I am sure that all of our customers and friends will join us in sending congratulations to Chris Sargent of PMA who has recently become the father of Ben, a brother for Amber. Mum Anna and Ben are both doing well. What a splendid early Christmas gift!

I’ve written here about non-native and invasive species before. DEFRA has just published a consultation on the review of schedule 9 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and a ban on the sale of certain non-native species with responses requested by the end of January 2008.

This document is very alarming for growers, landscapers, importers, plant breeders and gardeners because there are several important garden and landscape plants that will be "scheduled" and will thus not be permitted to be imported, sold or planted for "introduction to the wild" – and, in some cases, possession will become unlawful. Included in the list are all Cotoneaster, all Crocosmia, Robinia pseudoacacia, Rosa rugosa and Quercus ilex.

Even more worryingly, there is a proposal to include all hybrids of listed species without having to specifically list each hybrid in the schedule. In the case of Rosa rugosa, described in The Hillier Manual of Trees and Shrubs as "the parent of innumerable hybrids", literally hundreds of popular varieties could be banned. The same could be true of Rhododendron ponticum, undoubtedly a pest where it is naturalised, but also an important parent of hybrid varieties.

It’s not clear what is meant by "the wild", particularly when the justification for adding some species (such as Crocosmia and Quercus ilex) is that they have been planted in gardens and parks and have spread into the wider environment or merely have the potential to do so – surely this is less a problem with the species concerned and more of an issue with landscape maangement. Also, because the list seems to anticipate potential problems that have not yet arisen with some species, there is a worry that other plants could be added even if they have not become a problem. Study of the list also shows a few plants that perhaps might be added in the future, since the same criteria that have been applied to the existing list could be applied to them – Buddleja davidii and Geranium oxonianum spring to mind.

It is our view that this document takes a step too far. It is only by speaking up that growers, breeders and gardeners can hope to amend this proposal before it becomes law. Therefore, I recommend that you read the document and complete the response form as soon as you can.

You may recall that I wrote in March that DEFRA had commissioned a study into responsibility and cost-sharing for plant health with particular reference to quarantine plant health issues. The report has now been published and presents the options for responsiblity and cost-sharing and can be found here. PFE was pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the issues with Jeff Waage, the author, and hope that our contribution was useful.

Turkey will become the 65th member of UPOV on November 18th. This means that there is an effective system in place in that country for the protection of breeders’ rights. Turkey is an important producer of cut flowers and some other plants and could be an important market for some PFE breeder clients. There have been problems reported in recent years with illegal propagation by Turkish growers, so it is to be hoped that breeders will now have the legal tools to fight this effectively.

If you are interested or concerned by invasive plants (either as a person concerned for the environment or a person concerned for the free movement of plant material), then it would be a good idea to check out the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization list of invasive alien plants. The work of EPPO and the significance of the list are both explained in detail at their website.

Plant health restrictions related to importing and exporting plants are an important consideration for breeders of new plants. The free movement of their varieties between nations is a vital component of being able to gain maximum return from the investment necessary to create, develop and test a new plant.

Therefore, it is important that breeders keep abreast of developments in the field of plant health legislation, regulation and practice, and use every opportunity to influence these matters.

DEFRA, the UK’s Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs, has instigated a study into responsibility and cost sharing for plant health matters. In particular, the study seeks to investigate "the risks associated with trade in plants, the costs associated with assessing and managing these risks and mechanisms through which these could be shared. The findings from this study will be used to help facilitate the development of a joint industry/government strategy on plant health responsibility and cost sharing."

In particular, the study will "identify and evaluate options for:

• the sharing of the burdens and costs of assessing the quarantine plant health risks associated with trade in plants and plant products;
• the sharing of the burdens and costs of preventing and minimising outbreaks of quarantine plant pests and pathogens and their impact on individual businesses and the environment."

Under the current system, plants entering the UK from outside the EU must meet a strict set of plant health criteria. However, plants may be moved freely within the EU under the Plant Passport scheme. This system relies upon all plant health authorities within the EU enforcing the regulations to the same high standard. An increasing body of evidence suggests that this is not the case, with the finger being pointed at more than one country. Consequently, some importers and exporters are routing plant material via nations known to have a poorer record on plant health inspection.

Until all plant movements into the EU are inspected to the same high standard, it would be unworkable, unjust and ineffective for the UK authorities to act alone to impose burdens of cost and additional administration on British growers and importers. In particular, the proposed risk assessment strategy will place additional burdens on breeders of new plants that wish to exploit their new variety in the UK market, as well as on growers based in the UK who use overseas propagation facilities (an increasingly common circumstance due to the high costs of fuel and heating).

PFE recommends that growers and breeders alike should contribute to the study. Details can be found by clicking here.