. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/218
22 November 2000
(00-4973)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:  English
AUSTRALIA'S IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON DURIAN
Response from Australia to Thailand's statement
at the Meeting of 8-9 November 2000
1. The representative of Australia thanked Thailand for raising this issue, and indicated that it
might be of advantage to the Committee to review the historical background in a little more detail in
order to draw out points which might be of generic interest.
2. Confirming that the matter had first been raised by Thailand with Australia in 1991, he noted
that Thailand had provided an initial list of three arthropod pests and twelve diseases in April of thatyear.  However these lists had been incomplete and the relevant Australian authority had requested
more comprehensive information on the incidence, importance, distribution and control of pests and
diseases in Thailand in order to allow commencemen t of an import risk analysis (IRA).  No further
information had been provided by Thailand until, more than three years later, a list of five arthropod
pests and seven pathogens of durian fruit had been submitted.  The Thai authorities had then beenrequested to supply further information including on certain specific pests of durian recorded as
present in Thailand and in neighbouring countries.
3. Further information exchange on a range of issues had then followed, and in 1997 Thailand
has submitted a new list of pests and diseases including 49 arthropod pests and 16 diseases.  The
import risk analysis procedure had then been in itiated in January 1998, leading eventually to the
drafting of an arrangement establishing conditions for import of fresh durian fruit from Thailand into
Australia.  These conditions reflected the very conservative approach to the appropriate level ofprotection which Australia maintains as a matter of government policy, consistent with its rights under
the SPS Agreement.
4. The representative of Australia noted that the history of this matter had been strongly
influenced by the difficulty which was commonly encountered by all Members, and particularly
developing countries, in producing comprehensive and reliable lists of endemic pests and diseases ofthe commodity concerned;  such lists were essential to permit a proper import risk analysis to be
conducted.
5. The representative of Australia further drew to the attention of the Committee that the specific
matters raised by Thailand on the present occasion had been included in written representations made
recently by the Thai authorities to their Australian counterparts.  The Australian authorities hadpromptly provided a detailed technical response.
6. In relation to the Australian requirements for cutting of a specified minimum number of fruits
in order to detect durian seed borer (DSB – Mudaria luteileprosa ), the approach followed was an
internationally standard one where the objective was 95 per cent confidence of detecting DSB at an
incidence of 0.5 per cent in infested fruit in a c onsignment.  Australia followed a similar cutting
regime for inspection of exports and imports of some other horticultural commodities.  As well, the
same fruit cutting requirement applied to the movement of mango from some areas of Australia toG/SPS/GEN/218
Page 2
other areas of Australia in order to control risk of mango seed weevil.  However, in response to
concerns raised by Thailand on the basis of its examination of Australia's draft import risk analysis,
the Australian authority had amended the proposed cutting conditions to allow culled fruits to be
included in the random samples taken from an export consignment.  This would have the effect of
reducing the economic impact of the cutting requirement.
7. While the Australian requirements do not prov ide for any specific alternative to the fruit
cutting procedure, the final import risk analysis states that other non-destructive methods of
inspection can be substituted if efficacy data is presented which shows that the alternative provides as
equivalent level of protection.
8. Australia also requires that exports to Australia of fresh durian fruit from Thailand be limited
to the period from April to September because this period corresponds with the period during which
environmental conditions in Australia are unfavour able for the survival and establishment of DSB
were it to enter.  However, this period also coincides with the main fruiting season in Thailand.
Furthermore, Australia's requirement that exports to Australia be limited to the eastern region of
Thailand reflects the assessment of the Australian authorities that orchards in this region have more
advanced agronomic management and a solid pest management regime in place.
9. Finally, the representative of Australia noted that the import protocol will be reviewed after
the first year of trade.
__________