From The West Australian, Mon July 26, 1999

Salmon move a little fishy
by BRIAN TOOHEY

The nation's six million amateur anglers have good reason to hope that the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service [AQIS] knows what it is doing.

So does Australia's thriving aquaculture industry after AQIS announced last week that it would lift a long-standing ban on the import of salmon likely to contain disease.

The chequered history of AQIS's behaviour over the ban provides little comfort for those who fear it is taking an undue risk. According to the AQIS press release, however, its new measures are consistent with Australia's "traditional, very conservative approach to quarantine" and the overall impact will be to "strengthen fish quarantine laws".

While this is true for some other fish, quarantine laws are certainly not being strengthened for salmon. Instead, the conservative tradition of banning imports is being tossed overboard by allowing the entry of uncooked salmon with the head, gills and intestines removed. For salmon from New Zealand, there will not even be a requirement to remove the head and gills.

While salmon growers agree this is better than allowing entry for whole fish, there is still a genuine concern about diseases carried in muscle tissue and blood as well as skin and bone.

According to the chairman of the Tasmanian Salmon Growers' Association, Richard Doedens, there would have been less concern if only boneless and skinless pieces were allowed in.

Although he agrees New Zealand does not harbour as many diseases as other exporters, Mr Doedens also queries why it is given preferential treatment when it imposes tougher restrictions on the import of Australian salmon and a complete ban on Australian trout.

AQIS does not argue there is no risk that imported diseases could spread to Australian fish under its new measures. But it says the risk is low enough to be acceptable.

Apart from Tasmania, commercial salmon and trout industries are now well established in WA, Victoria and South Australia. Because the commercial industry did not exist at the time, the initial ban on raw salmon imports in 1975 was clearly intended to protect anglers against the introduction of disease.

Commercial growers also have a strong case that their competitiveness means they are interested in disease control rather than protective trade barriers. About half the Tasmanian salmon production is now exported at a premium price --its disease-free status being a major selling point.

The pressure to allow imports of diseased salmon follows Canadian and United States complaints in the World Trade Organisation that Australia is not meeting its obligations to facilitate free trade. AQIS responded in May, 1995 with a draft risk analysis recommending the ban be lifted.The report soon came under attack for claiming that diseases could not be transferred to local stock and for ignoring plausible "pathways" for this to happen.

After John Anderson became Agriculture Minister in March, 1996, he insisted that AQIS seek wider sources of scientific advice. When a new report was handed to him in December, 1996, he decided to keep the ban on imports.

This report said Australia's disease-free status "should be treated as a national asset, worthy of protection for both commercial and ecological reasons".

But Canada and the US pushed on with their complaints in the WTO, where they were able to use rules which Australia had helped devise to stop quarantine restrictions being used as a spurious trade barrier.

In June last year, a WTO panel found that AQIS had not done its risk analysis properly. Following an unsuccessful appeal, Australia was given until July 6, 1999, to lift the ban. One of the WTO criticisms was that Australia was inconsistent in banning salmon imports while giving free entry to fish such as herring and pilchards.

Last week [on 19 June 1999], AQIS answered the criticism by tightening the rules for these fish, as well as ornamental species, while lowering the barrier for salmon.

Last week, Trade Minister Mark Vaile said the latest AQIS decision was based on sound scientific grounds. But he also noted Australia has a strong interest in lowering trade barriers, as 80% of its food production is exported.

The last comment fuelled suspicion among salmon growers that they are victims of a dogmatic commitment to free trade among Canberra mandarins.

Normally, those who try to stop the spread of disease are not accused of acting illegally. With the help of rules strongly supported by Australian officials, however, Canada and the US have succeeded in painting Australian salmon growers as the bad guyswho are breaching international law.

Such is the strange world of trade diplomacy.

* * * * * * * *