Editorial - Better systems + better communications = better incursion responses
David Hayes
MAF Biosecurity New Zealand's raison d'être is to provide leadership in making and implementing timely and informed risk management decisions for the biosecurity system.
While MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) is charged with leading biosecurity responses to new organisms, success will only come from ensuring that stakeholders are actively engaged and understand the decisions made during responses. To that end, MAFBNZ remains committed to clear and timely communication, consultation and liaison with stakeholders.
Incursions take many forms, from unseen diseases, hitchhiker bugs, invasive plants and destructive fungi. Each poses their own unique response challenges. For the past 18 months MAFBNZ has taken a systematic approach to improving the robustness of its incursion responses to get the best outcomes.
The new way of working will give stakeholders a clearer idea of MAFBNZ's role and responsibilities, what they can expect and where they will play a part. It mirrors many aspects of the whole-of-government approach of the Coordinated Incident Management Response System (CIMS) used successfully by various government agencies for emergency responses. (There is further detail on our response change programme in A smarter way of managing biosecurity responses on page 22 of this issue.)
The new system is based on a generic management model that can be scaled up or down as appropriate for almost any situation. The justification for this approach comes from the experience we have gained from past incursions. There is always a core of work that remains fairly stable no matter the size or length of a response. Take for example the fact that there are consistent stages of a response such as investigation, initial response, ongoing response and long-term management.
This staged management approach has a high degree of portability for most incursions. There are likely to be 'clip-on' activities required for some incursions such as public consultation, treatments and vaccinations or special studies, but these can be added seamlessly with the new approach.
The new system will involve stakeholders as early as possible and it will allow MAFBNZ to better assess resourcing needs at a much earlier stage. Some elements of the new approach were trialled during the recent equine influenza incursion in Australia. The New Zealand equine industry participated in the response team immediately after Australia reported cases of the disease. The result was that MAFBNZ and industry successfully mobilised to ensure the virus did not reach our shores and the appropriate preparedness work was undertaken.
For stakeholders – including other government agencies, industry organisations and other affected parties – the new system will mean:
- greater opportunities for earlier involvement in responses, such as being part of advisory or liaison groups
- greater emphasis on communication and liaison
- earlier certainty about responses
- greater transparency about decision-making processes including criteria and timelines.
For some participants, such as regional councils and industry, it will mean early involvement in planning and decision making where long-term management is needed.
A good example of this is the partnership arrangement that MAFBNZ has set up with the Department of Conservation, regional councils, Fish and Game and others, for the long-term management of didymo.
Like all good management systems the performance of future incursion responses will be better measured by:
- greater transparency
- defined objectives and measures
- stakeholder confidence and support; and of course
- continually looking to improve on what we do.
The new system is currently being phased in and has been piloted with a recent incursion of brown mussels on a visiting oil rig and seed-contaminated coir fibre used in potting mix.
All responses will be managed under the new system by June 2008.
- David Hayes
Biosecurity Response Manager
Post Border Directorate
MAF Biosecurity New Zealand
Return to:
Page last updated: 19 June 2008