ECU research highlights need for better ‘biodefence’ to mitigate threats to Australian livestock

Australia’s biosecurity framework relies too heavily on preventative security and does not do enough to prevent malicious threats to the livestock industry, according to a new study. Edith Cowan University researcher and report co-author Deborah Evans said Australia’s enviable disease-free status and reputation for quality agricultural produce had in part been protected by not sharing a border with other nations. But she said improved collaborative efforts between cattle farmers and government were needed to further strengthen biosecurity. “We have excellent pre-border measures, and our systems at the border are very comprehensive, despite the challenges brought about by increased shipping and an increasing number of passengers and visitors to Australia,” Ms Evans said. “We could certainly improve our post-border measures to enhance biological preparedness in the agricultural sector. “Given the value to the Australian economy and the potential impact of any outbreak of disease, security measures to prevent malicious biosecurity threats are critical for the agricultural sector and should form part of our wider national security strategy.” The research paper examined recommended biosecurity practices for cattle production enterprises in Australia, and explored the extent to which the nation’s biosecurity framework was underpinned by preventative security. It found the existing biosecurity framework was constituted by practices primarily aimed at preventing naturally occurring and accidental threats. What was lacking was an active preventative security approach at the farming level to mitigate threats of a “malicious or deliberate nature”. “A deliberately introduced pathogen has the potential to disable an entire agricultural industry and national economy, food production, and supply chains and could further impact human health in the event of a deliberately introduced zoonotic disease affecting both animals and humans,” the report said. According to the report, agricultural systems worldwide were vulnerable to malicious attack from international and domestic terrorists, militant animal rights activists, economic opportunists and bio criminals. Ms Evans said the research highlighted the need for recommended biosecurity practices at an industry and primary production level to embed security theory and principles to account for potential malicious actors. But those recommendations must be “balanced” and developed in consultation with farming communities. “We need to ensure that security practices which form part of biosecurity recommendations are practical and feasible for farmers and don’t unnecessarily restrict operations,” Ms Evans said. “Farmers can’t just go out and install urban-style security measures across a 1000-acre farm. “We need a collaborative effort with input from all stakeholders, and most importantly the support of government to shoulder any financial burden of implementing security on farms.” Ms Evans said current biosecurity recommendations — including vaccinating cattle and ensuring compliance with the National Livestock Identification Scheme — went a long way towards addressing many biosecurity concerns. But there were still further measures that could be implemented. “To date, no recommendations have been made for cattle production enterprises to implement security technologies, practices or procedures such as access control, security cameras and the vetting or screening of staff,” Ms Evans said. “These are just some of the things that can be done to prevent and detect unwanted parties from trespassing onto farms.”