The past 12 months have woken most governments up to the reality that biosecurity is an essential part of foreign policy that can’t be addressed piecemeal by different administrative departments, Lincoln University Bio-Protection Research Centre professor Philip Hulme says.
“In reality it involves a far wider, more holistic approach that includes plants, humans, pests and disease. Yet if you look at the policies to deal with them, they are siloed, inward looking despite the cross-sector impacts from biosecurity incursions,” Hulme said.
The global response to covid-19 has highlighted how multiple aspects of the economy depend on robust biosecurity systems. The pandemic is unlikely to be the only one experienced in coming years as agriculture continues to intensify, climate change alters our natural and productive ecosystems and humans share ever closer space with disease-carrying animals as a result.
The lack of unified policies requires a broad, global body capable of dealing with the emergence and spread of a wide range of biosecurity threats that threaten human livelihoods and wellbeing.
He likens it to the World Health Organisation (WHO), in that any organisation responsible for biosecurity worldwide needs to be a globally recognised authority that can force countries to act on identifying, notifying and controlling emerging biosecurity threats within their borders on discovery.
In a paper in the leading journal BioScience, Hulme calls this a “One Biosecurity” concept, pulling together all the varying aspects of global biosecurity threats to address the pandemic risk of biosecurity threats.
“It requires a shift away from protecting individual countries from introduced pests and diseases, to preventing the deliberate or accidental export of emerging threats from the country of origin,” he said.
“Imagine if the global response to the brown marmorated stink bug could have been as rapid and stringent as that for covid-19, with an international body requiring all countries to report it and to take action. The problem could have been nipped in the bud, instead it has been like watching a car crash in slow motion witnessing its spread and effect in countries including US, Chile and Italy.”
International conventions and sanitary standards do exist for the export of plants and animals, but these are primarily technocratic bodies, with no mandate to enforce regulations.
But Hulme believes that their track record in preventing the spread of pests and diseases in agriculture has not been stellar.
“On paper they share many similarities, but in practice One Biosecurity is much more about delivering the policy and response solutions to a wider set of threats arising from emerging pests, weeds and diseases,” he said.
“There is also concern that One Health, while a great concept, is not delivering on its promises, especially as regard wider risks beyond human and animal health”.
He says New Zealand is acutely aware of the biosecurity risks on the horizon but is relatively powerless to deal with them until they hit our shore.
“We spent many years watching the spread of myrtle rust in New South Wales knowing that sooner or later it would reach NZ; how much pressure did we put on Australia to invest in a more effective management programme?” he asked.
Governments have tended to avoid binding international commitments, but Hulme thinks the mood for greater global collaboration is likely to be stronger now that covid has shown just how vulnerable all are to biosecurity breaches.
“NZ has a globally leading reputation in biosecurity, both through government and industry-led initiatives; we should certainly be at the top table when developing an international approach,” he said.
“NZ citizens contribute a huge amount to biosecurity management both at the border but also at the farm gate, ensuring we deliver products that are free from pests and diseases and so fetch a premium on the international market. It shouldn’t be beyond other countries to do the same, but the incentives of doing so are still not strong enough to deliver worldwide clean trade.”
Hulme acknowledges getting momentum internationally on One Biosecurity will not happen overnight, but he is hoping that it will be part of the global solution proposed in a forthcoming UN report of invasive alien species.
“I have been encouraged by how scientists have accepted the need for One Biosecurity and the next step is engaging with international policymakers from over 100 countries in a plenary session,” he said.
“Between now and then we hope to gain more support.
“Time will tell how feasible this may be, but hopefully it will not take another global pandemic for the logic of One Biosecurity to be realised.”
