DOCSLIB.ORG

The Biosecurity Approach

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

08 2016 ENG The Biosecurity Approach A review and evaluation of its application by IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW AND SUPPORT SYSTEM FAO, internationally and in various countries International Plant Protection Convention Protecting the world’s plant resources from pests 08 2016 The Biosecurity Approach A review and evaluation of its application by FAO, internationally and in various countries IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW AND SUPPORT SYSTEM Publication notes: Version 1.0 Published August 2016. This paper reviews and evaluates current biosecurity approaches, specifically approaches be- ing applied in various international bodies and individual countries. This paper was drafted by M. Megan Quinlan, James Alden, Ferdinand Habbel and Rebecca Murphy, through Imperial Col- lege Consultants Ltd., and reviewed by the IPPC Implementation Facilitation Unit. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. All rights reserved. FAO encourages reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge, upon request. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes, including educational purposes, may incur fees. Applications for permission to reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials, and all queries concerning rights and licences, should be addressed by email to [email protected] or to the Chief, Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy. THE BIOSECURITY APPROACH Contents Acronyms . 4 Preface . 6 1 Biosecurity Definitions and Principles . 7 1.1 The FAO vision of biosecurity ................................................7 1.2 Integration of sanitary and phytosanitary measures ...........................10 1.3 Plant health and biosecurity ...............................................11 1.4 Animal health, zoonotic diseases and biosecurity ..............................13 1.5 Food safety and biosecurity ................................................15 1.6 Biodiversity and biosecurity ................................................15 1.7 Biotechnology, biosafety frameworks and biosecurity ..........................17 1.8 Security and biosecurity ...................................................18 1.9 Overview of the principles and interconnectedness of biosecurity. .19 2 Drivers and Trends .. 21 3 Frameworks for Mandates and Authority . 24 3.1 International frameworks ..................................................24 3.2 National implementation ..................................................26 4 Case Studies of Approaches .. 31 4.1 Argentina ...............................................................31 4.2 Australia ................................................................32 4.3 Belize ...................................................................34 4.4 Bhutan .................................................................36 4.5 Kenya ..................................................................38 4.6 Norway .................................................................41 5 Conclusions and recommendations . 43 6 References . 46 7 Annexes . 61 Annex 1. Example definitions from international and national laws and other documents ................................................61 Annex 2. Legislative search for biosecurity .......................................69 Annex 3. Case study questions ................................................84 3 Acronyms AGP Plant Production and Protection Division (of FAO) BAFRA Bhutan Agriculture and Food Regulatory Authority BAHA Belize Agricultural Health Authority BCA Biocontrol agent BTWC Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention CAC Codex Alimentarius Commission CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CPM Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (of the IPPC) CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (of Australia) EFSA European Food Safety Authority EFTA European Free Trade Association EMPRES Emergency Prevention System EMPRES AH Emergency Prevention System for Animal Health EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GHSA Global Health Security Agenda, a partnership launched by WHO, FAO and OIE HACCP Hazard analysis and critical control point IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency IAS Invasive alien species ICPM Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (predecessor of the CPM) IHR International Health Regulations (WHO) IICA Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture INFOSAN International Food Safety Authorities Network (under the WHO) IPPC International Plant Protection Convention IRSS Implementation Review and Support System (of the IPPC) ISPM International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures MOAF Ministry of Agriculture and Forests (of Bhutan) MERCOSUR Grupo Mercado Común Del Sur NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan NGO Non-governmental organization NPPO National plant protection organization OHCEA One Health Central and Eastern Africa OIE World Organisation for Animal Health PHEIC Public Health Emergency of International Concern (of WHO) PVS Performance, vision and strategy tool prepared by IICA (various versions referenced) QCQD Quality Control and Quarantine Division (predecessor of BAFRA) QCRS Quality Control and Regulatory Services (now BAFRA) RPPO Regional plant protection organization SARS Severe acute respiratory syndrome SENASA Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (of Argentina) 4 THE BIOSECURITY APPROACH SPS Sanitary and phytosanitary, such as the system or theme related to the SPS Agreement SPS Agreement Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (of WTO) SPS Commission Intersectoral Commission of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures STDF Standards and Trade Development Facility TCP Technical Cooperation Programme (of FAO) UN United Nations UNEP United Nations Environment Programme USAID United States Agency for International Development VKM Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety WCS Wildlife Conservation Society WHO World Health Organization WTO World Trade Organization Notes on style: The usage of the term biosecurity varies widely across countries and often is difficult to translate. The 2002 FAO Expert Consultation on Biosecurity in Food and Agriculture agreed that, when written, Biosecurity should be italicized and capitalized for use in all language, in order to avoid confusion, delimit its scope and avoid translation difficulties. However, for the purposes of this report and in line with International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) general style, we have used simply: biosecurity. Similarly, to simply the report, each country mentioned is by short country name (aligned with FAO’s use, http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/iso3list/en/) rather than the official name. Citations for various legal and regulatory texts are also by the short country name and number and/or year of the act or regulation. Other details, e.g. Parliament or Council of, are included only if the cited document is clear on this point. Because these are not full legal citations, they appear by date under an alphabetical country list at the end of references, rather than with the others. Documents prepared by governments that are cited, but which are not laws or regulations, appear in the references section alphabetically by author (this may be a public unit, department, ministry or national government) 5 Preface For more than a decade, the Food and Agriculture remaining in the twenty-first century. This is now Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has been progressing as a post-2015 dialogue facilitated by a leader in developing the biosecurity approach. the United Nations Development Group, including This study of current practice has found biosecurity FAO. These global objectives were further stated in to encompass a range of previously distinct fields the Sustainable Development Goals agreed at the of expertise – in plant, animal and human health; “Rio+20” United Nations Conference on Sustainable trade and economic development; biodiversity con- Development in 2012. For the past two decades, a servation and environment; security considerations resurgence of foodborne illness and emerging dis- covering terrorism; food security; and national pat- ease discovery, local impacts and even pandemics rimony among other elements – in an interlinking linked with zoonosis, such as the severe acute re- and interdisciplinary approach that remains vague spiratory syndrome (SARS), have emphasized the albeit of increasing importance. need for coordinated and efficient surveillance and Trends in international development and govern- response systems in animal and human health. ment initiatives often follow trigger events, and bi- Biosecurity as a concept has also been affected osecurity is no different. In the 1980s food security
Recommended publications
  • Rural Plant Clinics Bangladesh

    Rural Plant Clinics Bangladesh

    Global Plant Clinic CABI Rothamsted Research CSL BANGLADESH Policy and Planning Workshop on Plant Health Services Spectra Convention Centre, Dhaka 5-6 December 2007 RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACADEMY, BOGRA AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY SOCIETY SHUSHILAN cover: virus symptoms on beans, one of many problems that plant doctors in Bangladesh handle with confidence. www.globalplantclinic.org www.reserach4development.info www.youtube/user/globalplantclinic Fixed Plant Clinic at Jonail, Natore, managed by AAS (photo Paula Kelly) PARTNERS IN THE PLANT HEALTH SERVICES INITIATIVE The Global Plant Clinic provides and coordinates plant health services. It supports over 80 plant clinics in Bolivia, Nicaragua, Uganda, DR Congo, Sierra Leone, Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Vietnam. The GPC is managed by CABI in alliance with Rothamsted Research and the Central Science Laboratory and is funded by the UK Department for International Development. Bangladesh coordinator. Paula Kelly [[email protected]] Head of GPC. Eric Boa [[email protected]]. The Rural Development Academy, Bogra is a government-supported institute has been running clinics since 2004. Plant health services coordinator: AKM Zakaria. Director General: Abdul Mannan. The Agricultural Advisory Society (AAS) is a non-governmental organisation and has been running clinics since 2005. Plant health services coordinator and director: Harun ar-Rashid. Shushilan is a non-governmental organisation and has been running clinics since 2005. Plant health services coordinator: Shahriar Zaman Dider. Director: Md. Nuruzzaman We thank Mr Harun ar-Rashid of AAS and RDA Bogra and all staff for organising this meeting. This report is written by Eric Boa and Paula Kelly. 1 Everyday help for farmers Agriculture is the backbone of life in Bangladesh yet farmers consistently fail to get the support they need.
  • Official Feedback Form

    Official Feedback Form

    OFFICIAL FEEDBACK FORM DIALOGUE DATE Monday, 28 June 2021 15:00 GMT +02:00 Transforming food systems for the 21st Century: Why does facilitating safe trade DIALOGUE TITLE matter? CONVENED BY Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) DIALOGUE EVENT PAGE https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21898/ DIALOGUE TYPE Independent GEOGRAPHICAL FOCUS No borders The outcomes from a Food Systems Summit Dialogue will be of use in developing the pathway to sustainable food systems within the locality in which they take place. They will be a valuable contribution to the national pathways and also of interest to the different workstreams preparing for the Summit: the Action Tracks, Scientic Groups and Champions as well as for other Dialogues. Food Systems Summit Dialogues Ocial Feedback Form Transforming food systems for the 21st Century: Why does facilitating safe trade Dialogue title matter? Date published 03/09/2021 1. PARTICIPATION TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS 132 PARTICIPATION BY AGE RANGE 0 0-18 19 19-30 72 31-50 31 51-65 9 66-80 1 80+ PARTICIPATION BY GENDER 69 Male 60 Female 3 Prefer not to say or Other NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN EACH SECTOR 9 Agriculture/crops 8 Education 3 Health care 3 Fish and aquaculture 1 Communication Nutrition 7 Livestock 4 Food processing 18 National or local government Agro-forestry Food retail, markets Utilities 1 Environment and ecology 4 Food industry Industrial 53 Trade and commerce 2 Financial Services 19 Other NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS FROM EACH STAKEHOLDER GROUP 2 Small/medium enterprise/artisan Workers and
  • The CABI Development Fund (CDF) Mid-Term Report to DFID 2010-2011

    The CABI Development Fund (CDF) Mid-Term Report to DFID 2010-2011

    The CABI Development Fund (CDF) Mid-term report to DFID 2010-2011 www.cabi.org KNOWLEDGE FOR LIFE 2 CABI improves people’s lives worldwide by providing information and applying scientific expertise to solve problems in agriculture and the environment www.cabi.org sustainable agriculture KNOWLEDGE FOR LIFE contents about CABI .........................................................................................................04 the CABI Development Fund .............................................................................05 lose less, feed more: CDF iniatives in 2010-2011 ............................................07 overview of the Plantwise initiative ..................................................................08 supporting farmers ............................................................................................09 Plantwise clinics ........................................................................................................................09 improving food security.....................................................................................12 providing a new variety of kale seed to smallholders in Kenya.............................................12 management of cocoa pod borer in Papua New Guinea ........................................................13 management of coffee berry borer in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia ...........................14 African inputs to coffee berry borer work ...............................................................................15 protecting biodiversity
  • Biosecurity in Australia: a Working Partnership and Shared Responsibility

    Biosecurity in Australia: a Working Partnership and Shared Responsibility

    Biosecurity in Australia: a working partnership and shared responsibility Dennis Bittisnich Biosecurity Services Group Outline • Australian agriculture in context • Biosecurity control in Australia: a brief background • PPPs in Australian biosecurity: a shared responsibility • Observations: key factors in Australian biosecurity PPPs Australian Agriculture in Context • Geographically isolated; unique flora and fauna; many climatic zones • Political federation of 8 state and territory governments under a commonwealth government • Only 10% land area is arable • 0.3% global population • 3% of global agricultural trade • Beef, wheat, wine, wool, lamb, feed, dairy Australian Agriculture in Context • Historically Australian economy “rode on the sheep’s back”; significant wool, lamb and cereal exporter • Ag nearly 30% of national GDP at peak (now 5% GDP; 60% is exported; 5:1 export:import) • Premium for “clean green” credentials; esp. from favourable animal/plant disease status • Biosecurity threats were thus high on industry, political, and trade agenda Australian Agriculture in Context • In last 10-15 years: exports levelled off; drought & international competition • Agri-food imports doubled; mostly from developing countries • International passengers and cargo doubled - globalization • Emerging/altered spread of disease • ALSO: Trading partner requirements/SPS disciplines more rigorously applied Biosecurity control in Australia • Historically public management of biosecurity (also food safety; ag R&D) seen as a government “public good” (beneficiaries
  • Analysing the Potential of Plant Clinics to Boost Crop Protection in Rwanda Through Adoption of IPM: the Case of Maize and Maize Stem Borers

    Analysing the Potential of Plant Clinics to Boost Crop Protection in Rwanda Through Adoption of IPM: the Case of Maize and Maize Stem Borers

    Food Security https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-019-00910-5 ORIGINAL PAPER Analysing the potential of plant clinics to boost crop protection in Rwanda through adoption of IPM: the case of maize and maize stem borers Silvia Silvestri1 & Martin Macharia1,2 & Bellancile Uzayisenga3 Received: 1 June 2018 /Accepted: 5 March 2019 # The Author(s) 2019 Abstract Maize plays an important role in the livelihoods of rural communities in Rwanda. However, maize yields are threatened by the presence of pests and diseases and a general lack of knowledge and information for their management. In this study we sought to assess if plant clinics are making farmers more aware and knowledgeable of pests and diseases and are indirectly contributing to higher yields. We interviewed 644 farmers across Rwanda, both users and non-users of plant clinics. Propensity score matching was used to match the users and non-users of plant clinics and logistic regression was used to assess a number of factors, including interactions with plant clinics, that affect farmers’ adoption of pest management practices. Our analysis shows that users of plant clinics are more aware and knowledgeable in recognizing and handling maize stem borers. Furthermore, users of plant clinics have on average higher yields than non-users and this difference is highly significant (P < 0.001). The analysis therefore demonstrates that plant clinics are beneficial to farmers in Rwanda. However, efforts are required to diversify the spectrum of practices that are promoted by plant clinics and by extension and advisory services in Rwanda. Keywords Plant clinics . Maize . Pests . Awareness . Adoption .
  • Australian Biosecurity Funding Approaches Ahchow Et Al

    Australian Biosecurity Funding Approaches Ahchow Et Al

    Australian Biosecurity Funding Approaches Ahchow et al. Australasian Agribusiness Perspectives 2017, Volume 20, Paper 8 ISSN: 1442-6951 Biosecurity in Australia: An Assessment of the Current Funding Approach Ruth Ahchowa, Garry Griffithb and Susan Hesterc * a Former postgraduate student, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville; and Director, Economics, Regulation and Policy, EY, Melbourne. b Principal Fellow, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville; and Professorial Research Fellow, UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale. c Senior Research Fellow, UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale; and Chief Investigator, Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis, School of Biosciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abstract Australian governments and industries have limited resources to tackle established pests and diseases and to prevent new incursions. As the biosecurity threats to Australia’s economy, environment and society change, it is important that the funding and governance of responses are appropriately aligned and resourced. Key decisions concern which biosecurity threats will receive funding, how much funding they will receive, and who will be responsible for providing the funding. In this paper we review the current national approach to biosecurity funding, and a high level assessment is made against economic and public policy principles for allocation of resources to biosecurity. The review finds that the primary assessment for determining funding of national biosecurity response is benefit-cost analysis. However, benefit-cost analysis is often restricted to providing a net benefit of responding to one plant or animal pest or disease. The conclusion is that an approach which considers a portfolio of pests and diseases may be more appropriate in a limited resource environment.
  • Biosecurity and Quarantine Arrangements

    Biosecurity and Quarantine Arrangements

    Biosecurity and quarantine arrangements Senate Inquiry – August 2010 Contents 1 Summary ................................................................................................................... 3 2 Terms of Reference...................................................................................................... 3 2.1 The adequacy of current biosecurity and quarantine arrangements, including resourcing 3 2.2 Projected demand and resourcing requirements ....................................................... 5 2.3 Progress in implementation of the ‘Beale Review’ recommendations and their place in meeting projected biosecurity demand and resourcing ......................................................... 6 2.4 Any related matters ............................................................................................. 9 Biosecurity and quarantine arrangements 2 Senate Inquiry – August 2010 1 Summary The Cooperative Research Centre for National Plant Biosecurity (CRCNPB) started operating in November 2005 in recognition of the need to strengthen the plant biosecurity scientific capacity of Australia. The CRCNPB coordinates plant biosecurity research across all Australian states and territories and has an extensive collaborative network of researchers and educators from 24 participating organisations representing industry, universities, state and Australian governments. A key strength of the CRCNPB is the involvement of its participants who are, in many cases, end- users of research results. This ensures maximum benefit

  • Stopping Smuggling Promoting Safe Trade

    Stopping Smuggling PromotingAND Safe Trade On the Watch for U.S. Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance REPORT AGRICULTURAL SMUGGLING AT: 1-800-877-3835 or [email protected] 247-990_Agric.indd 1 10/3/19 1:55 PM Global trade and travel—vast, fast-paced, and constantly growing— bring increased risks for one of our country’s greatest resources: agriculture. While the wide array of foreign foods, plants, and processed products available in the U.S. marketplace enriches our lives, these items can also carry invasive pests and diseases that do not yet have a foothold in America. Most foreign products enter the United States legally, through a system of certifications, treatments, and inspections designed to keep agricultural pests and diseases out of the country. However, products occasionally bypass that system and enter the United States illegally, in some cases because of deliberate efforts to smuggle them. Pests and diseases in infested shipments can devastate our country’s agricultural production and the American landscape. Exotic fruit fl ies, non-native wood-boring insects, invasive weeds, and foreign animal diseases are just a few examples of the intruders that could come into the country this way, with staggering costs for the United States: billions in lost production and export markets, millions more for pest and disease management expenses, increased 247-990_Agric.indd 2 9/16/19 11:37 AM These assorted fruits and vegetables were seized from arriving passengers at John F. Kennedy International Airport in NewYork. Foreign produce can bring non-native pests and diseases into the United States, resulting in crop losses, increased produproductionction costs, and environmentalenvironmental damage.
  • Mainstreaming Trade to Attain the Sustainable Development Goals

    Mainstreaming Trade to Attain the Sustainable Development Goals

    Mainstreaming trade to attain the Sustainable Development Goals Mainstreaming trade to attain the Sustainable Development Goals WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION Contents Executive summary 2 Chapter 1 Mainstreaming trade to expand economic opportunities for poverty reduction 6 Chapter 2 The economic dimension of trade in the SDGs 16 Chapter 3 The social dimension of trade in the SDGs 30 Chapter 4 The environmental dimension of trade in the SDGs 44 Chapter 5 Emerging issues requiring the attention of the international community 50 Chapter 6 Recommendations on ways to accelerate progress in achieving the SDGs 56 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive summary he WTO is central to achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Twhich set targets to be achieved by 2030 in areas such as poverty reduction, health, education and the environment. The SDGs put significant emphasis on the role that trade plays in promoting sustainable development and recognize the contribution that the WTO can make to the 2030 Agenda. Historically, trade has proven to be an engine for development and poverty reduction by boosting growth, particularly in developing countries. Rapid growth greatly contributed to the unprecedented reduction of poverty levels which led to the early achievement of the Millennium Development Goal to reduce poverty by half by 2015. Trade works for developing countries because opening up to trade increases a country’s economic growth as it allows each country to use its resources more efficiently by specializing in the production of the goods and services it can produce more competitively. By increasing growth, trade can also make available the necessary resources to implement other development targets in the social and environmental sphere.
  • Plant Biosecurity in Australia

    Plant Biosecurity in Australia

    Proceedings VII World Avocado Congress 2011 (Actas VII Congreso Mundial del Aguacate 2011). Cairns, Australia. 5 – 9 September 2011 Plant biosecurity in Australia – a powerful government–industry partnership Greg Fraser Plant Health Australia Abstract The ability of governments and industries to work together and share responsibility for designing and managing the plant biosecurity system in Australia has been a crucial development over the last 15 years. Plant Health Australia (PHA) was established in 2000 as a not-for-profit company to breathe life into this partnership and support its strengthening and expansion over time. The model’s success has enabled a wide range of nationally significant challenges to be addressed and agreements to be put in place to deliver improved biosecurity outcomes. While the partnership continues to evolve there are lessons to be drawn from the experience of Australia and the potential for transfer of the approach to other countries. PHA, as the national coordinating body for plant biosecurity in Australia, services the needs of its government and industry members and acts as an independent advocate for the national plant biosecurity system. The company’s efforts help minimise new plant pest impacts, enhance Australia’s plant biosecurity status, assist trade and market access for Australia’s plant products, safeguard the livelihood of producers, support the sustainability and profitability of plant industries and the communities that rely upon them, and preserve environmental health and amenity. Key words Plant, biosecurity, Australia, government, industry, partnership, national Introduction Australia, in plant biosecurity terms, is the lucky country. Natural geographic isolation and a strong focus on biosecurity have ensured that Australia remains free from many plant pests that adversely affect agriculture, horticulture and forestry in other parts of the world.
  • UN Issues Guidelines to Minimize Risk of Invasive Species

    UN Issues Guidelines to Minimize Risk of Invasive Species

    Press release UN issues guidelines to minimize risk of invasive species Guidance targets pets, terrarium and aquarium species and live bait PyeongChang/Montreal, 10 October 2014 – The Convention on Biological Diversity today adopted new guidance to tackle the introduction of invasive species as pets, aquarium and terrarium species, and as live bait and live food. The guidance addresses a major pathway for introduction and spread of invasive alien species, as a significant percentage of global invasive introductions result from pets, aquarium and terrarium species that escape from confined conditions and then get into the natural environment. “This is an important step forward to prevent, and control the risks on biodiversity posed by non-native live animals, plants as well as pathogens and parasites attached to the live specimens that are in trade, including growing market on the Internet trade,” said Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity. "Safe trade of live animals and plants and responsible conduct protects unique biodiversity in the varied biogeographic regions of the world while facilitating an international market. This contributes to sustainable development world wide,” he added. The guidelines, which were adopted during the 12th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD (COP-12), fill a gap in the international guidance on prevention, control or eradication of invasive alien species. They are intended to apply to the import or transport of species to a country or distinct biogeographical area within a country, including trade via the Internet. The guidance is relevant to countries, relevant organizations, the industry and consumers, including all actors along the value chain, such as importers, breeders, wholesalers, retailers and customers.
  • The Future of Biosecurity in Australia

    The Future of Biosecurity in Australia

    Journal & Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales, vol. 152, part 1, 2019, pp. 121–128. ISSN 0035-9173/19/010121-08 The future of biosecurity in Australia Eddie Holmes Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, Charles Perkins Centre, and School of Life & Environmental Sciences and Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney E-mail: [email protected] was assigned the task of talking about If it had come here, who knows what would I biosecurity, and biosecurity, it turns out, have happened. SARS was a major warning is an extremely broad term that can be used shock. in a wide variety of ways so I’m just going to At the same time as these human out- use it in the context of, as Brian notes, infec- breaks, our cultural systems face a very major tious diseases, particularly on what Australia threat too. Exactly at the same time as SARS, may need to do to prevent and respond to in the Netherlands there was an outbreak future epidemics. (which I’m sure you haven’t heard about) of H7N7 influenza, a very nasty, highly viru- SARS and other ’flu-like respiratory lent H7 strain of avian ’flu. This was com- viruses pletely concurrent with the SARS outbreak. If you wind the clock back just a few years, The Dutch authorities were so scared about you all remember the SARS outbreak of this that they basically went through a mass 2003. The numbers of people infected were culling operation of chickens in Holland to not actually that great: overall globally about eliminate the virus.