Project lead: Susie Hester
Decision-support tools and protocols that guide eradication decisions do not currently account for the global prevalence of a threat—specifically, the extent to which the risk of reintroduction affects the economic feasibility of eradication.
Ignoring or not appropriately assessing reintroduction risk could lead to overly optimistic eradication assessments and the misallocation of limited biosecurity funds. This could be a significant issue, particularly for threats where widespread global presence raises questions about the value of taking an eradication approach each time an incursion is detected.
When eradication is the chosen response, programmes often result in significant costs for affected growers, state agencies and interstate trade. Under current national emergency response arrangements, these costs will be potentially faced each time an incursion is detected. With global pest pressures, the risk these costs will be regularly incurred is increasing. A pragmatic approach is needed to ensure reintroduction risk is appropriately considered as part of emergency response deliberations.
This project will directly address reintroduction risk in decision making. It will investigate how reintroduction risk, driven by the global spread of a biosecurity threat that increases pest pressure at the Australian border, impacts the decision around eradication feasibility. Factoring in the risk of reintroduction would allow future liabilities to be considered upfront, enabling more realistic and cost-effective management decisions—a management approach other than repeated eradication might be more appropriate strategy over the long term.
The research aims to fill a crucial knowledge gap by developing practical 'heuristics' and providing a more comprehensive and accurate framework for biosecurity planning. The anticipated benefit is enhanced robustness and economic efficiency in biosecurity risk management, ensuring resources are directed towards viable eradication efforts.