ALTHOUGH it
may be debatable whether the first bite into the humble apple was the
cause of all human woes, it is certain that Australia’s refusal
to bite into the Kiwi apple has caused it some heartburns.
The
long-standing dispute involving Australia’s refusal to import apples
from New Zealand has resulted in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) stepping
in whereby Australia lost its appeal and was directed to take a scientific
import risk analysis of Kiwi apples. New Zealand’s export of apples into
Australia, worth around $37 million, are expected to arrive on Australian shelves
by year 2012.
Australia had
banned import of Kiwi apples since 1921 after fireblight, a bacterial fruit
disease, was found in New Zealand’s apple tree orchards.
Finally, under pressure, Australia lifted the ban in 2006 but allowed the import
under strict quarantine conditions.
This rendered New Zealand exports uneconomic. After sustained discussions
with Australia to resolve the matter failed, New Zealand challenged the restrictions
at the WTO in 2007, on the ground that the imposition of restrictions were
a trade barrier. Under WTO rules, import restrictions have to be based on relevant
scientific evidence collected from using internationally recognized methods
of assessment.
Before the WTO Dispute Panel, established in January 2008, Australia contended
that the alleged risk of introducing fire blight, European canker and apple
leaf-curling midge justified the import restrictions.
The Panel released
its report in August this year based on a detailed assessment of the issue
involving findings by independent external arbiters. Australia appealed against
this report that found that all of Australia’s quarantine
measures along with their import risk analysis were inconsistent with the country’s
legal obligations under the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement. Even
the pest specific measures were more trade restrictive than required to achieve
Australia’s appropriate level of phytosanitary protection, thus rendering
the measures inconsistent with the SPS Agreement. The Appellate Body in its order upheld the Panel's core findings, concluding
that Australian quarantine measures breached WTO rules and directed it to review
the import risks and ease the restrictions on New Zealand.
|
