RMD-25-01: Emerald ash borer management in Canada

As described by the International Plant Protection Convention, pest risk analysis includes 3 stages: initiation, pest risk assessment, and pest risk management. Initiating the process involves identifying pests and pathways of concern and defining the risk area. Pest risk assessment provides the scientific basis for the overall management of risk. Pest risk management is the process of identifying and evaluating potential mitigation measures which may be applied to reduce the identified pest risk to acceptable levels and selecting appropriate measures.

This risk management document includes a summary of the findings of a pest risk assessment and records the pest risk management process for the identified issue. It is consistent with the principles, terminology, and guidelines provided in the International Plant Protection Convention standards for pest risk analysis.

On this page

• Executive summary
• Purpose
• Scope
• Definitions
• Background
• Pest risk assessment summary
• Risk management considerations
  • Slowing the spread is cost effective
  • Pest management should aim for a more collaborative approach
  • Impact on trade
  • Significant ash presence remains in Canada
  • Black ash is important for Indigenous communities
  • Endangered species and ash recovery efforts
  • Early detection is challenging
  • Firewood is the main pathway
• Pest risk management options
  • Option 1: Status quo (adding the county or city to the regulated area if detected)
  • Option 2: Regulating the entire provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia
  • Option 3: Regulating all Eastern Canada
  • Option 4: Deregulating emerald ash borer in Canada
• Recommended risk management option
• Decision
• Endorsement
• Appendix 1: Regional Indigenous liaison contacts
• Appendix 2: References
• Appendix 3: Tables comparing characteristics for each option

Executive summary

The emerald ash borer is an insect originating from Asia that attacks and kills healthy ash trees in Canada and the United States. It was detected for the first time in 2002 and has since spread to most parts of the natural distribution of ash trees in North America, infesting thus far six Canadian provinces and 36 American states. While vast portions of planted ash remain unimpacted in Western Canada, millions of ash trees have died because of the presence of emerald ash borer in North America. Costs related to its management are estimated to be in the billions of dollars.

In 2003, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) published a directive, D-03-08: Phytosanitary requirements to prevent the introduction into and spread within Canada of the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis (Fairmaire), that outlines the requirements for the movement of ash products and firewood into Canada, and out of regulated areas of Canada. This directive is the keystone of the CFIA's slow-the-spread strategy for emerald ash borer in Canada. It has proven efficient in mitigating the movements of ash products by the forest industry in Canada, but the emerald ash borer has continued to spread, sometimes crossing great distances to establish in new areas such as Vancouver in British Columbia in 2023. Human-mediated spread through firewood or untreated wood packaging material are considered to be the main pathways for its spread at the domestic and international level, respectively.

As the emerald ash borer continues to spread and infest most of the ash population in Eastern Canada, the CFIA is reevaluating its management strategy. The CFIA is consulting with partners, industry stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples on the best path forward.

The Government of Canada recognizes its legal duty to consult Indigenous Peoples when proposed actions may impact their rights. The CFIA is committed to fulfilling this duty through respectful, meaningful, and ongoing engagement that reflects the priorities and perspectives of Indigenous Nations and communities.

The CFIA started this dialogue at the EAB Workshop held in Moncton, New Brunswick, in March 2024. The ideas, opinions and discussions shared during that event form the foundation of this broader consultation document, which will help guide the development of Canada's EAB management strategy over the next 5 to 10 years.

The risk management document outlines 4 options for managing emerald ash borer in Canada. Tables summarizing their comparative characteristics are provided in appendix 3. The CFIA supports option 2, which expands the regulated area to include entire provinces where emerald ash borer is already present in Eastern Canada.

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to consult nationally and internationally with partners, industry, stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples. The CFIA will also document the analysis of the comments and decision to manage the risk posed by the emerald ash borer. Lastly, the CFIA will update the regulatory requirements to improve application of other tools and phytosanitary requirements for the emerald ash borer and related regulated products coming into Canada or moving domestically.

Scope

This risk management document pertains to CFIA's management of emerald ash borer in Canada. It provides the background and scientific rationale supporting various pest risk management options and highlights their potential impacts, or asks for inclusion of unrecognized impacts, to all peoples living in Canada.

Definitions

Definitions of terms used in this document can be found in the Plant health glossary of terms.

Background

The emerald ash borer is an introduced wood boring beetle native to Eastern Asia. It was detected for the first time in North America in the summer of 2002 in Detroit, Michigan (United States) and Windsor, Ontario.

It has since been detected in 6 provinces of Canada (British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia) and 36 states in the United States. All ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) in North America, except mountain ash (which is a Sorbus spp. and not a Fraxinus spp.) are susceptible to emerald ash borer attack and infestation.

To prevent the establishment of new infestations and further spread of the emerald ash borer, the CFIA has strict import requirements for ash products, including lumber, logs and firewood. The movement of the same ash products out of regulated areas in Canada has similar restrictions at the domestic level.

Early after its introduction in Canada, it became apparent that eradication was not a feasible option, in large part because of the abundance of ash trees in the natural and urban environments and challenges with detecting the pest early. The CFIA resorted to a slow-the-spread strategy, which is still applied today. Under this strategy, when it is detected in a county, that county is added to the regulated area. The CFIA may also add counties where the emerald ash borer is not officially detected, to avoid the occurrence of contiguous counties with different regulatory statuses, thereby simplifying regulatory management.

Internal and external assessments of the slow-the-spread strategy have been performed regularly since its introduction. At the end of 2020, the Canadian Forest Services published an economic analysis of emerald ash borer regulations in Canada, concluding that:

The value of delayed damage on ash street trees and rural ash alone is important enough in most cases to justify continuing emerald ash borer regulation.

This study supports the CFIA in maintaining a "slow the spread" strategy and more importantly in maintaining regulation.

In December 2020, the United States removed federal domestic emerald ash borer quarantine regulations, focusing their efforts on biocontrol and research ash variety resistance to the beetle. Since the implementation of this new approach by the U.S., the CFIA now considers all continental U.S. states as possibly having the emerald ash borer.

Between 2020 and 2023, it has steadily spread in Eastern Canada and has been detected every year in new counties which were added to the regulated area in Quebec and New Brunswick.

Considering these developments in both Canada and the U.S., the CFIA initiated a review on its regulatory activities to determine the best path forward for the next 5-10 years. To that end, in March 2024, the CFIA co-hosted, with the New Brunswick Invasive Species Council, an emerald ash borer workshop in Moncton, New Brunswick, dedicated to emerald ash borer management in Eastern Canada. More than 75 people from various organizations participated in the workshop, for which a summary report was produced.

Later that year, it was detected for the first time west of Winnipeg, its previous westernmost known location, in Vancouver, British Columbia. It was also detected in Saguenay and Charlevoix, in the province of Quebec, as well as in the district of Timiskaming in northern Ontario and in the county of Hants, just north of Halifax in Nova Scotia.

This risk management document is based in part on information obtained during the 2024 workshop, and on the most up-to-date scientific information and emerald ash borer distribution.

Consult the current Regulated areas and items for emerald ash borer in Canada for more information.

Text version – Figure 1: Map of current regulated areas for emerald ash borer in Canada

• British Columbia
  • City of Burnaby
  • City of Vancouver
  • University of British Columbia
  • University Endowment Lands
  • City of Surrey
  • City of New Westminster
• Manitoba
  • The city of Winnipeg
• Ontario
  • All the areas within the boundaries of the Division of Greater Sudbury, Hamilton, Kawartha Lakes, Ottawa, Prince Edward and Toronto, the Regional Municipalities of Chatham-Kent, Durham, Halton, Niagara, Peel, Waterloo and York and the Counties of Brant, Bruce, Dufferin, Elgin, Essex, Frontenac, Grey, Haldimand, Haliburton, Hastings, Huron, Lambton, Lanark, Lennox and Addington, Middlesex, Norfolk, Northumberland, Oxford, Perth, Peterborough, Renfrew, Simcoe and Wellington and the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville, the United Counties of Prescott and Russell and the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, and the Districts of Muskoka, Nipissing, Timiskaming and Parry Sound, as well as the area within the boundaries of the Manitoulin district, all the areas within the boundaries of Sudbury District (including the Municipality of Killarney) up to the Northern boundaries of Townships: Acadia, Baynes, Bazett, Cavana, Cortez, Dundee, Haentschel, Iris, Kelso, Lampman, Leask, Marquette, Marshay, McPhail, Selkirk, Shelburne, Shelley, Valin and all the areas within the boundaries of Algoma District (including the City of Sault Ste. Marie) up to the Northern boundaries of Townships: Bracci, Butcher, Ewen, Ferrier, Foulds, Gaunt, Gilbertson, Gisborn, Grossman, Guindon, Slater, Smilsky, Tolmonen, Tronsen, Vibert, Way White, Wlasy. The City of Thunder Bay
• Quebec
  • All the areas within the boundaries of Agglomération de Montréal, Agglomération de Longueuil and the municipalités régionales de comté (MRC) Antoine-Labelle, d'Acton, d'Argenteuil, Beauharnois-Salaberry, Brome-Missisquoi, Deux-Montagnes, La Rivière-du-Nord, La Vallée-de-la-Gatineau, La Vallée-du-Richelieu, L'Assomption, La Haute-Yamaska, Laval, Le Haut-Richelieu, Le Haut-Saint-Laurent, Les Collines-de-l'Outaouais, Les Jardins-de-Napierville, Les Laurentides, Les Maskoutains, Les Moulins, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, Marguerite-D'Youville, Mirabel, Montcalm, Papineau, Pierre-De-Saurel, Pontiac, Roussillon, Rouville, Thérèse-De Blainville, Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Joliette, D'Aytray, Matawinie, Arthabaska, Bécancour, Drummond, L'Érable, Nicolet-Yamaska, Coaticook, Le Granit, Le Haut-St-François, Le Val- Saint-François, Les Sources, Memphrémagog, Sherbrooke, Beauce-Sartigan, Bellechasse, La Nouvelle-Beauce, Les Appalaches, Les Etchemins, Lévis, Lotbinière, Robert-Cliche, La Côte de Beaupré, La Jacques-Cartier, L'île d'Orléans, Portneuf, Agglomération de Québec, Les Chenaux, Maskinongé, Mékinac, Shawinigan, Trois-Rivières, Montmagny, L'Islet, Kamouraska, Témiscamingue, Témiscouata, Rivière-du-Loup, Les Basques, Rimouski-Neigette, La Mitis, Matapédia and Avignon Témiscamingue, Témiscouata, Rivière-du-Loup, Les Basques, Rimouski-Neigette, La Mitis, Matapédia, Avignon, Charlevoix and Saguenay.
• New Brunswick
  • Madawaska County
  • Victoria county
  • Carleton county
  • York county
  • Sunbury county
  • Queens county
  • Kings county
  • Westmorland county
  • Albert county
• Nova Scotia
  • Halifax County

Pest risk assessment summary

The pest risk assessment for the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) was updated in 2025 by the CFIA. We better understand the emerald ash borer now than we did when it was first detected in 2002, but the main conclusions remain, and the pest is still considered a high risk for Canada.

This wood borer causes physiological damage to ash trees (Fraxinus spp.), its specific and only host, by girdling the stem and branches. Several years of high-density larval feeding in the phloem and cambium causes tree mortality. Mortality can occur within one year of detection, depending on pest population level and local climate. Overwintering larvae, pupae and adults in trunks, stems or branches can be easily moved by humans in various wood products such as wood packaging materials, logs or lumber, firewood, nursery stock, wood chips and bark.

A risk assessment is divided into 3 parts. The first is a rating of the potential for "entry and establishment", or the potential for a pest to enter Canada or to move from a regulated part of the country to a pest-free area and establish a self-reproducing population.

For this pest, entry, and establishment was rated high. Even with regulatory measures currently restricting the movement of various wood products, the emerald ash borer continues to spread naturally and by human-assisted means. Contamination of articles by the emerald ash borer (sometimes referred to as hitch-hiking) is also a possibility but is not considered significant. The potential for establishment is high because ash trees occur across Canada within climate zones where the emerald ash borer can overwinter and survive low winter temperatures successfully (-30°C as in Winnipeg).

The second stage of a risk assessment is an assessment of the potential for movement. The potential for natural spread of the emerald ash borer is 'medium'. On average, adults may disperse by natural flight about 1.5 to 3 km annually, but a small proportion of the population (less than 1%) can fly much farther. Human-assisted movement has been estimated in some models to be between 25 and 100 km per year, with some leaps being in the hundreds of kilometers, mostly recorded in firewood.

The third phase of a risk assessment considers potential harm caused by a pest. The economic and environmental impacts by the emerald ash borer can be severe (risk rating = high). Research suggests that ash will virtually disappear from areas infested by this beetle especially when compared to its historical stand densities, similar to what has happened to the American elm due to Dutch elm disease and the American chestnut, due to chestnut blight.

Ash is not a dominant species in natural forests, with less than 5% canopy coverage. Under the right circumstances such as wetland forests, however, it can be locally up to 25% of the forest canopy as in unregulated western Ontario and southern Manitoba.

New Brunswick has the last uninfested stands of significant green ash presence in its northern parts. Nova Scotia has some significant ash presence, particularly in the Cape Breton Island. Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland-and-Labrador have limited ash resources, but should be better protected from the emerald ash borer spread, being islands, and could serve as reservoir of ash genetic diversity.

Ash trees are less common in natural forests of Western Canada, but as in Eastern Canada were commonly planted in urban areas where they provide wide ecological services.

A wide spectrum of age classes of ash from nursery stock to mature timber can be affected, reducing their urban landscape and timber values. Lumber exports are valued at an average of close to $12 billion every year (in Canadian dollars, 2020 to 2024 values), of which $374 million is hardwood (3% of total export value) and $32 million is ash lumber (0,3% of total export value). Export markets were negatively affected when it was first detected, because signs of live insect or disease damage are not allowed in any wood product destined for foreign markets and must be treated if signs are found. Entry requirements of importing countries have not significantly changed since then and are expected to remain the same in the near future. Various economic and amenity values of urban forests (real estate values, heating and cooling costs, tree removal and replacement costs), biodiversity and wildlife values and cultural values of Indigenous Peoples can be detrimentally affected as a result of pest activity by the emerald ash borer.

The risk components in a risk assessment are combined to give an overall risk summary. This pest's risk summary combines to "high", which indicates that specific phytosanitary measures are recommended to slow or restrict the spread and introduction of the emerald ash borer to un-infested parts of Canada. Infestations of emerald ash borer are expected to be detected beyond the current regulated areas every year. Detection and delimitation of emerald ash borer populations is still difficult because signs and symptoms of infestation are not evident until damaging populations have already built up. Early warning and detection at low population densities requires further research but has been improved in the past with new tools such as baited green prism traps and tree-top branch sampling. However, we still lack an effective early detection tool.

Natural and human-assisted spread is expected to continue, but regulatory and control action, despite inefficiencies, will probably slow the spread of this pest for several years and possibly hinder its movement outside the currently regulated area. A recent cost-benefit analysis of emerald ash borer regulations in Canada (Canadian Forestry Service, 2020) concluded that regulatory measures could be economically efficient even with an effect in slowing its spread to places not already affected as low as 10%. Therefore, it should still be feasible to slow the spread of this pest to other parts of Canada by implementing phytosanitary measures and developing protocols for biological controls.

Risk management considerations

This section introduces elements of information to help understand emerald ash borer management challenges and opportunities.

Slowing the spread is cost effective

The Canadian Forest Services' economic analysis of emerald ash borer regulations in Canada, published in 2020, demonstrated that slowing its spread with regulation helps ash trees managers and regulated parties by flattening related costs over the years to a more manageable level. From a financial standpoint, and even without considering the environmental services provided by ash trees, it is generally more beneficial to regulate the emerald ash borer than to deregulate it. Slowing its spread also buys time to establish new management strategies such as biocontrol and resistance breeding.

Pest management should aim for a more collaborative approach

Unless there is a substantial change in the emerald ash borer control toolbox, it is expected to spread throughout the range of ash trees in North America. Unprotected ash trees will eventually disappear or be reduced to isolated presence, no longer playing any significant ecological or cultural role. Some previously infested trees that have been removed still show epicormic shoots at the base of the stump, which will likely not grow back to a sizeable caliper before being infested again. To survive, ash tree populations of Canada in both urban and natural environment will need to benefit from other protections such as treatment, biocontrol and emerald ash borer resistance breeding. These activities received support during the emerald ash borer workshop but are outside the mandate of the CFIA and Canada has no scalable biocontrol capacity yet. Possible solutions include a collaborative approach between the CFIA, stakeholders, industry, the Canadian Forest Service, provincial governments, Canadian non-governmental organizations and Indigenous Peoples.

Impact on trade

Emerald ash borer management options presented in this document have no significant implications on Canada's ash product exports. Ash lumber accounts for 0.3% of the total lumber exports from Canada with 32M$ value in average for the 2020-2024 period. Canadian ash lumber is exported mainly to Asia (75% of total ash lumber export value for the 2020-2024 period, with 49% just for China) and these countries do not recognize areas free from the emerald ash borer in Canada. Entry requirements for Canadians ash products are expected to remain the same whichever option is selected.

Significant ash presence remains in Canada

There is a significant ash presence in areas not regulated for the emerald ash borer, especially in western Ontario and southern Manitoba where canopy can be locally up to 25% or more. There is also some significant ash presence in parts of Quebec, New-Brunswick and Nova Scotia, as well as, though in less importance, in Prince-Edward-Island and Newfoundland-and-Labrador. The remaining ash in the unregulated portions of Eastern Canada is mostly black ash (Fraxinus nigra) and plays a crucial ecological role in open lands and wet areas. In Western Canada, ash presence is significant as urban planted trees that provides important environmental services to citizens.

Black ash is important for Indigenous communities

Black ash is of great cultural importance for many Indigenous Peoples due to its spiritual significance, ceremonial use and its use in traditional crafts like basketry, snowshoes and canoe ribs. The ashes from an ash wood fire are also used in preparing corn for corn soup, tanning animal hides, and medicinal purposes. No other native tree is available as a substitute. Without access to resources like black ash, future Indigenous generations may miss vital teachings related to harvesting, crafting, and use in ceremonies. Indigenous Peoples have already observed disruption in cultural revitalization and community resilience since emerald ash borer infestations have created disconnects from historical cultural teachings.

It is also important to consult with Indigenous Peoples on new regulations that impact both cultural practices for food, social and ceremonial considerations and infringements on constitutionally protected Indigenous rights.

Endangered species and ash recovery efforts

Black ash is listed as "threatened" in Eastern Canada by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife. It is also listed as "endangered" in Ontario and as "threatened" in all other eastern provinces, where implementation of recovery strategies to reduce the severity and mitigate the impacts of the threat of the emerald ash borer is ongoing. Slow-the-spread efforts from the CFIA would better support those initiatives such as firewood drop-off boxes in Prince-Edward-Island or firewood surrender program in Newfoundland-and-Labrador.

Early detection is challenging

Currently, available traps and lures lack efficiency in attracting EAB, which means infestations often go undetected for several years. Ash trees typically start showing visible signs of decline only after severe infestation, which can take two or three years in lightly affected areas. This delay makes it difficult for tree owners to raise the alarm early and for inspectors to detect infestations through visual surveys. As a result, pinpointing the origin and extent of an infestation remains a significant challenge.

Firewood is the main pathway

New detections occurring hundreds of kilometers away from any infested areas can only be explained by human activities. Though the emerald ash borer can be moved by untreated logs and lumber through industrial or commercial activities, the CFIA has a good overview of these activities, so it is not believed to be a major pathway. Untreated firewood moved by individual citizens without proper approval from the CFIA is possibly the major cause of emerald ash borer dispersal, and this pathway is challenging for the CFIA to monitor.

Pest risk management options

The objective of this section is to provide management options to stakeholders for their consideration. Following consultation, the CFIA will determine the best management option or combination of options. The CFIA is currently supportive of option 2.

Where appropriate, risk management considerations mentioned in the previous section were integrated in the selection and justification of each option described below.

Consult Appendix 3: Tables comparing characteristics for each option for more information.

Option 1: Status quo (add the county or city to the regulated area if detected)

This is the regulatory strategy that has been in place for the last 20 years. If this option is retained, the regulated area would continue to be expanded based on new detections. Consult the current Regulated areas and items for emerald ash borer in Canada or Figure 1: Map of current regulated areas for more information.

Continued surveillance and enforcement activities would be performed by the CFIA in areas of Canada that are free of emerald ash borer.

Advantages

• Most efficient slow-the-spread strategy: allows the CFIA and its partners to continue to advance research on biocontrol and resistance breeding; and to prepare for large-scale implementation more thoroughly than other options.
• Grounded in scientific evidence, this option is based on documented EAB presence and aligns with proven slow-the-spread strategies that demonstrate cost-effectiveness.
• Provides the strongest protection for black ash in Eastern Canada, a tree of deep cultural and spiritual significance to many Indigenous communities.
• This is the most restrictive option for moving EAB-regulated products within Eastern Canada. As a result, it offers the best protection against the spread of EAB into uninfested counties within provinces where EAB is already present (BC, MB, ON, QC, NB and NS) and provides the second-best level of protection for eastern provinces that remain EAB-free (PEI and NL).

Disadvantages

• Some counties with undetected EAB infestations may fall outside the regulated area, increasing the risk of unintentional spread due to unrestricted movement of ash products – though this risk remains relatively low.
• The regulated area would require frequent updates, based on new detections, which adds complexity to ongoing management.
• The CFIA would still need to monitor the movement of ash products and conduct regular surveys, requiring resources that could otherwise support other plant health priorities.
• This option imposes the strictest controls on the movements of ash products which may create challenges for domestic trade and green waste management.

Option 2: Regulate the entire provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia

Under this option, the area of Canada regulated for emerald ash borer would include the entire provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

British Columbia and Manitoba would remain regulated as they currently are. The expansion of these regulated areas would be made based on new detections outside of the regulated area.

Continued surveillance would be required by the CFIA in areas of Canada that are free of the emerald ash borer.

Advantages

• Supports the CFIA and its partners time in advancing research on biocontrol and resistance breeding, and in preparing for large-scale implementation – though to a lesser extent than option 1.
• This option is not based on documented presence of EAB in some significant ash stands in Eastern Canada, making it less scientifically supported than option 1 – though it still aligns with proven slow-the-spread strategies that are cost-effective.
• Offers stronger protection for Western Canada, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador than option 1, by restricting the movement of ash products from all potentially infested but undetected areas within affected provinces.
• It provides a more stable and predictable regulatory framework than option 1 as the regulated area in Eastern Canada is unlikely to change over the next 5 years.
• It enables the CFIA to redirect funding and resources to other plant pest priorities, where they may have greater impact.

Disadvantages

• This option regulates most of the ash distribution in Eastern Canada, meaning federal movement requirements for ash products would no longer apply within the regulated area. As a result, EAB could spread more quickly into remaining uninfested ash stands.
• Under this option, federal protections for black ash in Eastern Canada would be reduced. Given the tree's cultural significance to Indigenous Peoples, this highlights the need for collaborative efforts to support its continued stewardship and preservation.

Option 3: Regulate all Eastern Canada

Under this option, the area of Canada regulated for emerald ash borer would include the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince-Edward-Island and Newfoundland-and-Labrador.

British Columbia and Manitoba would remain regulated as they currently are. The expansion of these regulated areas would be made based on new detections outside of the regulated area.

Continued surveillance would be required by the CFIA in areas of Canada not known to be positive for emerald ash borer.

Advantages

• While this option is supported by science and cost-effective, it is less robust than option 2 because it includes areas without documented EAB presence in significant ash stands, weakening the evidence base for regulation.
• Provides the strongest protection for ash trees in Western Canada, as it minimizes the risk of infested ash products being moved from Eastern Canada to Western Canada more effectively than other options.
• It is the simplest, most stable and predictable approach for Eastern Canada, since the EAB-regulated area would remain fixed and not require expansion, except in western provinces if new detections occur.
• The CFIA would no longer need to conduct monitoring and surveys in Eastern Canada, allowing more resources to be redirected to other plant pest priorities than option 2.

Disadvantages

• This option is least effective at preventing the spread of EAB across Eastern Canada, including in PEI and NL, where EAB has not been detected.
• By regulating all ash in Eastern Canada, this option removes federal movement requirements within the region. Without these controls, EAB could spread more rapidly into uninfested areas. Compared to options 1 and 2, it provides less opportunity for the CFIA and its partners to advance research on biocontrol, resistance breeding, and large-scale implementation.
• Black ash in Eastern Canada would lose federal protection under this option, increasing the risk to a tree of vital cultural and spiritual significance for many Indigenous Peoples. This outcome highlights the importance of collaborative stewardship to ensure its preservation.

Option 4: Deregulate emerald ash borer in Canada

With this option, all regulated areas for emerald ash borer in Canada would be rescinded and therefore the whole Canadian territory would be considered infested. The movement of ash products and firewood within Canada would no longer be restricted by specific movement requirements.

Specific entry requirements on ash products and firewood imported from the United States and elsewhere would be removed.

The CFIA would cease to monitor and manage emerald ash borer in Canada.

Advantages

• This is the simplest, most stable and easiest option to enforce, as deregulation is permanent and no restrictions would apply.
• It allows the CFIA to fully redirect all resources currently dedicated to EAB management toward other plant pest priorities.
• It permits unrestricted movements of ash products across Canada, which could benefit domestic trade (e.g., ash propagative material) and improve green waste management.
• This approach aligns Canada's strategy with that of the United States, which has already removed federal EAB quarantine regulations.

Disadvantages

• This option is the least effective at preventing the spread of EAB to uninfested regions of Canada, particularly in Western provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, where EAB has not yet been detected. Without regulatory controls, ash trees in both natural and urban environments across Canada would face accelerated decline.
• It does not support continued research or preparation efforts, limiting the CFIA and its partners' ability to advance biocontrol strategies, and breed resistant ash varieties, or scale up production.
• Scientific evidence does not support the removal of EAB regulation at this time, as slow-the-spread strategies have proven to be cost-effective and beneficial.
• Black ash would lose federal protection across Canada under this option, putting at risk a tree of vital cultural and spiritual significance for many Indigenous Peoples. This underscores the urgent need for collaborative stewardship to ensure its preservation.

Recommended risk management option

The CFIA recommends option 2 as the preferred approach for the management of emerald ash borer for the next 5 to 10 years.

Option 2 takes into consideration the fact that it is already well established in the 4 provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The anticipated expansion of emerald ash borer distribution in Eastern Canada is unlikely to change significantly over the next 5 years, in part due to the presence of infested but undetected counties in those affected provinces, and the challenges posed by the movement of firewood.

Prince-Edward-Island and Newfoundland-and-Labrador are expected to remain protected by the existing restrictions on the movement of ash products moving to those insular provinces.

Western provinces are expected to remain protected by the established regulated areas in Winnipeg and the Vancouver area. A number of factors, including low-level infestation, relative geographic isolation, harsh winter conditions (in the case of Winnipeg), and the relative scarcity of naturally occurring ash trees in the West, lead to believe that expansion of the emerald ash borer's distribution remains unlikely.

Option 2 offers a more stable and predictable regulatory framework for the upcoming years and would enable the CFIA to work with stakeholders and partners, to implement a new strategy for emerald ash borer, with a focus on biocontrol measures, identification and breeding of resistant ash varieties, as well as prevention.

Decision

The CFIA will record its decision, based on the input received during the consultation with partners, industry, stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples, in this section once the consultation is completed.

Endorsement

This risk management document has been approved by the Senior Director of the Plant Protection Division at the CFIA.

Appendix 1: Regional Indigenous liaison contacts

• Atlantic region (New-Brunswick, Nova-Scotia, Prince-Edward-Island, Newfoundland): danielle.martin@inspection.gc.ca
• Quebec region: iaskenia.sioui@inspection.gc.ca
• Ontario region: jennifer.ambrogio@inspection.gc.ca
• Western region (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia): lindsay.happyjack@inspection.gc.ca

Appendix 2: References

• Emerald ash borer
• Regulated areas and items: Emerald ash borer
• D-03-08: Phytosanitary requirements to prevent the introduction into and spread within Canada of the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis (Fairmaire)
• Plant health glossary of terms
• List of pests regulated by Canada

Appendix 3: Tables comparing characteristics for each option

Slows the spread of emerald ash borer

Slowing the spread of the emerald ash borer buys more time for the CFIA and its partners to finalize research on biocontrol and resistance breeding, as well as operationalize mass production.

Supported by science

Supported by science based on:

• documented presence of emerald ash borer in significant ash stands of Eastern Canada, and
• slow-the-spread strategies proven to be cost effective

Protects ash trees in Western Canada

The movement of ash material between eastern and western provinces of Canada is very low.

Protects black ash in Eastern Canada

Black ash is an important cultural tree for First Nations.

Less likely to have positive, yet undetected counties excluded from the regulated area in Eastern Canada

Simple, stable and predictable option for Eastern Canada

Allows the CFIA to reallocate resources to other plant pest priorities, where chances of success are better

Restricts domestic trade and green waste movements