support transnational research projects. EUPHRESCO I mapped and analysed national plant health research programmes and established a common strategic research agenda. Potential barriers preventing effective transnational collaboration were identified and mechanisms and process tools for the selection, funding and implementation of transnational collaborative projects were developed and tested. EUPHRESCO II expanded the scope of the coordination to ensure more coverage, e.g. increased coordination in forestry plant health. The tools and mechanisms for the funding of transnational research projects were further tested and improved through several rounds of funding.

Bilateral collaborations are within the scope of Euphresco projects, but it is rare to only have two members collaborating, usually there are about five members in each project. Euphresco publishes the reports from the projects. Through these projects institutions get to know who has what expertise and interests, and so usually enquire about interest in a topic before officially proposing it. Euphresco also holds an inventory of national pest-linked research that is updated by each member to encourage sharing of national research activities that will be otherwise not available across borders. Euphresco research coordination has been converted into concrete actions, such as the funding of approximately 100 transnational research projects so far and the development of three common strategic research agendas. The most recent, published in March 2017, provides a vision on plant health research priorities and identifies the main objectives to reach over the period 2017–2022. The strategic research agenda is publicly available (https://www.euphresco.net/media/sra/euphresco_sra.pdf) Transnational research projects supported by Euphresco that began in 2019 are outlined in Appendix 5. 4.2.3 Future directions Ten members of G20 are already included in the Euphresco network (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States of America), it would in principle be possible for a few other countries to participate in order that they gain experience with the network functions. The need for global phytosanitary research coordination to accelerate development of science to support all regulatory phytosanitary activities has been highlighted in the IPPC 2020-2030 Strategic Framework. The Euphresco system provides a model framework on which such a global network could be developed, or on which other regional systems for research collaboration could be based. Euphresco could contribute to the development of similar networks in other regions of the world, if regional approaches would be preferred, while not forgetting the need for linking future nodes Euphresco has been developed to be flexible enough to adapt to the needs of each country. Members learn how an international network of participants with different mandates but shared interests works and can use the network services. 4.3 Other examples of collaboration Project-funded international research collaboration in the Global South, including some G20 members, are described in 2.6.1.

4.3.1 EU support for plant health research The European Union supports research on plant health under Horizon 2020, the research and innovation framework programme running from 2014-2020. Under Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge 2, plant health research is supported under a wider approach, covering integrated pest management, alternatives to contentious pesticides and emerging risks to plant health, which takes into account all elements of production and the environment. Overall the EU contribution for plant health research under Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge 2 is €159 million,

with 30 projects (or expected grants) and 471 participations in selected projects7 (EU plant health factsheet). In the last work programme (2018-2020) of Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge 2 a topic call on “new and emerging risks to plant health”8 was introduced. It supports research on new and emerging plant pests that cause (socio)economic and environmental losses to European agriculture and forestry. This topic call also encourages international cooperation with countries affected by the same plant pest. A number of research projects on transboundary pests (such as Huanglongbing disease, Xylella fastidiosa and fruit flies9) have been already funded under these calls with a dedicated budget of around €24 million, which include international partners in the consortia. Moreover, the EU supports research on the validation of diagnostic tests with a dedicated project 10 that develops an improved framework for validation, which will allow the production of data for faster decision-making and support risk management to improve early control of pests. For Horizon Europe, the future research and innovation framework programme 2021-2027, plant health will remain high among the research priorities. The Horizon 2020 collaborative project VALITEST aim at providing more complete and precise description of the performance of diagnostic tests. VALITEST also plans to collect information from stakeholders (researchers, diagnosticians, policy makers, inspectors, advisory services, industries, seed companies, growers associations, etc.) to build a comprehensive description of their needs towards a gain in diagnostic efficiency.

4.4 Future features of research collaboration 4.4.1 Immediacy of research In France, efforts have been made on how to involve research groups on a new pest problem at short notice and on the establishment of a data processing infrastructure. Euphresco also focusses on reacting relatively quickly to the needs of NPPOs and decision-makers as round for topic identification, prioritization and commission of projects are organised yearly. To effectively commission research at short notice requires authorities and other bodies to establish an easily accessible funding mechanism for emergency action and establish or modify policies and regulations to support rapid response (Meyerson and Reaser, 2002). Research organisations must also have capacity to conduct the necessary research to be able to react accordingly. Therefore, NPPOs and partners should develop a rapid response

7 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/factsheet-agri-plant- health_en.pdf 8 SFS-05-2018-2019-2020 in Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge 2 Work programme 2018-2020 https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2018-2020/main/h2020-wp1820-food_en.pdf SFS-09-2016 in Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge 2 Work programme 2016-2017 https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2016_2017/main/h2020-wp1617-food_en.pdf 9 Research projects: XF-ACTORS, PONTE, FF-IPM and PRE-HLB on https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/193276/brief/en 10 Research project VALITEST https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/214734/factsheet/en

program, in close cooperation with network partners that plans responses to emerging and transboundary pests. Emerging plant health threats, increased epidemiological knowledge in support of pest risk analysis, validation and acceptance of new technologies (such as high-throughput sequencing as a diagnostic method) in the context of differing technical capacities, are just a few examples of the questions that the global network may be mandated to address (Giovani et al., 2019). Some discussants suggested that developing tools for detection is often a priority, so drawing on a readily available toolbox, or suit of methods is one potential area for future research, amongst others. Discussants identified the features of pests to study ahead of their anticipated arrival or emergence. The pests would:

• be difficult to detect (unless new methods are developed) • spread rapidly • impact on multiple hosts, including those outside agriculture where different types of ecosystem services are impacted.

The ability to collect and analyse local data, i.e. environmental data in the area of outbreaks, was highlighted. Larger scale data may already be available but many epidemic models that already exist and which could be adapted to local situations require detailed (fine scale) data input. Fast data processing is also required.

5 Contributions to the International Year of Plant Health: IYPH 2020

5.1 Introduction Driven by efforts of Ralf Lopian and the NPPO of Finland, the United Nations General Assembly has declared 2020 as the International Year of Plant Health (IYPH). As with all UN international years, the purpose is to raise awareness and stimulate action in support of a particular UN objective. Having declared 2020 as the International Year of Plant Health there is an opportunity to raise global awareness on how protecting plant health can help end hunger, reduce poverty, protect the environment, and boost economic development. There are six key messages to disseminate during 2020 and the IYPH (Box 1).

Box 1: Key messages for the International Year of Plant Health 1. Keep plants healthy to achieve Zero Hunger and the Sustainable Development Goals 2. Be careful when bringing plants and plant products across borders 3. Make trading in plants and plant products safe by complying with the international plant health standards 4. Keep plants healthy while protecting the environment 5. Invest in plant health capacity development, research and outreach 6. Strengthen monitoring and early warning systems to protect plants and plant health.

The IYPH provides an opportunity to highlight the role of national plant protection organisations (NPPOs), regional plant protection organizations (RPPOs), the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and partners in protecting plants from pests and diseases. 5.2 Objectives Particular objectives of IYPH 2020 include:

• Raising awareness amongst the general public of the risks involved in moving plants or plant products across borders when they may be contaminated by pests and diseases. This includes the phytosanitary risks involved when ordering plants and plant products through channels such as e-commerce and postal services that can bypass regular phytosanitary controls, • Making schoolchildren aware that “plants can get sick” and that there are environmentally friendly ways of keeping plants healthy, • Encouraging governments, to empower NPPOs and RPPOs by providing them with adequate human and financial resources, • Encouraging policy makers and legislators to prioritize plant health and protection, particularly policies and legislation related to the preventing pest outbreaks, promoting

environmentally friendly pest management practices, monitoring and reporting, and facilitating safe trade, • Encouraging farmers to prevent the spread of pests by using only certified pest-free seeds and seedlings; and regularly monitor and report the occurrence of pests on their farms, • Encouraging farmers to adopt environmentally friendly pest management practices such as IPM to protect pollinators and beneficial insects, • Encouraging media professionals to use their channels to help deliver plant health information, • Raising awareness amongst donors who need to be regularly informed about opportunities for investing in new and existing plant health initiatives and technologies. With global attention focused on the crucial issue of plant health at last, the IYPH is an ideal opportunity for all plant health stakeholders to come together and commit to improving awareness of plant health and its impact on delivering the SDGs. CABI and other discussants are working with IPPC and a range of plant health stakeholders – regardless of sector – to capitalize on this unique opportunity and deliver a number of events and activities to make IYPH a success with a lasting impact. 5.3 Helsinki conference A key event during the IYPH will be the International Plant Health Conference "Protecting Plant Health in a changing world" (Helsinki, Finland, 5-8 October 2020). All discussants are aware of the event and some are involved in its planning. The conference will provide a forum to discuss global scientific, technical and regulatory plant health issues and promote and advocate plant health to the media and general public. The outcomes of the conference should inform and support the implementation of the IPPC Strategic Framework 2020-2030. The conference is expected to generate a list of “recommendations” which could form the basis of a paper on how to proceed after the IYPH has been completed. Recommendations generated from this conference may be incorporated into the CPM work-programme in the coming years or may be conference paper for the decision makers at CPM/FAO Conference. 5.4 Planning activities Information on the planning for IYPH and activities scheduled during 2020 was collected using a simple questionnaire. Events and activities were grouped by category as either for the scientific community, aimed at industry, targeting school age children (i.e. educational), designed for the wider public, cultural or communicated via conventional media (e.g. TV, radio, newspapers and magazines). Results are summarised below. All discussants were aware that 2020 has been declared the UN International Year of Plant Health and were likely to be taking part in one or more activities to a greater or lesser extent. Many discussants work for organisations that are planning activities that are being arranged by an organising committee. Committee membership includes NPPOs and staff from other government agencies, academic & research scientists, farming industry and representatives from environmental groups or charities.

To raise awareness of IYPH, several organisations already show the IYPH2020 logo on their website and provide a hyperlink to FAO’s IYPH web page. https://www.ippc.int/en/iyph/ To support organisations and individuals take part in IYPH FAO has developed communication material for IYPH: - IYPH website with access to information, resources, key facts - Communications toolkit and get started guide with ideas for taking action - IYPH logo in six languages and visual identity guidelines - IYPH brochure, flyer, factsheet and other publications - Calendar of events at the global, regional and national level - Files for creating gadgets such as IYPH mugs, bags, caps, etc - Social media accounts and materials with hash tag #PlantHealth

5.5 Sample activities Discussants anticipate that more events will take place during 2020 and be badged, or fall within the scope of an IYPH event during the actual year. For example, it is anticipated that many entomological, phytopathological, microbiological, agricultural, horticultural, plant protection academies, science & technology institutions, departments of government and registered societies will conduct seminars, symposia, conferences and workshops on plant health and IYPH topics with their announcements made during 2020. The events and activities that follow are therefore only a fraction of all events. (Link to IYPH 2020 Programme of events)

5.5.1 Scientific events  Plant Health, Agriculture & Bioscience Conference (PHAB 2020), 9-11 September 2020, The Hague, Netherlands. There will be 100+ speakers and 600-800 participants. https://phab2020.com/ or https://www.ippc.int/en/iyph/chronology/cabi-conference- on-plant-health/ PHAB 2020: • aims to bring together all plant health stakeholders (public, private, civil society and research) at the same time • is committed to bringing young researchers and stakeholders from the Global South to the Netherlands • is committed to highlighting the benefits of integrated crop management and alternatives to chemical crop protection • aims to showcase and reward innovation with awards, opportunities to pitch for funding, field trips and side events

 Global Symposium on Fall Armyworm and its Sustainable Management (to be confirmed). If confirmed, the symposium will review and assess the present state-of-the-art FAW lead strategy and vision. The meeting will present innovative approaches and reinforce the importance of key elements of the programme such as FAMEWS, FAW monitoring and early warning system. The FAO symposium aims to agree, together with partners, on the way forward for a long-term plan of action 2020–2025. If successful a long-term global action plan for FAW control will be developed and adopted by all partners.

 International Conference on Banana Fusarium wilt TR4 (Status, challenges and prospects for prevention and long-term management) (TBC). The conference aims to bring together all stakeholders (regulatory authorities, research and academia, international partner organizations and industry), in addition to high-level officials of Member Countries, to agree on and support a long-term global strategy to combat TR4. If successful the conference will endorse the FAO Global Programme on Fusarium Wilt Disease of Banana and the World Banana Forum global network (TR4GN) and commit to support and implement them. In addition a long-term collaboration programme with research partners on diagnosis, early warning and monitoring of the disease, development of resistant varieties, and other sustainable management options will result.

 The 7th International Conference on “Phytopathology in Achieving UN Sustainable Development Goals” will be held at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India, 16-20 January, 2020. India along with other countries signed the declaration on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, comprising of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the Sustainable Development Summit of the United Nations in September 2015. In the present context, plant pathological technology from the agriculture sector is to be added to this work programme as a part and partial contributor which will help in fulfilling the SDGs by addressing plant health as it has been recognized by the UN to commemorate 2020 as International Year of Plant Health.

 There is to be an IYPH special event during the Asian Conference on Plant Pathology in Tsukuba, Japan (September 2020).

 The Working Group on Tephritidae in Europe, Africa and the Middle East (TEAM) will meet in France 4-8 October, 2020 (https://www.alphavisa.com/team/2020/). The meeting will stimulate Interaction between academia, researchers, extension and industry specialists, who will present their latest scientific results and deliberate on a number of pertinent issues on fruit fly biology, ecology and control with reference made to IYPH during the meeting.

 The 7th International Congress of Nematology (ICN) will take place in France, May 3 to 8, 2020. The theme is “Crossing borders: a world of nematode diversity and impact to discover”. Links to the IYPH will made during a session on nematode regulations and quarantine. https://www.alphavisa.com/icn/2020/

5.5.2 Events with industry In June 2020 around 8,000 participants will attend a high-level plenary session on International development at European Development Days (EDD). Speakers will include DG DEVCO, MoFA Ghana, ICBA, AGRA and the IKEA Foundation. CABI will inform the international development audience about IYPH and the impact of plant health on delivering the SDGs

USDA APHIS are organising a Plant Health Safeguarding and Safe Trade Conference in 2020. The event aims to facilitate cross-sector dialogue and collaboration among government, industry, academia, NGOs, and science and research organizations on the evolving plant health safeguarding and safe trade challenges and opportunities facing the United States, the North American region, and the world at large. It will seek to identify areas where targeted actions, research, investments, or other interventions may be needed over the next 5-10 years to better safeguard plant health and facilitate safe trade. It will also showcase new, emerging methods, tools, and technologies that are used/could be used to safeguard plant health and facilitate safe trade. The event will also identify strategic activities and investments that public and private entities could undertake to ensure sustainable and profitable agriculture, healthy forests and ecosystems, and a safe and prosperous global trade system in the next decade. The success of the event can be evaluated by considering the Strategic commitments made/targeted actions taken by participating groups coming out of the conference. USDA APHIS will also identify important annual meetings hosted by other organizations in 2020 that focus on plant health to see if there is an opportunity to include an IYPH related side event or presentation. Canada’s Pest Management Centre is planning activities to highlight and promote IYPH2020 at its 2020 Canadian Biopesticides and Minor Use Pesticides Priority Setting Workshops which will take place in March 24- 26, 2020 in Gatineau, Quebec (Canada). This meeting has a diverse audience including industry stakeholders, grower groups, provincial specialists, researchers, manufacturing companies of crop protection products, federal regulators, pest management service providers, and representatives from international partner organisations.

5.5.3 Educational events (school age) CABI is intending to produce an animated video about IYPH in January 2020. About 2 minutes in length it will be aimed at pre-teen school children. Working in partnership with donors, CABI will offer to translate it for their key audiences and make it available in English, Dutch, German and French FAO also plan some animated videos and booklets to be developed by the FAO Office of Corporate Communication in different languages FAO plan a children's activity book themed around plants and health Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will host an IYPH2020 themed booth at May 2020 STEM Expo at Canada Wide Science Fair to increase awareness of IYPH2020, AAFC research activities, and promote careers in STEM to youth. In Japan, plant protection officers plan visits to schools. 5.5.4 Public events To increase public awareness about the importance of protecting plant health and the steps everyone can take to stop the spread of invasive pests, USDA APHIS will organise a “Hungry Pests campaign”. Its effectiveness will be judged by earned media coverage, social media and

online engagement, downloads of Hungry Pests materials (by partners, educators, general public), reach and impressions. (The campaign also fits the category of school age education). In Canada the AAFC research centre will host open house/field day events during summer autumn 2020. AAFC will highlight scientific research, innovation, and results relating to IYPH2020 themes. 5.5.5 Media activities So as to raise awareness of IYPH and position CABI’s work within the wider context of plant health research and food security development work CABI’s public relations team will be adding a blurb about IYPH to all press releases related to plant health released in 2020 and train CABI staff to mention IYPH in media interviews. To inform the food security audience about IYPH and CABI’s approach to improving farmers’ plant health knowledge, CABI have a sponsored op-ed11 article in the World Food Day activist magazine. https://www.globalcause.co.uk/world-food-day/healthy-plants-for-a-healthy- planet/ Several organisations have less formulated plans for articles and features about the importance of healthy plants. Global media coverage by FAO Communication Officers 5.5.6 Cultural events FAO are organising a photo competition from December 2019 to December 2020 to mark IYPH Different cultural activities by FAO HQs, Regional Offices and Country Offices are to be organized in different occasions throughout the year. Other global major events to be organized by FAO and IPPC are: • 30 March – 3 April 2020: CPM-15 in Rome, with a Ministerial Session (on 2 April 2020) with a Ministerial declaration on the Plant Health. • 16 October 2020: the World Food Day to be focused on Plant Health (to be confirmed by FAO DG) • January 2021: IYPH closing event in Rome • Side events on IYPH at all FAO Regional Conferences

11 op-ed, short for "opposite the editorial page", and is an article typically published by a newspaper or magazine which expresses the opinion of an author usually not affiliated with the publication's editorial board.

6 References Ant, T. et al. 2012. Control of the Olive fruit fly using genetics-enhanced sterile insect technique. BMC Biology 10, 1–8. Awata H, Watanabe T, Hamanaka Y, Mito T, Noji S, Mizunami M. 2015. Knockout crickets for the study of learning and memory: Dopamine receptor Dop1 mediates aversive but not appetitive reinforcement in crickets. Scientific Reports, 5: 15885. Baker RHA, Anderson H, Bishop S, MacLeod A, Parkinson N and Tuffen MG. 2014. The UK Plant Health Risk Register: a tool for prioritizing actions. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 44 (2), 187–194. Barham E, Sharrock S, Lane C and Baker R. 2016. The international plant sentinel network: a tool for regional and national plant protection organizations. EPPO Bulletin, 46 (1), 156-62. Barham E, Sharrock S, Lane C and Baker R. 2015. An international plant sentinel network. Sibbaldia: the Journal of Botanic Garden Horticulture, 13, 83-98. Bradley BA, Blumenthal DM, Early R, Grosholz ED, Lawler JJ, Miller LP, Sorte CJ, D'Antonio CM, Diez JM, Dukes JS and Ibanez I. 2012. Global change, global trade, and the next wave of plant invasions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 10 (1), 20-8. Carisse O, Fall ML and Vincent C. 2017. Using a biovigilance approach for pest and disease management in Quebec vineyards. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology, 39 (4), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/07060661.2017.1366368 de Carvalho, M.R.; Bockmann, F.A.; Amorim, D.S.; Brandao, C.R.F.; de Vivo, M.; de Figueiredo, J.L.; Britski, H.A.; de Pinna, M.C.C.; Menezes, N.A.; Marques, F.P.L.; Papavero, N.; Cancello, E.M.; Crisci, J.V.; McEachran, J.D.; Schelly, R.C.; Lundberg, J.G.; Gill, A.C.; Britz, R.; Wheeler, Q.D.; Stiassny, M.L.J.; Parenti, L.R.; Page, L.M.; Wheeler, W.C.; Faivovich, J.; Vari, R.P.; Grande, L.; Humphries, C.J.; DeSalle, R.; Ebach, M.C.; Nelson, G.J. (2007). "Taxonomic impediment or impediment to taxonomy? A commentary on systematics and the cybertaxonomic- automation paradigm". Evolutionary Biology. 34 (3–4): 140–143. Carvajal-Yepes M, Cardwell K, Nelson A, Garrett KA, Giovani B, Saunders DG, Kamoun S, Legg JP, Verdier V, Lessel J and Neher RA. 2019. A global surveillance system for crop diseases. Science. Jun 28 2019. 364 (6447),1237-1239. Danks C and Barker I. 2000.. On‐site detection of plant pathogens using lateral‐flow devices. EPPO Bulletin, 30(3‐4), 421-426. Delos M, Hervieu F, Folcher L, Micoud A and Eychenne N. 2006. Biological surveillance programme for the monitoring of crop pests and indicators in France. Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit [Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety], 1 (1), 30-36. Delos M, Hervieu F, Folcher L, Micoud A and Eychenne N. 2007. Biological surveillance programme for the monitoring of crop pests and indicators, French devices and European approach compared. Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit. [Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety], 2(1),16-24. Devorshak C. 2012. Plant Pest Risk Analysis Concepts and application. Ed. C Devorshak. CABI.

Dyck VA, Hendrichs JP and Robinson. The Sterile Insect Technique: Principles and Practice in Area- Wide Integrated Pest Management. New Agriculturist (2005).

EPPO. 2017. PM 7/131 (1) Guidelines on the main tasks of Reference Laboratories for official plant pest diagnostics. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 47 (3), 441–442 DOI: 10.1111/epp.12436 FAO. 2004. Pest risk analysis for regulated non-quarantine pests International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, ISPM 21, FAO, Rome, 22pp. (adopted 2004, recent CPM amendments published in 2019) FAO. 2007. Framework for pest risk analysis. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, ISPM 2, FAO, Rome. 40pp. (Adopted 2007; recent CPM amendments published in 2019) FAO. 2013. Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, ISPM 11, FAO Rome, 40pp. (Adopted 2013; recent CPM amendments published in 2019) FAO. 2019. IPPC Strategic Framework for 2020-2030. Commission on Phytosanitary Measures Fourteenth Session, Rome, 1-5 April 2019, Agenda item 8.2. CPM 2019/26 https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2019/02/26_CPM_2019_StrategicFr amework-2019-02-25.pdf Gantz VM and Bier E. 2015. The mutagenic chain reaction: A method for converting heterozygous to homozygous mutations. Science, 348(6233): 442-444. Giovani B, Steel E, Anthoine G, Blümel S, Cruz ML, de la Peña A et al. 2015. Euphresco: an opportunity for phytosanitary research coordination and funding in the EPPO region and abroad. EPPO Bulletin 45, 252– 256. Giovani B, Cellier G, McMullen M, Saponari M, Stefani E and Petter F. 2019. From transnational research collaboration to regional standards. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 23 (1) 1-6. https://iris.unimore.it/retrieve/handle/11380/1169357/208395/_baldissera.pdf Hammond A, Galizi R, Kyrou K, Simoni A, Siniscalchi C, Katsanos D, Gribble M, Baker D, Marois E, Russell S, Burt A, Windbichler N, Crisanti A, Nolan T. 2016. A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae. Nature Biotechnology, 34(1): 78-83. Hulme PE. 2009. Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. Journal of Applied Ecology 46, 10– 18. IPPC Secretariat. 2019. Draft Action Plan for a Pest Outbreak Alert and Response System Document 22_SPG_2019_Oct. 32pp Jebara KB. 2010. The OIE World Animal Health Information System: the role of OIE Reference Laboratories and Collaborating Centres in disease reporting. Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 29 (3), 451-458. Kistler KE, Vosshall LB and Matthews BJ. 2015. Genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9 in the mosquito Aedes aegypti. Cell Reports, 11(1): 51-60. Kramer A and Hird A. 2011. Building an International Sentinel Plant Network, BG Journal 8 (2), 3-6. Kriticos DJ and Venette RC. 2013. Advancing risk assessment models to address climate change, economics and uncertainty. IPRMW Sixth Annual Workshop, Tromsø, Norway, 23-26 July 2012. NeoBiota. (18), 1-218.

Leung B, Springborn MR, Turner JA and Brockerhoff EG. 2014. Pathway‐level risk analysis: the net present value of an invasive species policy in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12 (5), 273-279. Levine JM and D'Antonio CM. 2003. Forecasting biological invasions with increasing international trade. Conservation Biology, 17(1), 322-326. Li XY, Fan DD, Zhang W, Liu GC, Zhang L, Zhao L, Fang XD, Chen L, Dong Y, Chen Y, Ding Y, Zhao RP, Feng MJ, Zhu YB, Feng Y, Jiang XT, Zhu DY, Xiang H, Feng XK, Li SC, Wang J, Zhang GJ, Kronforst MR, Wang W. 2015. Outbred genome sequencing and CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing in butterflies. Nature Communications, 6: 8212. Ma SY, Chang JS, Wang XG, Liu YY, Zhang JD, Lu W, Gao J, Shi R, Zhao P, Xia QY. 2014. CRISPR/Cas9 mediated multiplex genome editing and heritable mutagenesis of BmKu70 in Bombyx mori. Scientific Reports, 4: 4489. MacLeod, A. (2010) Plant Health Alert Systems: An overview of scientific aspects with examples and perspectives from a national, EU and EPPO scale. Joint AESAN/EFSA Workshop ‘Science Supporting Risk Surveillance of Imports’ - 10 February 2010, Seville (Spain) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/event/documentset/corporate100210- p04.pdf MacLeod A. 2015. The relationship between biosecurity surveillance and risk analysis. Chapter 5, p109-122, In: Jarrad, F., Low Chow, S. & Mengersen, K. (Eds) Biosecurity surveillance: quantitative approaches, CABI, Wallingford, 374pp +xi. MacLeod A, Jones GD, Anderson HM and Mumford RA. 2016. Plant health and food security, linking science, economics, policy and industry. Food Security 8 (1) 17-25. MacLeod A and Korycinska A. 2019. Detailing Köppen-Geiger climate zones at a country and regional level: a resource for pest risk analysis. EPPO Bulletin 49 (1), 73-82. Meyerson LA and Reaser JK. 2002. Biosecurity: Moving toward a Comprehensive Approach: A comprehensive approach to biosecurity is necessary to minimize the risk of harm caused by non-native organisms to agriculture, the economy, the environment, and human health. BioScience, 52(7), 593–600. Miller SA, Beed FD and Harmon CL. 2009. Plant disease diagnostic capabilities and networks. Annual review of phytopathology, 47, 15-38. Moignot B and Reynaud P. 2013. Developing a methodology for the prioritization of pests in plant health. Euro Reference No 9: 5-9 Pautasso M, Petter F, Rortais A and Roy AS. 2015. Emerging risks to plant health: a European perspective. CABI Reviews, 21, 1e10. doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR201510021 Rodriguez J-P, Comtois C and Slack B. 2013 The Geography of Transport Systems. 3rd Edition. Routledge, London. Savary, S. et al, The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops, Nature Ecology and Evolution, March 2019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0793-y. Sequeira R and Griffin R. 2014. The Biosecurity Continuum and Trade: Pre-border Operations. In: The Handbook of Plant Biosecurity. (Eds) G. Gordh and S. McKirdy. New York, Springer. Pp. 119- 148.

Stack JP. 2010. Diagnostic networks for plant biosecurity. In: N. Hardwick and ML Gullino (Eds) Knowledge and technology transfer for plant pathology, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 59-74. Stack J, Cardwell K, Hammerschmidt R, Byrne J, Loria R, Snover-Clift K, Baldwin W, Wisler G, Beck H, Bostock R and Thomas C. 2006. The national plant diagnostic network. Plant disease, 90 (2), 128-36. Stack JP, Thomas JE, BaldwinW and Verrier PJ. 2014. Virtual diagnostic networks: a platform for collaborative diagnostics. In: Gullino ML and Bonants PJ (Eds). Detection and Diagnostics of Plant Pathogens. Springer, Netherlands, p. 147–56. Tomlinson JA, Boonham N, Hughes KJD, Griffin RL and Barker I. 2005. On-site DNA extraction and real- time PCR for detection of Phytophthora ramorum in the field. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 71(11), 6702-6710. Vakilian KA. 2017. Using networks in plant disease diagnosis. CAB Reviews 12, No. 47 Van Halteren P. A diagnostic network for the EPPO region. 1995. EPPO Bulletin, 25, 1–4. Ward M. 2016. Action against pest spread‐the case of retrospective analysis with a focus on timing. Food Security 8, 77– 81. Zhu GH, Xu J, Cui Z, Dong XT, Ye ZF, Niu DJ, Huang YP, Dong SL. 2016. Functional characterization of SlitPBP3 in Spodoptera litura by CRISPR/Cas9 mediated genome editing. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 75: 1-9.

Appendix 1: Introduction to the G20 The G20, short for Group of Twenty, is an international forum for the governments from 19 countries and the European Union (EU). It was originally founded in 1999 with the aim of discussing policy pertaining to the promotion of international financial stability. It has since expanded its remit to address issues that go beyond the responsibilities of any one organization. Since 2012 chief science advisors to agriculture departments have had annual meetings to address central questions relating to agriculture and nutrition which are too great to be solved with only national efforts (modified from Wikipedia).

G20 Member In cross-cutting EUPHRESCO member? discussion group? Argentina Australia  Brazil  Canada   China European Union  1 France   Germany  India  Indonesia Italy  Japan  Mexico Republic of South Africa Republic of Korea Russia  Saudi Arabia Turkey   United Kingdom   United States of America   Non G20 CABI  CGIAR consortium  EPPO Secretariat  FAO  IPPC Secretariat 

1The EU as such is not a EUPHRESCO member. The Member States of the European Union are members of EUPHRESCO.

Appendix 2: Centres in the CGIAR Consortium The CGIAR Consortium is a formally established partnership and network that unites international organizations engaged in research for a food-secured future. CGIAR Center and NPPO scientists can work together on diagnostics, surveillance & monitoring, research to identify sources of resistance/tolerance (germplasm, agronomy- or policy-focused). They do this bilaterally or in networks (multi-Center & multi-NPPO/country), focusing on a particular crop & pest or disease, or on specific NPPO functions, multi- crop/disease e.g. germplasm health unit functions.

Initials CGIAR Centre Headquarters location CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture Cali, Colombia CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research Bogor, Indonesia CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center Texcoco, Mexico CIP International Potato Center Lima, Peru ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas Beirut, Lebanon ICRAF International Centre for Research in Agroforestry Nairobi, Kenya ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics Hyderabad, India IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Ibadan, Nigeria IPGRI International Plant Genetics Resources Institute Rome, Italy IRRI International Rice Research Institute Los Baños, Philippines WARDA West Africa Rice Development Association Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire & Cotonou, Benin Other centres ICLARM International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management Penang, Malaysia IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute Washington DC, USA ILRI International Livestock Research Institute Nairobi, Kenya IWMI International Water Management Institute Battaramulla, Sri Lanka

Appendix 3: Desert Locust Monitoring and Early Warning System A3.1 FAO Desert Locust (Schistocerca gregaria) Monitoring and Early Warning System The Desert Locust (DL) Monitoring and Early Warning System is managed by the Desert Locust Information Service (DLIS) office at FAO Headquarters (Rome, Italy). The DLIS is a focal point and coordinator of a global locust information network that operates an early warning system for the transboundary pest DL. DLIS produces monthly situation summaries and forecasts for each country, and sends warnings and alerts about potential invasions or other significant developments. The Desert Locust Monitoring and Early Warning System operates in 30 countries in three regions covering about 16 million square kilometres. During plagues, DL may spread over 29 million square kilometres, extending into parts of 60 countries, more than 20% of the land surface of the world and has the potential to damage the livelihood of 10% of the world's population. The three regions in which the Monitoring and Early Warning System operates are

• Western region (FAO Commission for Controlling the Desert Locust in the Western Region, CLCPRO). It has 10 member countries from West and Northwest Africa: Algeria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Senegal and Tunisia. The Executive Secretary is based in Algiers.

• Central Region (FAO Commission for Controlling the Desert Locust in the Central Region, CRC). It has 16 member countries: Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, UAE and Yemen. CRC also works with the Desert Locust Control Organization for Eastern Africa (DLCO-EA) and northern Somalia. The Executive Secretary is based in Cairo.

• South-west Asia (FAO Commission for Controlling the Desert Locust in South-West Asia, SWAC). It has 4 member countries: Afghanistan, India, Iran and Pakistan. The Senior Locust Forecasting Officer at FAO HQ acts as the Executive Secretary is based in FAO HQs in Rome. FAO provides information on the general locust situation to the global community and gives timely warnings and forecasts to those countries in danger of invasion. It prepares monthly bulletins and periodic updates summarizing the locust situation and forecasting migration and breeding on a country-by-country basis (Locust watch). The FAO DL Monitoring and Early Warning System uses the latest technologies and develops innovative tools for improved early warning of the DL. It is the key monitoring and early warning tool in preventing DL plagues from devastating farmers’ fields in Africa and Asia. Since 1978, DLIS operates an early warning system that monitors weather, ecological conditions, and locust infestations in the potentially affected area on a daily basis. DLIS issues a monthly bulletin in three languages (English, French and Arabic) to locust- affected countries, the international donor community, researchers, institutes, and other

interested parties that summarizes the current situation and provides a six-week forecast on a per-country basis. During periods of increased locust activity, the bulletins are supplemented by updates, warnings and alerts. A3.2 FAO Locust watch in Caucasus and Central Asia (CCA) This system covers other locust species: Italian Locust (Calliptamus italicus), Moroccan Locust (Dociostaurus maroccanus) and Asian Migratory Locust (Locusta migratoria migratoria). This system operates in the Caucasus and Central Asia region in 10 affected countries: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. It cover an area of 25 million hectares of crops and rangelands and over 20 million people are at risk of the locusts invasions. FAO has developed a monitoring and data analyzing system for the CCA countries that is based on Geographic Information System (GIS) and remote sensing technology. The system consists of the Automated System for Data Collection (ASDC) to facilitate the collection and sharing of standardized locust data, and the Caucasus and Central Asia Locust Management system (CCALM) available at http://locust.kz. It includes: basic functions (data import, query, display and output) and advanced functions (summary, analysis, forecast). Presently ASDC is available in 11 languages (Armenian, Azeri, Dari, English, Georgian, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Russian, Tajik, Turkmen and Uzbek) for the use on tablets, smartphones and computers. In 2016-2019 ASDC was also introduced in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. Based on the information from the field (collected in part through ASDC), the regional locust bulletins is produced monthly, in English and in Russian (http://www.fao.org/locusts- cca/current-situation/en/ ). More information – on the bilingual (English and Russian) Locust Watch in CCA website (http://www.fao.org/locusts-cca/en/ ).

Appendix 4: The epidemiosurveillance (ESV) platform In France INRA has set up a program on pest invasions and sanitary crisis, in collaboration with the French sanitary agency (ANSES) and the ministry for agriculture. This program is based on a new team involving 7 specifically dedicated engineers (full time) and directly collaborating with ANSES. The INRA and ANSES engineers form the core-team of the national platform for plant epidemiosurveillance (ESV platform). The platform priorities (basically, the pests targeted) are decided by a managing committee including representatives of the ministry, INRA, ANSES, and of two national associations representing technical institutes and development-oriented structures. For each major pest treated by the platform, a working group composed of researchers and stakeholders is in charge of providing expertise. At INRA, the ESV team is embedded in a research unit specialized in biomathematics and statistics with the objective to facilitate transfers between epidemiosurveillance and research in modeling and data analysis. This team is also connected to the many INRA researchers and engineers working on related research programs (e.g. systematics, phylogeny, epidemiology). Surveillance data are provided by the ministry of agriculture division in charge of plant protection sub-contracting to local agencies or organizations. The platform is in the development phase and most efforts are focussed on the organization and the establishment of a data processing infrastructure (e.g. developing the computing system for data processing, model development and data workflow). Available models for epidemiology and population dynamics are being implemented in the platform. The objective is to develop pipelines for data processing that will allow rapid provision of information to the ministry in charge of surveillance and crisis management. New models issued from research projects will be implemented in the platform as they become available. Outputs of the platform include risk maps (pixelized area showing hotspots of potential emergence), forecasting of epidemic development, reconstruction of routes of origin, and optimized surveillance strategies. At the level of INRA and in coordination with the platform, a procedure to rapidly involve the most competent research groups was developed such that short-term projects (1-2 years) could be established on urgent problems related to pest invasion. This worked fairly well for Xylella fastidiosa and the pine wood nematode. Current Challenges: • taking into account local contexts: Although general information on most transboundary pests is available, a general challenge when facing an introduction is how best to adapt what is known about a pest to the local context (e.g. Xylella in France does not experience the same ecological conditions as it does in USA or in Italy). Routine surveillance is often along roads or focused on well visible structures; multi-variable risk analyses allow hot spots for introduction and potential establishment to be identified, leading to more efficient and cheaper surveillance.

• rapid identification of the local competences : we need to activate very fast new research programs and to mobilize or adapt existing knowledge. Developing tools for identification or detection is a priority, as well as optimizing surveillance. • developing risk analysis before introduction. Anticipation is crucial and we should be fully ready before the arrival of the pest. Risk of establishment is estimated at the scale of the country from the expected epidemic size (presence of the host, etc.) and the introduction probability (e.g. presence of industry related to the pest).

Appendix 5: Transnational research collaboration: Recently agreed EUPHRESCO projects Source: https://mailchi.mp/e38ab7b8d753/m02lh5ak97-2019925 Each year, EUPPHRESCO members identify research priorities to be tackled by transnational collaboration. Below are 9 projects that began in 2019. 2018-A-271: Rapid identification of plant-health related bacteria by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. Matrix assisted laser desorption/ionization - time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) has been a useful tool for rapid microbial identification in clinical microbiology. The potential of the technique has not been fully exploited in plant health, as reference spectra of bacteria are missing from commercial databases, thus limiting the application of this technology in plant pathology. The project aims to characterize, through MS, a number of plant-pathogenic bacteria, to produce reference spectra to support pest identification and to organise an interlaboratory comparison. 2018-A-275: Use of new diagnostic tools for the detection of Pantoea stewartii subsp. stewartii from plant and seeds. Pantoea stewartii subsp. stewartii and Pantoea stewartii subsp. indologenes are phylogenetically closely related bacteria and the molecular tools currently available cannot distinguish them. This is a problem for maize, where P. stewartii stewartii causes the development of water-soaked lesions, while P. stewartii indologenes is not virulent. Moreover, the available tests do not allow distinction between strains of P. stewartii stewartii and therefore do not allow their geographic origin to be traced. The project aims to organise a test performance study for a selection of molecular tests on pure cultures and seeds. 2018-A-289: Plant Health Bioinformatics Network. The advances that High-Throughput Sequencing (HTS) technologies brings to genomics are closely linked to the developments in computational biology or bioinformatics, essential to the analysis and interpretation of the large amounts of genetic data generated. One of the main bottlenecks for the plant health sector to fully benefit from HTS is the lack of expertise on data analysis. The project aims to set the foundation for a network of plant health bioinformaticians and computational biologists in order to facilitate communication and knowledge sharing. Training material will be developed, and a proficiency test will be organized on (partially artificial) reference datasets suited for validation of data analysis pipelines. 2018-A-293: Phytosanitary risks of newly introduced crops. In recent years, a tendency towards cultivation of novel crops has been shown. Many of the ‘new’ crops have a long history of cultivation outside of Europe. Of particular interest are the tuber-forming crops that are of American origin. Although they are not part of the Solanaceae family, these tuber- forming plants share the same geographical origin as potato, and they might harbour known potato viruses or new viruses that might pose a phytosanitary risk to potato or other crops. The project aims to improve knowledge on the variety, origin and distribution of the newly introduced crops and to analyse plant propagation material for the presence of pests. This knowledge will support pest risk assessment.

2018-C-285: Tree health in urban environments: occurrence of organisms harmful to plants in urban greenery and the risk they represent to forestry, horticulture and agriculture. Urban greenery is an important part of city environment. However, from a plant health perspective, it is often a very fragile ecosystem, created by the introduction of new species or native plants of foreign origin into a very stressful environment. Urban greenery can represent an important entry point for invasive alien pests. The project aims to validate diagnostic tests and monitoring protocols and to collect data on the occurrence of pests associated with wood decay and necrosis in urban trees, using generic and pest-specific methods. A symposium will be organised to exchange knowledge across different disciplines including diagnostics and management. 2018-E-274: Corythucha arcuata: Evaluation of the pest status in Central Europe and development of strategies to slow the spread. Since the first detection of the oak lace bug, Corythucha arcuata in Italy in 2000, this invasive Hemipteran pest has now spread to nearly a dozen other European countries. A recent pest risk assessment carried out in Croatia concludes that the infestation will reduce vigour of oaks and make them more prone to other pests and major economic damage is possible. The project aims to develop a better understanding of the impacts of C. arcuata in forest and urban settings. This will include the identification of the pathways for spread and the assessment of how well adults overwinter under bark. 2018-F-304: Spodoptera frugiperda: spread, establishment, damage potential and control measures for the EU. Native to the tropical and subtropical regions of the Americas, Spodoptera frugiperda (fall armyworm) geographical distribution has changed considerably in the last years with its introduction in the African continent. The moth is a strong flyer and it has been shown to regularly migrate to cooler region in the summer, so it can threaten the EPPO region. The project aims to make a review of the lessons learnt on the use of different control measures in various (African) countries in order to identify the most suitable (for the EPPO region) approaches. The cold hardiness ability and climate limit of S. frugiperda will be assessed.

Appendix 6: eDNA Environmental DNA (eDNA) consists of freely available DNA or biological material containing DNA that has been shed or dropped by organisms as they move through the environment. For example skin flakes, hair, feathers, scales, setae, exuviae, fecal matter. This DNA can persist and accumulate within (or in terrestrial systems on the surface of) environmental materials or substrates, which can then be collected and tested using high-resolution processing techniques to detect trace amounts of DNA (e.g. real-time PCR, Droplet Digital PCR). Real-time PCR assays can demonstrate high specificity and sensitivity for target species. Assays can detect target DNA down to 0.1 picogram hence only a small amount of tissue for DNA extraction is required. Multiplex real-time PCR assays are powerful tools enabling simultaneous detection of target species in a single reaction and are cost effective, rapid, sensitive, and reduce the DNA template requirement compared to traditional DNA-based methods. Eradication programs employing gene drive systems and SIT Novel, alternative, safe and eco-friendly approaches will likely be needed in future eradication programs. At this juncture, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) and the CRISPR-associated gene Cas9 genome editing technology can be of great use in developing a novel gene drive strategy for a given invasive insect species. In brief, the Cas9 along with the single guide RNA (sgRNA) cleaves the complementary target DNA sequence adjacent to the Protospacer Adjacent Motiff (PAM), thereby creating a double stranded break (DSB) in the DNA sequence. DSBs can be repaired either by Non Homologous End Joining (NHEJ), will give rise to insertions/deletions (indels) mutations that disrupt open reading frames (ORFs) of the target genes or by Homology Directed Repair (HDR) can be used to insert sequence of interest/ specific mutations. To date, the CRISPR/Cas9 system has been successfully applied in several insect species, including Drosophila, silkworm, mosquito, and butterfly (Ma et al., 2014, Li et al., 2015, Awata et al., 2015, Kistler et al., 2015, Zhu et al., 2016). Gene drive refers to the increase in the frequency of particular genes by bias inheritance. Based on the CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing system, a mutagenic chain reaction (MCR) method was developed to conduct gene drive in Drosophila (Gantz & Bier, 2015), in which MCR converted heterozygous mutations to homozygosity at the yellow locus in germlines with 96% homing efficiency by copying themselves onto the homologous chromosome through Homologous Recombination. This study demonstrated that MCR technology was highly efficient in Drosophila and could be applied in other insect species (Hammond et al., 2016). The reduction in female fertility has the potential to substantially reduce that particular species of insect populations, within a short span of time. The CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system that enable super-Mendelian inheritance of transgene have the potential to modify the insect population over a time frame of few years. The recent development in high-throughput genome sequencing of insects (e.g. i5K project - http://i5k.github.io/) not only provide the raw materials for further comparative and evolutionary genomic studies, but also bring about efficient gene function identification through newly emerged genome editing technologies, resulting in breakthroughs in the genetic manipulation of non-model organisms.

RNA interference (RNAi) based sterile insect technique (SIT) or the Sterile Insect Release Method (SIRM) is an authentic technology can be of great use in developing male sterile lines for a given invasive insect species an alternative technique to radioactivity. SIT is an environmentally friendly, biological and non-insecticidal tool to reduce the size of pest populations for the management or eradication of key insect pests from the fields. In the FAO glossary, the Sterile Insect Technique is defined as "a method of pest control using area-wide inundative releases of sterile insects to reduce reproduction in a field population of the same species". It is therefore a type of "birth control" in which wild female insects of the pest population do not reproduce when they are inseminated by released sterile males. SIT is a very popular technique, especially for the control of tephritid fruit fly, tsetse fly, screw worm and mosquitoes (Dyck et al., 2005). Currently, sterilized male flies are produced either by chemosterilants (eg: TEPA, Chloroethylamine, etc.) or by radiation. Among these methods, radiation is quite effective but limited by huge investment for proper radiation facility and also can cause significant somatic damage reducing the competitive ability of male flies with the wild females. We have been witnessed the failure of traditional SIT in the olive fruit fly recently due to the altered mating behavior in SIT flies. However, the genetically enhanced SIT showed great potential to control the pest population, with the use of Bol gene dsRNA treated male olive fruit flies. RNA interference (RNAi) based SIT is an authentic insect pest management approach with proper target genes. Recent studies showed that spermless male were developed by interfering with germ cell differentiation and azoospermia related genes (Ant et al., 2012).