Australian Quarantine Review Secretariat Australian Quarantine a shared responsibility

IMPORTANCE OF MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE

Download 1.49 Mb.

Page	38/62
Date	05.05.2018
Size	1.49 Mb.
	#47737

1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 ... 62

9.3.2 The Benefits of Monitoring and Surveillance Programs
9.4 THE CHALLENGES

9.3 IMPORTANCE OF MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE

9.3.1 International Obligations

Monitoring and surveillance networks are of assistance to Australia in fulfilling its international obligations. Under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), member countries are required to establish scientifically that they are free of specific pests and diseases, rather than simply claiming freedom. Scientifically based monitoring and surveillance programs will therefore be an essential element in establishing continuing freedom from pests and diseases. Similarly, in line with International Health Regulations, Australia maintains a 400-metre vector monitoring program around airports and seaports (see Section 8.8).

9.3.2 The Benefits of Monitoring and Surveillance Programs

In the view of the Review Committee, there is no question of the need for adequate resources and infrastructure for monitoring and surveillance of Australia's human, animal and plant health status — particularly in areas of high risk. A number of submissions to the Review concentrated on northern Australia to emphasise the importance of monitoring and surveillance. Industry sees northern Australia as an area of high quarantine risk given its potential as a pathway for incursions of exotic pests and diseases (e.g. recent incursions of Asian honey bee, Japanese encephalitis, varroa mite, spiralling whitefly, black sigatoka and papaya fruit fly). In its submission to the Review, the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations stated that 'in the case of sugarcane smut, which is present in Indonesia and is likely to enter from the north at some stage, over half of currently registered [sugarcane] varieties would be lost and the majority of present breeding clones and parents would be of restricted value. No sugarcane entomologist has visited the Torres Strait since 1989 and it is likely that past distributions have changed but not been reported'. The Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations argued that it should be involved in new surveys for cane pathogens in northern Australia. A number of equally supportive examples were provided in other submissions from such sectors as the banana and other horticultural industries.

The cost of eradication of an unwanted pest or disease can be significant, especially when compared to the annual cost of targeted monitoring and surveillance programs. In its submission to the Review Committee, the Queensland Department of Primary Industries argued that 'once a pest or disease becomes established, the cost of eradication increases at an exponential rate. Hence, the costs of monitoring, detection, deterring and education become much less than large scale eradication costs'. An example of the costs associated with the failure of monitoring and surveillance is the $55 million allocated by governments to eradicate papaya fruit fly over the period from 1995-96 to 1997-98.
The National Farmers' Federation (NFF) in its submission to the Review argued that 'active surveillance involving disease, pest and weed specific field work collection and testing to produce a statistically valid sample of a population is very expensive'. In support, the NFF noted that in response to an overseas request, a survey of the prevalence of enzootic bovine leucosis was estimated to cost more than $1 million. The NFF further noted that passive monitoring 'without statistically valid sampling procedures and usually conducted as a by-product of other sampling activities ... is more opportunistic [and] will indicate the presence of disease but not its absence in a statistically reliable manner'.
In its submission, the NFF went on to argue that monitoring and surveillance programs should be subject to a cost–benefit analysis before being initiated. The imperative for this analysis is further driven by the reduction in the levels of passive monitoring by State departments and the closure or privatisation of State government laboratories. The NFF noted that 'private laboratories do not have the charter to conduct the sort of community service work undertaken by government laboratories that are themselves becoming increasingly operated under cost-recovery principles'.
Recommendation 88: The Review Committee recommends that monitoring and surveillance programs are essential, require increased national coordination, and should be conducted in a cost-effective manner.

9.4 THE CHALLENGES

A number of submissions to the Review pointed to the reduction in monitoring and surveillance systems over the past few years. The Queensland Department of Primary Industries gave as an example the removal of the pest trapping systems from Cape York Peninsula and other parts of North Queensland, and questioned whether the widespread establishment of papaya fruit fly into Northern Queensland was related to this reduction in monitoring. The Department proposed 'that a surveillance system for threatening exotic pests, weeds and diseases is put in place on a permanent and continuous basis throughout Australia'. The Review Committee is concerned by the reduction in monitoring and surveillance networks and the decline in resources being allocated to these tasks. These reductions are evident both in field resources and in regional and national diagnostic capabilities. As noted in Section 9.3.2, there have been several closures of State laboratories. The Review Committee's concerns with Australia's declining diagnostic capacity is discussed further in Chapter 10 on Preparedness and Response.

The human, animal and plant health status of Australia's neighbouring countries and those with which Australia has significant contact through trade and tourism is constantly changing. Hence the importance of pre-border activities associated with the continuum of quarantine aimed at establishing the health status of these countries (see Chapter 6 on Offshore Activities). It is also important that the target lists of pests and diseases for which monitoring and surveillance networks are operating in Australia are modified regularly to reflect these changes in health status. Regular updating of these target lists should be undertaken in consultation with key stakeholders including agricultural industries and agencies responsible for human, animal and plant health and the protection of the natural environment.
However, monitoring and surveillance programs are not ends in themselves. The information generated from these programs is an important management tool which must be used effectively if the full benefits of monitoring and surveillance programs are to be realised. For example, the Australian Horse Council reported to the Review Committee that as soon as there was serological evidence of the possible presence of surra in Papua New Guinea (PNG), Australian quarantine authorities suspended imports of horses from that country pending development of an amended protocol. A number of submissions to the Review argued that a similar timely response was not made to the initial detection of papaya fruit fly in the Torres Strait region. There is a need for a system of effective monitoring and surveillance that generates scientifically valid results. Further, there is a need to ensure that significant results trigger a prompt response, and for a coordinated system to ensure delivery of that response.
To be effective as a management tool, information generated from monitoring and surveillance programs must be complete and up-to-date. However, there are few complete national pest and disease databases or information systems in Australia. This is particularly true for plant pests and diseases. The lack of completed databases and information systems is a reflection of funding constraints and a lack of delineation of who is responsible for maintaining and developing databases and information systems for pests and diseases. This issue is discussed further in Section 9.5.3.

Download 1.49 Mb.

Share with your friends:

1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 ... 62