The International Legal Framework for Biosecurity and the Challenges Ahead

• Published date: 01 July 2010
• Date: 01 July 2010
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9388.2010.00678.x
• Author: Opi Outhwaite

The International Legal Framework for Biosecurity

and the Challenges Ahead

Opi Outhwaite

Effective biosecurity is an important requisite for the

conservation of biodiversity. Preventing the introduc-

tion and spread of invasive species including pests,

diseases and other organisms through biosecurity

measures is important, not only for food security and

agricultural health, but also links directly with the pre-

vention of biodiversity loss. Although several interna-

tional instruments are relevant in this regard, legal

analysis of biosecurity at both the international and

national levels remains limited. In light of the far-

reaching implications of biosecurity failures, there is

an urgent need to recognize the nature of biosecurity

and to understand how effective biosecurity frame-

works can be developed. The present article seeks to

contribute to this gap, first, by highlighting the nature

of biosecurity as a regulatory concept; second, by pro-

viding an overview of some of the key international

legal provisions and standards applicable to biosecu-

rity; and, finally, by discussing some of the challenges

which arise for the application of an international

framework to biosecurity and the adoption of domestic

biosecurity frameworks, particularly in the context of

developing countries.

BIOSECURITY: MEETING THE

CHALLENGES FOR FOOD SAFETY,

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH AND

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

Transport, trade and travel have always carried with

them the risk of introducing unwanted pests, weeds and

diseases, from one area to another. In the current

climate in which these processes are highly globalized,

the risks have increased. ‘Traditional’ risks – the possi-

bility of introducing a plant pest which might damage a

particular crop, for instance – have been joined by

others, including the introduction into an area of inva-

sive alien species which threaten biodiversity. Not only

does the increased volume of trade and the frequency

and distance over which people and commodities move

increase the possibility of such introductions, but their

truly global nature has opened the door to a greater

range of risks and risk pathways. The variety and range

of transport and packaging methods adopted, as well as

the range and quantity of goods themselves increases

the number of pathways by which pests (for instance)

may enter an area. Technological developments also

present potential risks. Genetically modified crops may,

for example, have weediness potential and may act as

environmental pests or have other impacts on biodiver-

sity. Importantly, it is increasingly recognized that

these risks do not occur in convenient sectoral regula-

tory spaces. The risks associated with zoonoses, for

instance, may be relevant to animal health from the

perspective of food production and wildlife conserva-

tion, as well as to food safety and human health.reel_678207..226

In the context of biodiversity specifically, the introduc-

tion of invasive alien species (IAS) is now widely recog-

nized as a serious threat and as one of the most

significant threats to biodiversity, after habitat loss.1

IAS include not only large animals such as mammals

and reptiles but also weeds, insects, fungi, diseases,

parasites and other pathogens. IAS may be introduced

intentionally – for example in the case of ornamental

plants, such as rhododendrons, which subsequently

become established in the wild – or they may be intro-

duced accidentally – for example in the case of zebra

mussels which have spread through the movement of

ships (as ‘hitchhikers’ on the ships’ hull and in ballast

water).2The vectors for such introductions are wide

ranging and include, for instance, natural packaging

materials (such as wooden crates and bamboo), ballast

water, vehicles and vessels, fresh food produce, move-

ment of live animals and the sale of live plants through

nurseries.3Legal and management responses may

therefore seek to minimize the risk of IAS entering a

particular area (pre-entry controls), to control the

1See, e.g., IUCN, Invasive Species (IUCN, undated), available at

<http://www.iucn.org/about/union/secretariat/off‌ices/iucnmed/

iucn_med_programme/species/invasive_species/>; and Convention

on Biological Diversity, Invasive Alien Species (CBD, undated), avail-

able at <http://www.cbd.int/invasive>.

2R.P. Keller and D.M. Lodge, ‘Prevention: Designing and Implement-

ing National Policy and Management Programs to Reduce the Risks

from Invasive Species’, in C. Perrings et al. (eds), Bioinvasions and

Globalization (Oxford University Press, 2010), 220, at 220–222 and

228.

3These are termed ‘plants for planting’ within the international stan-

dards framework. See International Plant Protection Convention,

International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Glossary of Phy-

tosanitary Terms, ISPM No 5 (IPPC, 2010). The international stan-

dards framework for plant health is discussed in greater detail below.

Review of European Community & International Environmental Law

RECIEL 19 (2) 2010. ISSN 0962 8797

© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

207

movement and spread of species after they have entered

an area, or to eradicate the species after its arrival and

establishment (post-entry controls). Jay et al. summa-

rize several examples that highlight the direct impacts

of IAS on biodiversity loss and environmental damage

(in the context of biosecurity):

Examples abound of the sometimes catastrophic conse-

quences for native biological diversity of invasions by exotic

species. American chestnut blight (Cryphonec-tria para-

sitica), introduced into North America from Asia in the late

1890s, spread through 91 million hectares of hardwood

forest in eastern USA and caused the virtual extinction of the

American chestnut within its natural range . . . the fungus

that causes Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma ulmi), thought

to have originated in eastern Asia and introduced to Europe

in the early 1900s and subsequently to North America, has

almost eliminated elms from their natural range. The cata-

strophic spread of rabbits in the drylands of Australia is a

classic example of the detrimental impacts of biological

invasion by a mammal...Morerecently, the introduction

of Leidy’s comb jellyfish (Mnemiopsis leidyi) into the Black

Sea in 1982 has brought about the collapse of the Black Sea

fisheries.4

The impacts of climate change and the continued loss of

biodiversity may themselves act as drivers for the

further spread of IAS and of diseases and pests, which

in turn would increase the threat of these to biodiver-

sity, and to human health and food security. A recent

accidental introduction in the UK has been the Oak

Processionary Moth, which is believed to be becoming

more widely distributed as a result of climate change.5

Increased temperatures will affect the range of diseases,

for instance, and changes to ecosystems resulting from

biodiversity loss may result in the potential for more

species to be categorized as IAS.6

Managing these risks is consequently recognized as a

serious priority at the domestic, regional and interna-

tional levels. It is in this context that biosecurity has the

potential to play an important role through the more

effective and efficient regulation and management of

risk.

Traditionally, the regulation of risks in terms of border

and movement controls and related regulation has

been on a sectoral basis, usually managing plant

health, animal health, food safety and environmental

protection separately, and assuming separate

responses to agriculture and the environment. There

are clear limitations to this approach. Sectoral regula-

tion assumes that risks abide by convenient regulatory

divisions. It is increasingly understood that this is not

the case. Horan et al. note, for instance, that livestock

epizootics pose a threat not only to agriculture, but

also to wildlife resources including endangered spe-

cies.7Bovine tuberculosis is one example of a disease

affecting domesticated, agricultural and wild animals

(and posing a risk, albeit limited, to human health).8

IAS are often conceived as an environmental issue but

regulation solely on this basis is also too limited to

enable adequate management of the risks to the envi-

ronment, food safety and security and other issues

within the remit of biosecurity. As indicated above, the

pathways for IAS are diverse and the impacts may be

relevant to health and food security as well as biodi-

versity loss. The Oak Processionary Moth, for instance,

is an IAS which poses risks to plant, animal and

human health. The UK Forestry Commission states

‘This pest has caused serious defoliation and occa-

sional mortality of oak trees on the continent and the

hairs of the larvae, which are easily detached and

blown on the wind, contain a toxin known to have an

impact on human and animal health ranging from

severe skin irritation to respiratory problems’.9Simi-

larly, focusing too narrowly on the risks of IAS limits

the opportunity to address risks associated with

species, pests and diseases, which do not fall within the

definition of IAS. Adopting regulation within a more

systematic framework should provide a more effective

risk response in this context.

The demands on quarantine, inspection, surveillance

and other services, both within a country or area and at

border points, are often subject to increasing demands

based on the increased range of pathways and opportu-

nities for risk to arise. The popularity of importing live

4M. Jay et al., ‘Biosecurity, a Policy Dilemma for New Zealand’, 20

Land Use Policy (2003), 121, at 122.

5See, e.g., Forest Research, Tree Pest Advisory Note; Oak Proces-

sionary Moth (Forest Research, undated), available at <http://

www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/infd-5zabpx>. See also S. Denman and J.

Webber, ‘Oak Declines: New Def‌initions and New Episodes in

Britain’, 10:4 Quarterly Journal of Forestry (2009), 285; and R. Beck-

mann et al., Nuisance Insects and Climate Change (DEFRA, March

2009).

6See, e.g., F. Meyerson et al., ‘Biosecurity from the Ecologist’s Per-

spective: Developing a More Comprehensive Approach’, 12:2–4

International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management (2009),

147, at 149–154; and, more generally, J. Houghton, Global Warming:

The Complete Brief‌ing (Cambridge University Press, 2009), chapter

7; and O.E. Sala et al. (eds), Biodiversity Change and Human

Health: From Ecosystem Services to Spread of Disease (Island

Press, 2009).

7R.D. Horan et al., ‘Biological Pollution Prevention Strategies Under

Ignorance: The Case of Invasive Species’, 84:5 American Journal of

Agricultural Economics (2002), 47. See also P.E. Hulme et al.,

‘Grasping at the Routes of Biological Invasions: A Framework for

Integrating Pathways into Policy’, 45 Journal of Applied Ecology

(2008), 403.

8See World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), Global Conference

on Wildlife: Animal Health and Biodiversity – Preparing for the Future

(OIE, undated), available at <http://www.oie.int/eng/A_WILDCONF/

Intro.htm>. The conference will be held in Paris, France, 23–25 Feb-

ruary 2011.

9UK Forestry Commission, The Plant Health (Forestry) (Amendment)

Order 2009 (undated), available at <http://www.forestry.gov.uk/

forestry/infd-5azlca>; and GB Non-Native Species Secretariat, Fre-

quently Asked Questions (GB Non-Native Species Secretariat,

undated), available at <https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/

nonnativespecies/index.cfm?sectionid=25>.

OPI OUTHWAITE RECIEL 19 (2) 2010

© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

208