This project evaluated current surveillance systems for EPPs using Bayesian statistical methods and identifed other sources of data that could be used to complement existing surveillance programs. It  also evaluated specific surveillance methods and tests such as visual inspection by field and quality assurance staff and diagnostic tests used in the identification of plant pathogens.

What is the biosecurity problem?

Under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS agreement) countries are no longer allowed to restrict imports of plant products for non-scientifically justifiable reasons and the need to provide valid data supporting the status of plant pathogens of concern is becoming increasingly important.

Current plant pathogen surveillance systems are often focused on targeted surveillance for a specific pathogen and methods are based on 'expert opinion' and historically used tests. These surveillance systems only report on the pest status in a particular time period, effectively a ‘snapshot' and are often expensive to implement due to the large number of samples required to provide sufficient confidence of obtaining an accurate representation of the pest status in a given region or country at that time.

The main outputs of this project were to:

• assess the application of statistical and modeling tools for their evaluation of plant health surveillance systems
• develop methods for identifying different risks in population subgroups based on risk-based analysis
• develop methods for risk-based surveillance design
• statistically evaluate methods and tests currently used in surveillance systems, and
• assess alternative sources of data available that may contribute towards demonstrating disease freedom and early detection of EPPs.

Who are the end-users of this research?

The tools and methodologies developed in this project are most applicable to government departments for use in designing future surveillance programs, assessing current surveillance programs and demonstrating disease freedom for use in the support of market access applications. The tools and methods developed are also applicable for assessing surveillance data supplied by trading partners as part of import applications.

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of invasive species that have the potential to arrive and establish in any particular region or country. Identifying which species are more likely than others to invade and establish is extremely difficult, yet the capacity to do so is vitally important to the biosecurity of a nation.

Currently, government agencies consult industry stakeholders and technical experts, as well as published data to generate a pest risk assessment for a particular insect pest. While this can be valuable for many reasons, any estimate of risk is ultimately subjective. An alternative is to use a more quantitative modelling approach to generate more objective estimates of risk. One modelling approach is to utilise a Self Organising Map (SOM), which is a type of artificial neural network.

Research outcomes:

Self organising maps (SOM) are a useful tool for ranking species by their likelihood of establishment. We have tested this tool and found it to be both resilient to significant errors in the distributional data (up to 20%) and very reliable in its predictions of which species will and wont invade a region.

Research implications:

SOM would be a valuable tool to integrate into the current biosecurity practices. It could be used initially to screen a large number of potential invasive species down to a more manageable number. The rankings generated by SOM for this reduced list could then be included in the consultative process currently used to prioritise pest lists.

Acknowledgements:

The project team would like to thank the following government agencies for their gracious support of the project: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Bureau of Rural Science; Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, Department of Primary Industries Victoria; the South Australian Research and Development Institute; New South Wales Department of Primary Industries; Northern Territory Department of Primary Industries, Fisheries and Mines; the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries and Water; and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries.

We would like to acknowledge the help and advice of the following people and organisations: Richard Mack, Andy Sheppard, Paul De Barro, Matthew Thomas, CAB International, Tak Ikeda, Roger Magarey, Dan Fieselmann, Karl Suiter, Sharyn Taylor, Nadiah Kristensen, Simon Barry, John LaSalle, Marianne Horak, Rolf Oberprieler, Peter Gillespie, Bob Forrester, Alice Wells, Darren Kriticos, Felix Bianchi, Gary Fitt, Roger Shivas, Mike Watts, Greg Baker and Marc Poole.

Thank you very much to CRCNPB’s Delivery and Adoption Program and CSIRO Computational and Simulation Sciences Transformational Capability Platform for their generous support of the Technologies Enhancing Biosecurity Preparedness workshop held at the Rydges Lakeside Canberra Hotel on the 21st May 2009. We particularly thank John Taylor (CSIRO), Cain Roberts (CRCNPB) and Melanie Hay (CRCNPB) for their help in arranging the workshop. We would also like to thank all who participated and helped to make it a success, including Jeanine Baker (DAFF – BRS), Joanne Banyer (ABIN), Mike Cole (OCPPO), Andrew Copp (DEWHA), Daniel Fieselmann (USDA – APHIS), Neil Grant (DAFF – BA), Don Gunusekera (DAFF – ABARE), Takayoshi Ikeda (Lincoln University), Jon Knight (Imperial College London/PRATIQUE), Gwenael Leday (Lincoln University), Simon McKirdy (CRC NPB), Steve McMahon (ABIN), David Newth (CSIRO), Bill Roberts (DAFF – BA), John Sandow (CRC NPB), Andy Sheppard (CSIRO), John Taylor (CSIRO), Sharyn Taylor (PHA), Louise Van Meurs (DAFF – BA).

Currently biosecurity prediction is highly uncertain. Plant industries need more confidence in planning for biosecurity investments. The current system depends on expert opinion on a number of questions. While this may be the best available system to prioritise threats at present, it is well known that opinion is susceptible to bias and possibly misleading prioritisation.

Research outcomes:

Our research showed that multi-criteria decision analysis is an effective vehicle for the communication of results of economic analyses, technical scientific information and personal experiences to groups of decision-makers. These decision makers may be deciding on how much industry money to invest in species-specific research and development activities, government agencies forming part of the biosecurity continuum, industry and regional cooperative institutions, or local governments allocating money to pest and disease control activities. If supported by a transparent, interactive tool revealing group and individual preferences, experts capable of conveying their knowledge in a clear fashion and adequate technical information about pests, the technique we have developed is a highly effective decision-facilitation device.

In a trial setting it has been successfully used to prioritise a diverse list of pests and diseases affecting different industries. An interesting finding of our research is that introducing information about uncertainties in future pest impact scenarios does not necessarily have a significant impact on pest prioritisation. While the use of quantitative models to provide effective expert testimony on the market impacts of pests proved very successful, the relative uncertainty/quality of that information appeared to have little effect on decision-maker priorities. This being the case, there may be scope to further simplify the deliberative process to make group decision facilitation more rapid.

Sample of Threat Data documents:

Threat data - Pear fruit moth [61]

Threat data - Rose beetle [62]

Threat data - Turnip moth [63]

For a full list, please see the below Final Report.  

Research implications:

The range of possible impacts society may face in the future as a result of pest and disease incursions should be taken account of when planning risk mitigation activities. For instance, industry and government research and development programs targeted towards future threats should take into account forgone opportunities to invest in other activities that could potentially produce large benefits for the community. This is particularly true of invasive species that have both cultivated and wild native hosts since an outbreak can produce both market and non-market impacts. If only the market impacts are taken into account during industry and government strategic plans, there is a danger species with environmental and social impacts may be under-funded. The implications of this research project for all members of the biosecurity continuum are that practical tools have been developed to enable both market and non-market impacts of pests and diseases to be accounted for when planning for the future. To be most effective they require diverse groups coming together and talk about specific threats and a willingness to understand alternative points of view and joint approaches to risk mitigation and management.

Acknowledgements:

The Enhanced Biosecurity Planning Tools project team would like to acknowledge the role members of our Expert Reference Group played in shaping the project. This group was a valuable resource throughout, and we thank Tony Russell (Apple and Pear Australia Ltd.), Nicky Bresolin (Plant Health Australia), Mike Cole (DAFF-OCCPO), Wendy Proctor (CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems), Andy Sheppard (CSIRO Entomology), David Dall (RIRDC), Kim James (HAL), Rob Duthie (HAL/Kalang Consultancy Services), Debra Riddell (DAFF-BRS), Jane Fisher (RIRDC) and Ryan Wilson (PHA) for their time, insight, thoughts and ideas.
 

Thank you very much to Cain Roberts and the Cooperative Research Centre for National Plant Biosecurity’s Delivery and Adoption Program for their generous support of the Pest Risk Prioritisation Stakeholder Workshop held at the Rydges Lakeside Canberra Hotel on the 6-7 May 2009. Thank you also to all who participated in this workshop and helped to make it a tremendous success, including Nicole Bresolin (PHA), Jason Cappello (NSW Farmers Association), Rochelle Christian (Bureau of Rural Sciences), Mike Cole (DAFF), David Dall (RIRDC), Peter Darley (NSW Farmers Association), Paul DeBarro (CSIRO Entomology/CRC NPB), Ron Gordon (Batlow Fruit Co-op.), Kim James (Horticulture Australia Ltd.), Trevor Ranford (Apple and Pear Australia Ltd.), Tony Russell (Apple and Pear Australia Ltd.), Bill Rye (Cropwatch), Rien Silverstein (Pear Grower), Andrew Tomkins (Department of Regional Development, Primary Industries, Fisheries & Resources) and Ian Warren (Department of Environment Water Heritage and Arts).