The Biosecurity Continuum and Trade: Tools for Post-border Biosecurity

  • Shashi Sharma
  • Simon McKirdy
  • Fiona Macbeth


About 70,000 pest species damage agricultural crops worldwide. Some of these pests seriously threaten primary production, biodiversity, economy and livelihoods. Post-border biosecurity is an integral part of the biosecurity continuum and it safeguards resources such as agriculture, biodiversity and community from biological threats. Vigilance and preparedness are key activities of post-border biosecurity.

Tools such as policy, legislation, regulation, code of practice, scientific technique and technology are employed to achieve post-border biosecurity vigilance and preparedness in responding to pest invasions, estimating pest risks, managing pest area freedoms, providing evidence that a given pest is absent from a region, establishing boundaries of pest containment and monitoring progress of pest incursion responses.

Detection of a new or exotic pest generally triggers a cascade of questions – where is it? What is its likely impact? Who will be affected? Can it be eradicated? How much will it cost? and how long will it take? Responding to these and other associated questions can be complex, contentious and time consuming. The National Plant Protection Organisations (NPPOs) generally develop and approve the tools for maintaining vigilance and preparedness. In many instances prior experience and international information from countries where the pest is endemic, or where it has entered and established, or where its incursion was successfully eradicated is used in the development of these tools.

This chapter presents an overview of some of the main tools commonly used in post-border biosecurity. Tools include Standards of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), biosecurity legislation and regulation, tools that are used in determining organisational response to detection of new or exotic pests, prioritisation of resources for incursion management, pest risk and economic analyses, diagnostics and surveillance, and eradication, management and communication.


Analytical Hierarchy Process International Atomic Energy Agency Response Plan Plant Pest Passive Surveillance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Boland P (2005) A review of the National Sentinel Hive Programme in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Biosecurity Australia, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  2. Donovan G (2004) Emergency plant pest response deed. Aust J Emerg Manage 19:32–35Google Scholar
  3. IGAB (Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity) (2012) Australian Government – Department of Agriculture. Fisheries and Forestry, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  4. Liu S, Sheppard A, Kriticos D, Cook D (2011) Incorporating uncertainty and social values in managing invasive alien species: a deliberative multi-criteria evaluation approach. Biol Invasions 13:2323–2337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. McKirdy SJ, Sharma SB, Bayliss KL (in press) Quarantine and biosecurity. Encyclopaedia of agriculture and food systems. Amsterdam, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  6. McMaugh T (2005) Guidelines for surveillance for plant pests in Asia and the Pacific, vol 119, ACIAR monograph. ACIAR, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  7. Murray G, Koob P (2004) Biosecurity in Australian agriculture. Aust J Emerg Manage 19:5–8Google Scholar
  8. Paini DR, Worner SP, Cook DC, De Barro PJ, Thomas MB (2010) Using a self-organizing map to predict invasive species: sensitivity to data errors and a comparison with expert opinion. J Appl Ecol. doi:  10.111/j/1365-2664.2010.01782.x
  9. Pimentel D (2009) Pesticides and pest control. In: Peshin R, Dhawan AK (eds) Integrated pest management: innovation-development process. Springer Science+Business Media B.V, Dordrecht, pp 83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1:83–98Google Scholar
  11. Sharma, S (2012) Global food security issues. In: Khan MR, Jha S, Sen C, Banerjee H, Biswas T (eds) Proceedings of international symposium on food security dilemma: plant health and climate change issues, pp 3–4. Association for Advancement in Plant Protection, Plant Health Clinic Laboratory, Directorate of Research, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Kalyani, 741235, India: West BengalGoogle Scholar
  12. USDA APHIS (2003) CAPS program guidebook. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection Quarantine, RiverdaleGoogle Scholar
  13. Weiss J, McLaren D (2002) Victoria’s pest plant prioritisation process. In: Spafford Jacob H, Dodd J, Moore JH (eds) Proceedings of the 13th Australian weeds conference. Plant Protection Society of Western Australia, Perth, pp 509–512Google Scholar
  14. Worner SP, Gevrey M (2006) Modelling global insect pest species assemblages to determine risk of invasion. J Appl Ecol 43:858–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside of the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Biosecurity and Food SecurityMurdoch UniversityMurdochAustralia
  2. 2.Chevron AustraliaPerthAustralia
  3. 3.Blackwood and Kemp Pty LtdCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations