Australasian Plant Pathology (1999) 28: 306-308

Incursion management of exotic plant pathogens in Australia Bill Roberts Plant Protection Branch, National Office of Animal and Plant Health, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, GPO Box 858, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 2601 Australia

Protection of Australia against exotic plant pathogens requires that we prevent disease entry (quarantine), be prepared (contingency planning), have adequate response mechanisms and are able to recover and move forward from an incursion. This paper provides an overview of the current national approach to responding to incursions of diseases. I have also taken the opportunity to highlight a number of relevant issues that need addressing. The prompt discovery of a new incursion of an exotic organism depends on a good surveillance and awareness system backed up by adequate diagnostic capacity and record keeping. When a suspected incursion is found the national response mechanism requires prompt reporting to the Chief Plant Protection Officer (CPPO) in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra. In cooperation with the State reporting the incursion, the CPPO takes responsibility for informing all States and the Northern Territory, other relevant Commonwealth Departments, appropriate industry bodies and appropriate Ministers. The CPPO is responsible for convening and chairing a Consultative Committee (CC) meeting. Although the CC is a sub-committee of Plant Health Committee (PHC) the practice has been to include relevant expertise and industry representation from outside the PHC. This committee has the responsibility for considering available information and recommending further national action on the incursion. The CC considers all the available information and typically asks for further technical analysis and survey work to determine the spread of the incursion. Recommendations on eradication action are made to the Standing Committee ofAgriculture and Resource Management (SCARM) through Plant Health Committee. If eradication is considered feasible and cost effective SCARM has the responsibility for endorsing expenditure of funds for

eradication under an arrangement that allows for appropriate cost sharing. If eradication is not considered feasible then the State and industry concerned becomes responsible for further action. In considering eradication action the CC takes into account the biological feasibility based on factors such as the extent of the incursion, the available control methods, the mode of spread and the length of time the pest or disease is thought to have been present. The CC also considers economic factors such as the ongoing benefits of eradication, the costs ofthe control program and ongoing costs associated with having to live with the disease. The responsibilities of the different parties involved in responding to incursions of exotic diseases are surnmarised below. The Commonwealth role is to: 1. Provide quarantine control at Australia's international borders to reduce the risks of entry of exotic diseases 2. Participate in SCARM processes and funding of national programs 3. Provide limited surveillance (NAQS area) 4. Convene and chair the Consultative Committee controlling national response actions 5. Provide information to our international trading partners about the disease status of Australia 6. Manage any international trade problems related to outbreaks of diseases in Australia

The role of the States and the Northern Territory is to: 1. Manage conditions for interstate trade of plants and plant products 2. Manage any interstate trade problems related to outbreaks of diseases in Australia 3. Provide general surveillance Australasian Plant Pathology Vol. 28 (4) 1999

4. Provide the capability to diagnose diseases 5. Maintain adequate disease records 6. Participate in SCARM processes and funding of national programs The industry role is to: 1 . Provide appropriate control of endemic diseases 2. Meet interstate and international conditions for trade as appropriate 3. Report suspect exotic pests and diseases when found

To finish I would like to highlight a number of additional issues which I think require urgent attention if we are to better manage incursions of exotic pests and disease. The opportunity to mount an effective response to an incursion rapidly declines from the time of establishment. The earlier an incursion can be detected the greater the chance that eradication or control will be practical and effective. Early detection depends on having adequate surveillance and awareness systems backed up by good diagnostic facilities and record keeping. With the exception of the NAQS areas in northern Australian (essentially the coastal strip from Cairns to Broome) there are no comprehensive surveillance systems in Australia for plant diseases. Detection of exotic diseases relies on someone noticing a problem and reporting this to an appropriate authority. Past experience has indicated that it is often several years before a new exotic plant disease is detected. In many cases this delay severely limits the possible response action. It has to be acknowledged that given the diversity of Australian agriculture and the range of potential exotic diseases early detection is not an easy task. However, there must be better approaches to surveillance than the current ad hoc approach that is currently being used. One initiative that is currently underway is a pilot trial of a port surveillance program intended to give early warning of the entry and establishment of forest pests and diseases. This work has been commissioned by the Plant Protection Branch and is being carried out by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries. It is intended to investigate the efficacy of surveillance activities in detecting forest pests and diseases. In Australia, diagnostic services are provided via a mixture of government laboratories, commercial Australasian Plant Pathology Vol. 28 (4) 1999

laboratories, and pest and disease specialists who do diagnostic work as part of their work. There are no agreed minimum standards and no national coordination. In recent years the pool of specialists has declined significantly and for some disease groups there is no specialised expertise available in Australia. In some cases sampIes have to be sent overseas for diagnosis resulting in delays in confirming the problem and taking appropriate action. The increasing emphasis on cost recovery is resulting in a concentration on high volume tests that can be done using "production line" systems. There is a danger that the breadth of knowledge and experience needed to recognise and follow-up on findings that may flag a potential exotic disease problem will be lost. The issue of record keeping is a critical one. Apart from our obligations under the WTO provisions to be able to provide information on our disease status to support trade in Australian products the lack of a national disease recording system has caused significant problems in dealing with incursions. In some cases there have been valid records indicating that a disease has been present in Australia for some time but a new finding of the disease has resulted in initiation of the national response system because the older records were not generally available. In other cases lack of knowledge of our diseases has meant that it is not possible to determine with any confidence the status of a newly discovered organism. At present, disease records are scattered through a range of State based databases and paper record keeping systems. There are also over 30 000 fungal records stored overseas that are not conveniently accessible to Australia. There is no definitive Australian list of pests and diseases and it is not possible to efficiently search the available records. At the present time there is no agreed arrangements for compensating industry for production losses that may arise because of action taken to eradicate outbreaks of exotic diseases. This has a number of consequences. Firstly, the lack of a proper compensation system acts as a disincentive to report a suspected problem. Clearly a producer facing possible quarantine and eradication action may not be too eager to draw attention to a problem. Although there is no evidence of this happening in the past it remains a significant potential problem. The situation in the plant industries contrasts with the animal industries where there are agreed compensation arrangements for a specified range of

significant diseases. The lack of a suitable compensation scheme also acts as a disincentive to taking eradication action that destroys substantial productive capacity. Although industry is consulted and involved in responding to incursions of exotic plant pathogens the ultimate responsibility for decision making rests with Commonwealth and StateITerritory Governments through SCARM. The need to

fully involve industry in policy setting and decision making on national plant health issues has been recognised and a council involving industry, the Commonwealth and the StatesiTerritories is expected to commence in March 2000. This council, to be known as Plant Health Australia, is expected to develop national policies on many of the issues raised in this paper.

Australasian Plant Pathology Vol. 28 (4) 1999