Australian Quarantine Review Secretariat Australian Quarantine a shared responsibility
Download 1.49 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 10.6.1 Mechanism for Decision Making
- 10.6.2 Investigation of Causes of Incursions
- 10.6.3 Managing Outbreaks and Incursions
- 10.6.4 Outbreak Exercises
- 10.6.5 Compensation
- 10.6.6 Funding Mechanism
10.6 INCURSION RESPONSEWhen an incursion has been identified and confirmed as an exotic pest or disease of concern, there is a need for a prompt response to control or eradicate it. A prompt response requires an agreed decision-making process, a mechanism for managing the response, and access to funding to implement the response. 10.6.1 Mechanism for Decision MakingAnimal health authorities have long had the advantage of an established forum to review and coordinate a national response to suspected incursions of exotic pests or diseases. CCEAD is the group most directly concerned with the national response in an animal health emergency. CCEAD is chaired by the Commonwealth CVO and includes the CVOs of each State, the Chief of the CSIRO Division of Animal Health, and the Head of AAHL. Formed in 1941, CCEAD reports to the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand through SCARM. The CVO of a State in which a pest or disease outbreak occurs may request CCEAD to be convened, and further meetings are held as required during the course of the outbreak. Meetings are usually held by telephone conference, and each CVO may have relevant Commonwealth or State officers, external scientific experts (e.g. from CSIRO) and industry representatives participate in the meetings. The terms of reference of CCEAD are to: · consult on emergencies resulting from the introduction of an exotic pest or disease of animals, or from a serious epidemic of an endemic disease; · make judgements regarding the presumptive and confirmatory diagnosis of outbreaks of exotic pests or diseases of animals for the purpose of invoking the provisions of the Commonwealth–States Cost-Sharing Agreement for combating outbreaks; and · advise on eradication or control methods for presumptive or confirmed introductions of exotic pests or diseases of animals. Several submissions to the Review argued that incursions of exotic pests and diseases of plants were handled very poorly in comparison to those of animals. Submissions focused on a number of incursions of significant exotic pests and diseases of plants during the past five years that attracted considerable public attention — the most recent being the incursion of papaya fruit fly. Although SCARM has previously recommended that plant health emergencies be handled in a similar manner, there is in practice no formal arrangement analogous to CCEAD for the consideration of plant incursions — partly because of the lack of a CPPO. There is a need for a mechanism similar to CCEAD's for prompt and efficient decision making once a suspected incursion of an exotic pest or disease of plants is reported. The Review Committee notes that the SCARM Task Force on Incursion Management (see Section 10.1) is to investigate options for such a mechanism as part of its deliberations. The CCEAD mechanism was successfully used in 1995 to manage the pilchard mortality incident (involving fisheries departments and industry) and for managing two incidents of equine morbillivirus infection and one of Japanese encephalitis (involving human health departments). The SCARM Task Force on Incursion Management is examining the CCEAD model as a possible generic approach to managing incursions of exotic pests and diseases of plants and of aquatic animals. The Review Committee anticipates that the recommendations of this Task Force will provide a sound basis for decision making following the report of any suspected incursion of an exotic pest or disease of either animals or plants. 10.6.2 Investigation of Causes of IncursionsUnderstanding how an incursion occurred provides important feedback to develop better strategies for reducing the risk of similar incursions occurring in the future. The reports on recent incursions contracted during the Review (see Appendix B) demonstrated that the cause of most incursions of exotic pests and diseases into Australia is never definitively established. The Review Committee believes an essential part of improving risk management in quarantine is to be able to determine, where possible, how incursions have occurred. The Review Committee believes that greater attention should be given to enable the method of introduction of incursions of exotic pests and pathogens to be determined. Recommendation 103: The Review Committee recommends that Quarantine Australia, in association with the Chief Veterinary Officer and the Chief Plant Protection Officer, determine where possible the method of introduction of any new incursion of an exotic pest or disease and use this information to develop strategies to reduce the likelihood of future incursions. 10.6.3 Managing Outbreaks and IncursionsThe effectiveness of CCEAD and AUSVETPLAN has been proven on several occasions in recent years. For example, an outbreak of virulent avian influenza (fowl plague) occurred in December 1994 on a poultry farm near Brisbane. The outbreak was managed by CCEAD and eradicated in accordance with the AUSVETPLAN contingency plan for this disease. An intensive monitoring and surveillance program was then undertaken to meet the requirements for country freedom specified in the OIE International Animal Health Code and these were satisfied fully in June 1995. The CCEAD mechanism and the approach to pest and disease emergencies developed in AUSVETPLAN have also proven to be of value for outbreaks that are not specifically covered in AUSVETPLAN. For example, an outbreak of a new disease of horses occurred in September 1994 in a suburb of Brisbane. Fourteen horses died or were euthanised, and a trainer who had very close contact with the affected horses also developed a severe respiratory disease and died. Strict controls were quickly put in place and intensive serological surveillance was undertaken to demonstrate that the disease had not spread. The disease was quickly shown to have been caused by a previously unknown virus, now named equine morbillivirus, which has never been reported outside Queensland. Despite being a totally new condition, the outbreak was rapidly contained by using the CCEAD mechanism and implementing a response consistent with AUSVETPLAN contingency plans for other viral diseases of horses. The same approach was also used initially in the incursion of Japanese encephalitis, which occurred for the first time in Australia in early 1995 on Badu Island in the Torres Strait, probably as a result of migratory water birds infecting local mosquito populations. It was also used successfully to monitor and coordinate the response to widespread mortality in pilchards across waters of southern Australia in mid-1995. In accordance with a previous SCARM directive, a consultative approach similar to CCEAD's was used to respond to papaya fruit fly in early 1996. Other incursions of plant pests and diseases have met with limited responses because of their widespread distribution when detected (e.g. western flower thrips). A few have been met with a well-coordinated government–industry response, such as that for black sigatoka of bananas. However, the Review Committee believes that the lack of a formal response mechanism for incursions of plant pests and diseases similar to the CCEAD mechanism has often delayed appropriate responses by governments, which have been reluctant to initiate rapid responses without early agreement on cost-sharing arrangements (see Section 10.6.6). 10.6.4 Outbreak ExercisesHaving contingency plans in place is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ensuring that they will be of value in the event of an incursion. It is also necessary to ensure that contingency plans are practical by testing them in mock exercises in the field. For example, mock emergency response exercises have been periodically conducted to test communications, diagnostic and other components of AUSVETPLAN and CCEAD arrangements. Such exercises not only test the feasibility and allow revision or fine-tuning of contingency plans, but also provide practical training for field and diagnostic laboratory staff, State and Commonwealth animal and plant health policy staff, and coordinating mechanisms such as those of the CVO and CCEAD (and their proposed plant equivalents). Similar exercises to test contingency plans are required for pests and diseases of both plants and aquatic animals once they are developed. 10.6.5 CompensationAlthough authority to control any incursion of an exotic pest or disease rests with the States, the control or eradication of a major incursion could be beyond the financial resources of an individual State. Thus a Commonwealth–States Cost-Sharing Agreement on the costs of eradication of specified exotic pests and diseases of animals has been in operation since 1955. The agreement establishes a formula for sharing eradication and compensation costs for 12 specified exotic pests and diseases of animals. Under the agreement, compensation is payable to owners of livestock for animals that die or are destroyed, and for property that is destroyed, as a result of one of these pests or diseases. Under the formula, the Commonwealth funds 50% of the cost and the States share the remaining 50%, usually according to their proportion of the national population of susceptible species of stock. In addition, because some outbreaks could be prolonged and require extended quarantine restrictions, provision has been made for a second instalment of compensation payment equal to any market value increase between the time of destruction of livestock and the lifting of property restrictions when the affected producers are able to restock. 10.6.6 Funding MechanismThe Commonwealth–States Cost-Sharing Agreement has meant that outbreaks of suspected incursions of pests or diseases of animals have been promptly reported, in part because stock owners know they will receive at least some compensation. It has also meant that State animal health authorities have been able to respond immediately, because they know the Commonwealth and other States will reimburse most costs according to a pre-determined formula. For example, the agreement has been used to fund successful eradication of several outbreaks of virulent avian influenza, including the most recent incursion in late 1994 (see Section 10.6.3). There is no similar formal agreement for plant pests and diseases, so that the response to incursions may be limited or delayed if an affected producer is slow to report a suspected incursion (because he or she has no means of obtaining compensation for even direct losses) or an affected State is unwilling to commit significant funds to contain, control or eradicate an incursion (because there is no certainty that the Commonwealth and other States will share the costs involved). Several submissions to the Review claimed that limited or delayed responses to some recent incursions of plant pests and diseases, including the initial response to papaya fruit fly, were the result of a lack of an agreement on cost-sharing. Although the Cost-Sharing Agreement is limited to only 12 pests and diseases of animals, the same principle has been used in response to both incursions of other exotic pests and diseases and to outbreaks of new endemic diseases (e.g. equine morbillivirus). The Review Committee strongly believes that appropriate compensation should be an integral part of effective contingency plans and response strategies. The SCARM Task Force on Incursion Management is charged with, inter alia, investigating the possible extension of the Cost-Sharing Agreement to other exotic pests and diseases of both animals and plants. However, it is likely that any such extension will require industry contributions in addition to any Commonwealth or State funding, and will be limited to compensation for only direct losses. In the animal sector, insurance underwriters and industry representatives have in recent years investigated terms and conditions of an appropriate insurance program against consequential business losses, other than from animals and property destroyed, for producers affected by an exotic disease eradication campaign. The Review Committee endorses such approaches, which it believes may provide the only practical means of minimising producers' financial risk from incursions of exotic pests and diseases. It believes that AAHC and APHC should investigate means for ensuring that appropriate compensation are an integral part of contingency plans and response strategies for incursions of exotic pests and diseases. Recommendation 104: The Review Committee recommends that the Australian Animal Health Council and the Australian Plant Health Council investigate means for ensuring that appropriate compensation is an integral part of contingency plans and response strategies for incursions of exotic pests and diseases. PART VII: IMPLEMENTATION Directory: SiteCollectionDocuments SiteCollectionDocuments -> Emerging Transport Technologies SiteCollectionDocuments -> Lesson Plan What are smart goals? SiteCollectionDocuments -> Melbourne Library Service Policy Public Access Internet and Computer Use Policy SiteCollectionDocuments -> Navy Drug Screening Laboratory Jacksonville SiteCollectionDocuments -> Building Management Systems (bms) Seminar 2 Advanced Management and Improvement Opportunities SiteCollectionDocuments -> Commitments and Pledges for Training and Capacity Building 2014-15 SiteCollectionDocuments -> Galileo® and Apollo® Systems – Airline Participants SiteCollectionDocuments -> Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy 25 years of protecting Australia SiteCollectionDocuments -> Final pest risk analysis report for Drosophila suzukii April 2013 SiteCollectionDocuments -> Permitted Seeds List – 16 June 2016 Download 1.49 Mb. Share with your friends:
|