Prioritising biosecurity threats enables policy makers to make critical , potentially life-saving decisions more effectively
Managing threats to animal health
© Sunny Forest / Shutterstock
Prioritising biosecurity threats enables policy makers to make critical , potentially life-saving decisions more effectively
What if , instead of reacting to biosecurity threats after they have happened , we could prioritise emergent risks in terms of severity and develop policy in response ? Research by Professors Gilberto Montibeller and Alberto Franco of Loughborough University is allowing policymakers to do just that .
TACKLING DISEASE OUTBREAK
Montibeller and Franco have produced a framework that policy makers can use to accurately prioritise biosecurity threats , allowing resources to be allocated much more effectively .
A rapid policy response can make all the difference in tackling a new disease outbreak or any other biosecurity risk . The 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak graphically illustrated this : it led to the death of almost four million animals in the UK , in part due to culling measures implemented to tackle the spread of the disease .
With thousands of livelihoods destroyed by the outbreak , the government investigated what lessons could be learnt from the devastation . However , scathing reports were released on the national response to the threat , with one adviser even suggesting that imposing a ban on farm animal movement three days earlier could have halved the spread of disease .
PREDICTION DIFFICULTIES Although the government was criticised for its management of the foot-andmouth outbreak , poor decisions are typically grounded in lack of adequate risk management processes . The emerging nature of biosecurity threats means that small risks suddenly blow up overnight , while limits on time and resources available for analysing threats also hinder effective policy .
“ Dealing with emergent threats is very tough because of the limited amount of evidence available when they appear , and the pressures imposed on policy makers to develop appropriate and timely responses to these threats ,” notes Montibeller .
Ultimately , risk mitigation efforts – such as banning transport of animals or rolling out a vaccine – cost money . Policy makers have few resources to hand and must also consider the wider consequences . For example , implementing a ban on animal transport would significantly affect agricultural productivity , so if a threat is not high risk it is difficult to justify its implementation .
Using the research from Loughborough University ’ s School of Business Economics , government and international agencies can improve their emerging threat management strategies . The research also paves the way for better prioritisation of threats . ■
spring 2017 | UKSPA breakthrough | 43