New Zealand: New Zealand-Australia Apples Dispute – Review Of WTO Panel Decision

Last Updated: 28 September 2010
Article by Daniel Kalderimis

Most Read Contributor in New Zealand, September 2016

As expected, the final report of the WTO Panel in the New Zealand-Australia Apples dispute has confirmed a resounding victory for New Zealand. In the previous edition of Connected Asia Pacific, we discussed the prospects for a negotiated settlement and the likelihood that Australia would appeal. On 31 August 2010 Australia filed its appeal to the Appellate Body. New Zealand's submissions are due before the end of September 2010 and the appeal is due to be heard in public on 11 and 12 October 2010 in Geneva, with a decision expected in November 2010. We review the Panel's findings and consider how the argument before the Appellate Body is likely to develop.

Summary of the WTO Panel's findings

Perhaps the most obvious comment on the WTO Panel Report, published on 9 August 2010, is that – at 548 densely written pages – it is neither short nor concise. New Zealand will argue that this confirms the Panel's careful review of the evidence. Australia will argue that it demonstrates the extent to which the Panel has sought to second-guess Australia's biosecurity decisions.

New Zealand's complaint was filed under the WTO Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Agreement (SPS Agreement), which regulates the manner in which WTO member states may impose health and biosecurity restrictions on imported goods. Simply expressed, the SPS Agreement requires such restrictions to be objectively justified by scientific evidence.

It is commonly understood that Australia has banned the importation of New Zealand apples. This was the case from 1921 through to 2006. After that date, however – and following risk assessments from Australian governmental agencies and a federal Senate review – Australia's position has been that New Zealand apples can be imported into Australia provided numerous stringent biosecurity measures are satisfied. It was against 16 of those measures that New Zealand's complaint was addressed. Fourteen of them related to three different pests:

  • measures 1 to 8 related to "fire blight" (a plant disease caused by a bacterium which causes plant flowers, shoots, twigs and leaves to wither and die)
  • measures 9 to 11 and 131 related to "European canker" (a plant disease caused by a fungus which results in cankers on limbs and trunks and can also cause fruit rot), and
  • measure 14 related to "apple leafcurling midge" (a small fly which feeds on the unfurling young leaves of apple trees causing the leaf margins to roll and curl).

New Zealand also challenged three general measures relating to orchard operations and inspections (measures 15 to 17).

The justification for each of the measures was said by Australia to lie in a 600 page Final Import Risk Analysis Report for Apples issued by Biosecurity Australia in November 2006 (the Final IRA). The general question with which the Panel was concerned was whether the Final IRA did indeed provide proper support for the 16 measures. The Panel found that it did not, and that each of the 16 measures was inconsistent with provisions of the SPS Agreement.

New Zealand had invoked the following SPS provisions:

  • Article 5.1, according to which members must ensure that their sanitary and phytosanitary measures are based on a risk assessment
  • Article 5.2, providing that in assessing risks, members must take into account available scientific and technical evidence
  • Article 2.2, requiring SPS measures to be applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, to be based on scientific principles and (save for an exception which is not relevant) not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence
  • Article 5.5, prohibiting members from making arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions in the levels of SPS protection they consider to be appropriate in different situations
  • Article 2.3, requiring that SPS measures not unjustifiably discriminate between members and not constitute a disguised restriction on international trade
  • Article 5.6, requiring members to ensure that SPS measures are not more trade-restrictive than needed to achieve their appropriate level of SPS protection, and
  • Article 8, requiring members to observe the provisions of Annex C in conducting control, inspection and approval procedures, including ensuring that such procedures are undertaken and completed without undue delay.

In finding for New Zealand, the Panel concluded that:

  • each of the 16 measures were SPS measures, and therefore required to be consistent with the SPS Agreement
  • each of the 16 measures were inconsistent with Articles 5.1 and 5.2 – and hence Article 2.2, and
  • the 14 specific measures were in breach of Article 5.6.

However, the Panel also held that:

  • New Zealand had failed to demonstrate that the measures were arbitrary, discriminatory or protectionist in accordance with Article 5.5 – and hence Article 2.3, and
  • New Zealand's claim under Article 8 did not fall within the terms of reference established by New Zealand's original panel request.

Thus, the Panel faulted Australia for: (1) not grounding its measures in a proper risk assessment based on scientific evidence, and (2) adopting measures that – even taking into account Australia's chosen level of SPS protection – were more trade-restrictive than necessary.

Summary of Australia's grounds of appeal>h3>

The Appellate Body's jurisdiction is limited to "issues of law covered in the panel report and legal interpretations developed by the panel". In order to obtain a different result on appeal, Australia must succeed in overturning each of the Panel's substantive findings of breach of the SPS Agreement.

Australia's notice of appeal submits that:

  • the 16 measures, as a whole or individually, do not constitute SPS measures
  • the specific measures imposed for fireblight and apple leafcurling midge, as well as the general measures, are consistent with Articles 5.1 and 5.2 (and hence 2.2); in reaching the opposite conclusion the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of what constitutes a proper risk assessment, and failed to make an objective assessment of the matter (as required by Article 11 of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding), and
  • the above error infected the Panel's decision on Article 5.6 insofar as it applied to the specific measures imposed for fireblight and apple leafcurling midge, as well as the general measures.

Australia's written submissions, filed on 7 September 2010, further illuminate its argument. Australia continues to rely, as it did before the Panel, on the Appellate Body's 2008 decision in the EC Hormones Suspension case. This was the second Appellate Body decision in a long-running dispute. The first decision, from January 1998, was also the Appellate Body's first consideration of the SPS Agreement. In it the Appellate Body confirmed that the EC had not completed a risk assessment for the purposes of Article 5.1. In the Suspension case, the Appellate Body was concerned with whether the US and Canada had lawfully suspended concessions due to the EC's continued inconsistency with the SPS Agreement. Part of this decision examined whether the EC's new measures, implemented through a 2004 directive and based on further risk assessments, were SPS-compliant. Although the Appellate Body did not finally determine this issue, it reversed the Panel's finding that the new EC measures were not based on a risk assessment and therefore incompatible with the Article 5.1.

Australia claims that, in light of the Suspension case, there is a matter of legal principle which requires further resolution concerning the precise standard of review for assessing compliance with Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2, especially in the context of uncertain, inconclusive or incomplete scientific evidence. Australia also claims that the relationship between the above articles and Article 5.6 requires careful consideration.

Briefly, we summarise Australia's three key arguments.

Its first argument is that New Zealand and the Panel improperly characterised the 16 measures as SPS measures whereas, on proper application of the definition (found in Annex A(1)), only four qualify (two in relation to fireblight, one in relation to each of European canker and apple leafcurling midge). The remaining 12 are merely ancillary administrative processes or procedures. This submission appears to concede that some SPS measures do apply to New Zealand apples. This argument may, therefore, be partly academic. Australia's submissions accept that "the identification of the measures appears not to be material to [the Panel's] subsequent findings of infringement", but argues that this issue "has the potential to impact significantly on the nature and scope of assessment able to be relied upon by a Member" (at [9]). Australia had previously pursued the same argument before the Panel, which held that each of the individual measures, on their own, satisfied the broad definition of a SPS measure, which includes any measure applied "to protect animal or plant life or health within the territory of the Member from risks arising from the entry, establishment or spread or pests, diseases, disease-carrying organisms or disease-causing organisms" (see [7.173] to [7.187]).

Australia's second argument is that the Panel crossed the line from appropriate review of Australia's risk assessment to substituting its own judgement for that of Australia. The Final IRA, says Australia, was detailed and justifiable. It fully explained its methodology, its intermediate steps and the scientific data on which each intermediate step was based. Where the science was unclear, the Final IRA acknowledged this and identified the expert judgement taken. The Panel's finding that the Final IRA was not a proper risk assessment merely indicates disagreement with the expert judgements taken by Australia on the basis of inconclusive scientific data. The Panel's review accordingly went further than the standards required by Articles 5.1 and 5.2 (and, hence, 2.2). Australia's expert judgements should be accepted, provided they were legitimate by the scientific community standards, or at least not such as to undermine confidence in the assessment as a whole.

Australia's third argument is that the Panel's finding of breach of Article 5.6 must fall away if its findings under Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2 are invalid. Further, Australia claims the Panel misapplied Article 5.6, in particular by not requiring New Zealand affirmatively to prove that a proper risk assessment must have concluded that alternative measure(s) would have satisfied Australia's chosen level of protection.

Looking ahead

At the heart of Australia's argument is the proposition that the Panel overreached its mandate by concluding that the Final IRA was not rationally related to scientific evidence.

Although Australia's appeal seeks to present this argument as involving novel questions of principle, the essential issues go back to the Appellate Body decisions in Japan – Agricultural Products II (1999) and the original EC – Hormones (1998). In the former case, the Appellate Body held that "whether there is a rational relationship between the SPS measure and the scientific evidence is to be determined on a case-by-case basis and will depend upon the particular circumstances of the case, including the characteristics of the measure at issue and the quality and quantity of the scientific evidence" (at [84]). In the latter case, the Appellate Body confirmed that a risk assessment need not adopt the "mainstream" scientific opinion, but can be based on good faith upon "a divergent opinion coming from qualified and respected sources" (at [194]).

This approach was reaffirmed in the Suspension case (at [590] and [591]):

A panel reviewing the consistency of an SPS measure with Article 5.1 must determine whether that SPS measure is "based on" a risk assessment. It is the WTO Member's task to perform the risk assessment. The panel's task is to review that risk assessment. Where a panel goes beyond this limited mandate and acts as a risk assessor, it would be substituting its own scientific judgement for that of the risk assessor and making a de novo review and, consequently, would exceed its functions under Article 11 of the DSU. Therefore, the review power of a panel is not to determine whether the risk assessment undertaken by a WTO Member is correct, but rather to determine whether that risk assessment is supported by coherent reasoning and respectable scientific evidence and is, in this sense, objectively justifiable.
The Appellate Body has observed that a WTO Member may properly base an SPS measure on divergent or minority views, as long as these views are from qualified and respected sources. This must be taken into account in defining a panel's standard of review. Accordingly, a panel reviewing the consistency of an SPS measure with Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement must, first, identify the scientific basis upon which the SPS measure was adopted. This scientific basis need not reflect the majority view within the scientific community but may reflect divergent or minority views. Having identified the scientific basis underlying the SPS measure, the panel must then verify that the scientific basis comes from a respected and qualified source. Although the scientific basis need not represent the majority view within the scientific community, it must nevertheless have the necessary scientific and methodological rigour to be considered reputable science. In other words, while the correctness of the views need not have been accepted by the broader scientific community, the views must be considered to be legitimate science according to the standards of the relevant scientific community. A panel should also assess whether the reasoning articulated on the basis of the scientific evidence is objective and coherent. In other words, a panel should review whether the particular conclusions drawn by the Member assessing the risk find sufficient support in the scientific evidence relied upon. Finally, the panel must determine whether the results of the risk assessment "sufficiently warrant" the SPS measure at issue.

There can be little doubt the Panel was alive to the risk of overreach. Indeed, it explicitly sought to apply the above-cited paragraphs in its decision (see [7.225] to [7.226]).

Whereas the Appellate Body in the Suspension case had criticised the panel for not fully engaging with the evidence and summarily dismissing the EC's arguments (at [553]), that critique is unlikely to be made of the Panel in New Zealand-Australia Apples. The Panel's detailed findings on the various measures were based on the evidence of seven experts. The Panel's review and mastery of the facts can only be described as exhaustive. An important question may be whether they were so exhaustive as to give the impression the Panel had engaged in a form of de novo review.

It remains to be seen how the argument before the Appellate Body will proceed. At this stage, however, Australia's submissions on appeal are unlikely to have come as a serious surprise either to the original Panel or to New Zealand.

1. New Zealand's complaint against measure 12 was withdrawn by agreement following clarification by Australia.

The information in this article is for informative purposes only and should not be relied on as legal advice. Please contact Chapman Tripp for advice tailored to your situation.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.