Jacqueline Rowarth: Terrorism has potential to wreck farming

Seventy per cent of Australians believe terrorists will strike the country within the next two years.

In fact, Australians are more worried about the rise in terrorism than the Iraq war spreading, a serious disease or an epidemic, a major environmental disaster, a failed economy or job losses.

In a global comparison, 31 per cent of Australians rate an increase in terrorism as their greatest worry, whereas the worldwide average is only 22 per cent.

Yet while John Howard is responding to concerns by planning to enforce stricter anti-terror laws in an attempt to stop any home-grown suicide bombers, the potential impact of agro-terrorism is being overlooked.

A communique issued at the end of the counter-terrorism summit in Canberra in September did not mention the threat of an attack on Australia's agricultural sector.

Carl Ungerer, lecturer in terrorism and world politics at the University of Queensland, and former senior analyst with the Office of National Assessments, is warning that the country is not prepared for an attack on its agricultural sector.

Introduction of foot-and-mouth disease would cost the country billions in lost exports and jobs in rural areas. Introduction of mad cow disease or avian influenza would put people's lives at risk.

The same is true for New Zealand.

But whereas in Australia the Productivity Commission has estimated that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease would cost $12.8 billion in lost exports (and $300 million to the tourism sector), agriculture is only 4 per cent of the gross domestic product.

In New Zealand, the overall impact would be much greater.

A foot-and-mouth outbreak would destroy New Zealand's export economy and erode the country's reputation for being "100% pure".

A reminder of the country's vulnerability came with the foot-and-mouth hoax on Waiheke Island earlier this year.

And as for the ease with which disease can be introduced, the lesson of calici-virus has been learned.

Since then, developments in border security have occurred to the extent that New Zealand is regarded as a model for other countries, particularly islands such as Hawaii.

Australia has also kept up with developments and Howard Conkey, communications manager for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry, has responded to Ungerer by giving assurances that the federal authorities have established procedures to cope with any threats of agro-terrorism.

Further assurances have been added by Alan Edwards, the secretary of the Food Chain Security Working Group of the Agriculture Department, who believes Australia is better prepared than the United States to handle agro-terrorism.

Ungerer suggests that Australia should establish a programme with neighbouring countries to register the movement of dangerous pathogens between veterinary hospitals, research laboratories and universities in the region.

Clearly, New Zealand would be a major player in the programme.

Furthermore, with the expertise developed by Roger Morris at Massey University, and residing in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Australia and other countries would benefit from early collaboration.

It is tempting to suggest that border security could be New Zealand's Nokia.

Although there are few first-world countries with the vulnerability to agro-terrorism of Australia and New Zealand, all countries are concerned about avian influenza - so maybe the potential does exist.

The Australian press published a set of instructions on how to bring infection into the country.

As a piece of responsible journalism, it left a considerable amount to be desired.

On the other hand, maybe it will serve to make the average citizen more aware of the possibilities - and even the probabilities.

* Jacqueline Rowarth, director, Office for Environmental Programmes, University of Melbourne.