CRC for Plant Biosecurity - Lovett

It's on for young and old

CRICHTONA — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:26:58 +0000

My December ‘Leaflet’ column concluded with a reference to the Billy Ocean song ‘When the going gets tough…’ The message this time is ‘Well, we have’. Got going, that is.

The CRCNPB Board has held two workshops, one in Melbourne in January and a second as an adjunct to the hugely successful ‘2011 Science Exchange’ in early February. Feedback from DIISR was reviewed and accepted as being, in general, favourable to the prospects of a re-bid in the CRC Program Round 14. Both workshops were very positive and the Board’s commitment to a re-bid was echoed at a meeting of Participants, also held during the Science Exchange.

A most encouraging feature of this event was that representatives of the CRCNPB’s researcher community and our various end-user constituencies turned up in numbers and were fully engaged over the two-and-a-half days of activities. It was particularly pleasing that a number of industry delegates spoke warmly of the continuing growth in maturity of the CRCNPB, evidenced in the excellent array of oral and written presentations.

Should the CRCNPB be obliged to close its doors in 2012 we shall be able to do so in the knowledge that we have fulfilled our commitments to the participants and to the federal Government and that a substantial legacy will be left in place. Naturally, the legacy will be much greater if we’re able, over a second CRC term, to develop from the base which so many have worked so hard to create over the past five plus years.

In the short to medium term, preparations for the re-bid need to be progressed concurrently with preparation of a CRCNPB Wind up Strategy, Plan and Deed for submission to DIISR by 30 June. Refer back to the quote in paragraph one at this point….

Fresh from the Science Exchange the CRCNPB was invited to give evidence to the Senate Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry into ‘Biosecurity and quarantine arrangements’. We understand that more than 40 submissions were made to the Committee and that the CRCNPB was one of only five entities invited to give further evidence. This provided a good opportunity for the CEO and me to highlight our activities and achievements over the past five years, and our aspirations beyond the initial term of the CRCNPB. The Committee ranged widely in its questions and appeared to be supportive of our continuing efforts. A transcript will appear in Hansard in due course.

The Committee expressed particular interest in remote diagnostics. The remote microscope is a sure fire winner with any audience. We thought they might ask about biosecurity and climate change, given that the latter has roused passions in more than one parliamentary breast. In the event we were spared this potential minefield but it begs the question as to what actually is going on with the weather?

Anthropogenic influences - elevated carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and changing temperatures - are measurable, and there is a strong body of scientific opinion which links them to global warming. But beyond that point it seems to me that the jury is out, and may remain so for some considerable time. Relating these effects to the extreme climate events which are occurring around the world isn’t easy. La Niña episodes, for example, have been reported for at least 300 years. The current event is certainly one of the strongest in recent times, but 30-odd years ago record floods in Brisbane and Cyclone Tracy in Darwin were related to a comparable La Niña event.

In the days when my academic activities including lecturing innocent Second Years on climate and plant growth, the modellers of the day were intrigued by the apparent occurrence of cyclical climate events in Australia (especially droughts) at more or less regular intervals. Thirty years was one of them. No doubt today’s computing power and ocean-atmosphere models will reveal whether the cycles were real or just wishful thinking – which brings me back to much of the ‘debate’ on climate change.

One thing is absolutely for sure, whatever changes take place in the climate, Australian and global, the plant pathogens and insects which are biosecurity’s bread and butter will be more than capable of adapting to them.

‘Always look on the bright side…’ [Python, M 1979].

VANMEURSA — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 01:08:23 +0000

Minister Carr’s announcement of the successful CRCs in Round 13 may not have been quite the Christmas present we would all have enjoyed. But we were warned. At interview in November the message was that the competition would be severe. In the event only four CRC bids of the thirteen which went to interview were successful. In previous rounds six or seven might have been anticipated but the CRC Committee had fewer resources at its disposal this time round.

Interestingly, the header of the Minster’s media release on 10 December was ‘$100 million boost to tackle health and environment challenges’. Maybe the latter is a reflection of changed circumstances for Government since Round 13 was launched? However, the successful bids were, by-and-large, consistent with the announced Ministerial priorities of social sciences and manufacturing, which remain in place for Round 14. The eclectic mix of Round 13 winners encompasses mental health, environmental remediation and the well being of young people. And I, for one, shall enjoy barbecues even more in the future, secure in the knowledge that my sausages are of high integrity and come from really contented sows.

In the October issue of The Leaflet, written before our interview, I wrote “…we look forward to a safe landfall and delivering the goods on your behalf”. In terms of completing the bid process and performing at interview I believe that we accomplished both those objectives. Enormous credit is due to all members of the CRCNPB who worked so hard to put together a bid which met all the CRC Committee’s criteria.

At the time of writing we are yet to receive detailed feedback on our bid. This will be critical in Participants advising the Board and Management as to which option we might pursue in 2011.

Meanwhile, we have a Science Exchange to look forward to in February and the prospect of continuing to build on a track record which bears comparison with any CRC in its sixth year.

Following the Annual General Meeting in November I attended an Executive Board meeting of the Global Crop Diversity Trust, held in Rome. Excellent progress continues to be made in securing crop genetic resources in the Global Seed Vault on Svalbard. If there is a concern it is that, while duplicates of the major collections of the international Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Centres are being obtained, the many smaller collections around the world are still at risk. And the costs of saving them are escalating. The trust’s initial target for its endowment fund was $US260 million. The sum is now estimated at around $450 million.

I was also able to visit CABI Headquarters in the United Kingdom and to receive an update on the development of CABI’s Invasive Species Compendium (ISC) and the Global Plant Clinic initiatives. The ISC will be launched, globally, in 2011 and we expect to be part of that process. Meanwhile, it is planned that pre-publicity for the ISC launch will be generated during the Science Exchange. The Remote Microscope Network is a natural fit with the Global Plant Clinic concept, which provides a diagnostic service for all plants and types of problems, is used by over 80 countries and helps maintain disease vigilance. The clinic also trains plant pathologists, and works to improve regular and reliable access to technical support and advice, particularly in the developing world.

So, as I retreat to the armchair with something soothing, have a very Merry Christmas and, for 2011, consistent with my nautical theme, remember that Billy Ocean once sang ‘When the going gets tough....'

CRC Association Conference 2010

VANMEURSA — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:43:47 +0000

‘Pathfinders 2010: the Innovators Conference,' sub-titled ‘Challenge and Change: Sourcing Evidence to Tackle the Real Issues’ was held in Alice Springs from 26 to 28 May. Approximately 43 CRCs were represented and a total of approximately 300 delegates took part. Details of the conference program may be found on the conference website.

Several members of the CRC Committee were present, including Professor Elizabeth Deane, who was a member of the panel for the CRCNPB Third Year Review, Dr Warren King, a member of the interview panel for the CRCNPB Supplementary Bid, and Dr Don Anderson. I was able to have two conversations with Dr Peter Jonson, Chair of the CRC Committee.

The opening plenary session was devoted to the topic ‘Evidence or anecdote – which has the most influence?’ Speakers included Ms Clare Martin, former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, and Mr David Kalisch, Commissioner with the Productivity Commission. The ‘take home message’ from this session was that many decisions made by governments are not based on evidence. David Kalisch cited examples where evidence had been taken and used by government, tariff reform being a case in point. But there were many examples of policy decisions being made without a strong evidence base or in spite of evidence provided. The CRCs need to provide evidence of achievement which is understood by governments and bureaucracies.

A panel of speakers in the second part of the session addressed ‘The Intervention as a Test Case: Was Intervention Based on Evidence or Anecdote?’ While interesting as a test case the emotion and political overtones of the session left many delegates pondering its relevance to the CRCA.

A closed workshop session for Chairs and CEOs was opened by a short presentation from Dr Peter Jonson, Chair of the CRC Committee. His message was that, at least for the time being, the ‘reform cycle’ is over. Shorter terms for CRCs and strategies for exit but continuation in a different guise remain high on the Committee’s agenda. The possibility of supporting precursors to full CRCs is being examined to make it easier for new players to enter a very competitive field. There was a cautionary note that, after 19 years, Treasury remains to be convinced of the merits of the CRC model. A questioner raised the prospect of the CRCs being drawn into the Productivity Commission enquiry into the RDCs. For example, if the RDCs are doing their job in drawing together research on a national basis, why are CRCs needed as well?

Photo caption: Panel discussion: Pathfinders 2010: the Innovators Conference, Alice Springs

The workshop, proper, considered various aspects of the bidding and review processes. The workshop outcomes will form the basis of a CRCA submission to DIISR. Main points were:

the online DIISR system for applications is not user-friendly
feedback to bidders has been patchy
valuing social and public good is difficult to achieve and to defend
experiences differ but the majority felt that maintaining contacts with DIISR were difficult, not least due to turn-over of staff
an annual CRC round of applications, coupled with DIISR taking responsibility for the Third Year Review, will compound this problem, and
increasing complexity in DIISR processes is paralleled by decreasing funding for successful CRCs.

Capturing the emphasis on international linkages and social sciences in the current CRC Guidelines, the second day of the conference commenced with presentations on ‘Widening the worldview – looking through a different lens’. Humans have preconceived notions which benefit from being tested against a broader contextual framework. This framework includes important cultural elements which may, for example, be critical in negotiating terms of trade.

It was in this context that one of the more unusual papers was presented. Jack Sim of the WTO (World Toilet Organisation) spoke to the topic ‘Making Sanitation Sexy’. The WTO’s thesis is that, in the humanitarian sector, unlike saving pandas, global warming or providing safe drinking water, toilets and sanitation are not popular topics. However, for the 2.5 billion people who live without access to proper sanitation they are a matter of paramount concern in terms of health and quality of life.

Professor Joe Mathew (Centre for Integrated Engineering Asset Management) addressed the challenge of maintaining Australia’s physical infrastructure, pointing to gas plant failures in Victoria and Western Australia as examples where inadequate maintenance – a consequence of declining investment and a shortage of ‘fit-for-purpose’ workforce – had contributed to the problems.

A motivational session ‘The Chemistry of Success’ enabled significant audience participation in examining drivers of peak intellectual performance. The speaker, Matt Church, espoused the need for physical as well as mental fitness among Australia’s CRC elite, at all stages of their careers. For further information visit his website.

As always ‘Showcasing Early Career Scientists’ was a conference highlight. Four speakers were allowed 10 minute presentations with visual aids; four other speakers made three minute presentations with no visual aids. The standard was uniformly high, a PhD student from the CRC for Asthma and Airways claiming victory in the 10 minute category and an excellent presenter from the CRC for Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems narrowly beating a PhD student from the Invasive Animals CRC in the three minute category.

During the conference, Dr Tony Peacock, CEO of the Invasive Animals CRC, gained instant notoriety via a live interview on ABC Radio where less than flattering comments were made as to the gender and age of many CRC Chairs.

Professor Barney Glover, Vice-Chancellor, Charles Darwin University, and Mr John Scanlon, Secretary-General of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species within the United Nations Environment Program, closed the conference in a session on ‘Innovation by Collaboration’.

The customary awards at the conference dinner included, fittingly, a ‘Star’ award to the Desert Knowledge CRC. This CRC had played the major role in conference organisation and winds up on 30 June. It is to be succeeded by a CRC for Remote Economic Participation.

The 2011 CRCA Conference will be held in Brisbane in mid-June.

Photo acknowledgement: CRCA conference website

Biodiversity and biosecurity – you can’t have one without the other

VANMEURSA — Mon, 03 May 2010 02:25:25 +0000

In February’s edition of The Leaflet, my armchair comments closed with a note on the imminence of ‘Global Biosecurity 2010’, the international conference which exceeded our expectations in terms of both quantity (numbers of delegates) and quality (an acclaimed range of presentations). We all had our favourites but to me the stand-out was the number of industry representatives who commented on how well the CRCNPB presented itself. Well done to everyone!

I’m going to continue the global theme but cheat a little in this article. Readers may know that I serve as a member of the Board of the Global Crop Diversity Trust (GCDT), with my affiliation being as Chairman of the CRCNPB. When I make presentations about either the CRCNPB or the GCDT I invariably point out that biodiversity and biosecurity are inextricably inter-twined. You simply can’t have one without the other. The following words are from the latest communiqué from Executive Director of the GCDT, Dr Cary Fowler. The full version may be found on the GCDT website.

'Of Pandas and Peas

Days after the international community failed to establish legally binding measures to halt climate change, the UN launched the International Year of Biodiversity. Scientists predict climate change will directly imperil one-fourth of the Earth’s species.

In the coming months, you can expect to hear about charismatic mega-fauna - whales, tigers, gorillas, pandas, etc - as well as the diversity of species found in the oceans and tropical forests. You’ll be exposed to the organizations devoted to saving them. Most of all you will be told about the threat of extinction. The issue of “endangered species” has dominated the biodiversity narrative since the 1980s when the term entered into common usage.

To many people, “biodiversity” is almost synonymous with the word “nature”, and “nature” brings to mind steamy forests and the big creatures that dwell there. Fair enough. But biodiversity is much more than that, for it encompasses not only the diversity of species, but also the diversity within species. It includes not only wild species and their diversity, but domesticated species and their diversity.

It is the diversity within species that keeps species going.

People and Plants

Whether we consciously realize it or not, the biodiversity with which we are most familiar, and the biodiversity with which we have most intimate historical, cultural and biological connections, is that associated with food plants.

This diversity, this cornucopia of genes, has arisen and persisted in large part because of the ancient and ongoing tie between peoples and plants. Farmers and more formally trained plant breeders use the diversity found in wheat and other crops to improve the yields, disease and pest resistance of the varieties in use today. The process of varietal improvement is continuous.

Nevertheless, when we think about biodiversity, we rarely think about food.

What is it that makes one cuisine distinct from another? Which foods and spices are strongly associated with a particular cuisine? What makes Thai food “Thai” as opposed to Italian? It doesn’t necessarily have to do with where the crops were originally domesticated. So many key ingredients are immigrants!

The number of crops we use for food is impressive enough, but the diversity within those crops is particularly notable for both agronomic and cultural reasons. Like other biodiversity, however, it is endangered.

Plants and animals are not waiting for the next IPCC report to document global warming. Hundreds of scientific articles document the movement of wild species in response to climate change. But the disturbing fact is that many aren’t moving fast enough, and can’t. Others simply have no corridors of escape. All are potential climate change road kill.

Agricultural crops face a similar dilemma.As with pandas and many other wild species, the maize and sorghum varieties grown by subsistence farmers in Africa cannot and will not easily relocate. And staying where they are is hardly an adaptive strategy that inspires confidence. Even if such crop varieties were to survive, what would become of the farmers hit with devastating drops in production due to climate change?

Seed banks with their vast collections of crop diversity constitute a cultural corridor, a bridge through time that will help enable crops to adapt to climate change. The biodiversity that seed banks protect may not inspire our empathy as easily as pandas, but its loss would be catastrophic for many, many species.'

In context of the closing remark, a notable first has recently occurred. The Board of CIMMYT (Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo) met in Canberra over several days in early April. The international gene bank for wheat and maize, CIMMYT has been a vital source of material for Australian plant breeders. Australia has been a strong supporter of the international centres – through bodies such as Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) - and has provided key personnel to a number of Boards. This visit recognises these vital linkages.

And to return to my ‘global biodiversity/biosecurity’ theme, CIMMYT is a key player in providing genes in the battle against the threat of wheat stem rust strain Ug99, one of the major global biosecurity threats of the moment.