The post‐politics of plant biosecurity: The British Government's response to ash dieback in 2012

Abstract

This paper analyses the post-political nature of the discourse of plant biosecurity in the context of the response to ash dieback in Britain. Ash dieback or Chalara is a tree disease usually fatal to ash trees. It is caused by a fungal pathogen from Asia and was first discovered in Britain in 2012 at a nursery in Buckinghamshire, England, where it had arrived in a consignment of infected tree saplings imported from the Netherlands. Global trade and the rising number of epidemics affecting plants, animals and humans worldwide are connected. Global trade accelerates the pace of disease emergence and the spread of pathogens and pests. However, to date it has remained conspicuous by its absence from discussions of plant biosecurity. This paper investigates the reasons for this. It presents findings from an analysis of the European Union's (EU) plant health regime, in place to control the circulation and spread of plant pests and diseases in the EU, to demonstrate the key role played by plant biosecurity in neoliberalism. Additionally, results from a qualitative study of the British Government's Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Expert Taskforce convened in the wake of ash dieback are presented to illustrate how the risk-based approach to biosecurity and expert-led governance contribute to rendering the role of global trade in epidemics apolitical. The paper builds on and broadens critiques advanced by geographers and Science and Technology Studies scholars of biosecurity thinking and practice and brings them into correspondence with literatures on post-politics. It concludes that there is not only a need for the development of new approaches to biosecurity, as suggested in the geographical literature, but also for the construction of a new politics of biosecurity. K E Y W O R D S ash dieback, biosecurity, Britain, neoliberalism, post-politics | INTRODUCTIONWe [the British Government] need to be better prepared in understanding the risks of what pests and diseases are likely to arrive, when, where and how they might invade, how severe the impact is likely to be and what options are available for interception, eradication, mitigation or adaptation. (Defra, 2013, p. 2) This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. The information, practices and views in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG).

Lessons learned for animal health governance from bovine viral diarrhea eradication schemes in Scotland and Ireland

“…Previous analyzes of the use of scientific research in biosecurity governance have shown how science is used not only to legitimize certain positions but a step further, to “depoliticize” them ( 76 , 77 ). That is, when problems are framed in overly technocratic terms, it only becomes possible to contribute to debates through technical, scientific language, and wider political and value-based questions are not openly discussed ( 76 , 78 ).…”

Living With The Impact Of Ash Dieback – Local Mitigation Practices Against<em> Hymenoscyphus fraxineus</em> on the Island of Ireland

“…It could be said that the legislation, bureaucracy and politics at the time did not respond in a suitable fashion to deal with the threat. Lessons have been learnt in many countries in the case of the response to ash dieback (Heuch, 2014;Tsouvalis, 2019). It is envisaged that the new EU Plant health regulation (EU 2016/2031) will allow for a more rapid response to unfamiliar or novel pest threats.…”

Listening to plants: Conversations between critical plant studies and vegetal geography

“…This brief review is of course by no means exhaustive. Other important strands of vegetal geography, some of which shall be explored further below, include recent work on vegetal labour (Ernwein, 2020; Palmer, 2020), biosecurity (Barker, 2008; Barker and Francis, 2021; Tsouvalis, 2019) and Indigenous knowledge (Arnold et al, 2021; Peach et al, 2020; Robinson and Raven, 2017). The purpose of this section has been to draw together a literature which, as yet, lacks a coherent (sub)disciplinary identity.…”

“…This leads us to pursue lines of conversation which flow not only across species and disciplinary boundaries, but also between academic and non-academic worlds (Dyke et al, 2018). Much geographical work on plant biosecurity in particular pursues these experimental provocations, asking how we might better ‘live with’ invasive species or plant disease in practice, constructing a new politics for biosecurity which can more deftly respond to ‘life’s capacity for emergence’ (Tsouvalis, 2019, p.3, Atchison, 2015). As put by Myers (in Lomeña, 2020), if we thought like a plant, we would pay more attention to what we put in our water, air and soil.…”