All growers of hardy perennials will by now have heard of “new” pests such as Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthora ramorum) and the Asian Longhorned Beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis). In fact, a quick look at the list of Pests Regulated by Canada (Plant Health Regulations, 29 2(a)) reveals about 230 or so such organisms (give or take a few duplications).
So, what do we do when faced with so many potential foreign health threats to our plants? Simple – we set up systems to try to stop their entry. Hence the above “regulations.”
Good so far.
Now, a new U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) regulation known as “NAPPRA” (Plants for Planting Not Authorized for Importations Pending Pest Risk Analysis) has significant potential for making exporting plant material to the U.S. much more difficult. NAPPRA’s aim is to reduce the number of invasive pests coming into North America. USDA-APHIS will publish lists of plants it considers are quarantine pests or are hosts of quarantine pests. The U.S. proposes to prohibit the entry of plants on its NAPPRA list, until risk assessments have been completed.
WHAT IS USDA DEFINITION OF ‘GROWN IN CANADA?’
But herein lies a problem. Although the regulations have been written, the definitions within those regulations have not. For instance, while practically everything grown in the U.S. and Canada is exempt, there is currently no USDA definition of “grown in Canada.” According to H.T.A. Landscape Ontario, “plants can never be from Canada if they were originally grown in a country where they would be prohibited entry into the U.S.”
Other questions still need to be answered to fully understand the impact that these regulations may have on Canadian growers.
So, with the clock ticking, what’s the answer before the regulations become effective?
The simple solution would be to get answers to all these questions before the regulations are implemented (in less than 12 months’ time). That depends on lots of discussion and negotiation, but it is possible. Of course, we might not get the answers we want to hear.
Another option is not to send plant material to the U.S., but obviously that’s not a reasonable route for any business with significant exports. According to the USDA, Canadian nursery products account for 50 per cent of all U.S. nursery imports, so there is clearly lots at stake and we’re not just going to stop sending plants to our American industry partners.
We could also produce fewer of the plants on the NAPPRA list. But we’re talking about 148 taxa altogether, so this, too, is unlikely.
We could, of course, just close the Canadian border to U.S. imports, but that is simply just unimaginable behaviour toward our largest trading partner.
WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS FOR CANADIAN GROWERS?
CFIA is considering several options. The most simple is to harmonize Canada’s NAPPRA regulations with those of the U.S. The U.S. also needs to provide a definition of from when determining country of origin. The term needs to be defined to enable producers to provide appropriate traceability documentation, while understanding that many species have resided in Canada for a significant period of time. We must wish Bruce McTavish and his colleagues at the North American Plant Protection Organisation (NAPPO) all the best in upcoming negotiations.
This all begs the question about our (fill in your geographical region to suit – Canada, provincial, municipal) self-security with respect to ornamentals. Just as the “100-mile Diet” has affected people’s purchasing of food and drink, are we likely to see similar issues with respect to the perennials and flowers we enjoy growing?
For example, B.C. already has a thriving native plant species industry. Maybe NAPPRA is another spur towards another sector of horticulture thinking about “security” in a different light. What if – just if – 50 per cent of your market closed overnight? How would you fare? Just how secure are you when it comes to your customer base?
There are no easy answers, and most likely NAPPRA is not going to close the border to our plants so dramatically. But in the immediate term, there are lots of unanswered questions, and “plant security” is perhaps something we all need to think about.
Gary Jones is Chair of Production Horticulture at Kwantlen University, Langley, British Columbia. He sits on several industry committees and would welcome comments at
Inside View: November 2011
Subscription CentreNew Subscription Already a Subscriber Customer Service View Digital Magazine Renew
Windsor researchers study solar-powered greenhousesUniversity of Windsor researchers have teamed with local produce growers…
Empower plants through well-balanced irrigationWhat is plant empowerment? Typically, traditional plant production methods are…
Federal investment in biomassEarlier this year, the federal government announced an investment of…
To water or not to water, ask the computerWith so many other tasks requiring attention, modern greenhouses are…
Data-driven growing in practiceThu Apr 18, 2019 @ 9:00am -
GreenTechTue Jun 11, 2019
Grower DaysTue Jun 18, 2019
International Floriculture ExpoTue Jun 18, 2019
Cultivate '19Sat Jul 13, 2019
ASHS ConferenceMon Jul 22, 2019