User:PaulSirignano24/sandbox

Introduction

The salmon trade dispute was between Canada and Australia. Canada is the country that voiced complaints about Australia’s restriction on importing Canadian salmon in this trade dispute. British Columbia, Canada alone exported $481.5 million of salmon in 2011, which shipped to twenty-six countries. This raises speculation on Australia and their restriction on importing Canadian salmon. If the salmon was well enough for twenty-six other countries, it should have met the standards of the Australian government as well. Canada made the argument that the restrictions were a violation of the WTO trade regulations.

Countries

Canada

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) verifies that exported foods and food products meet the Canadian standards just as an importing country would. Countries have their own requirements for foods and food products and the Canadian government understands this and respects those requirements. Canada has implemented the fish inspection act to help regulate the export of fish and fish products. The efforts Canada has put towards achieving a substantial export in their fish (salmon) shows speculation towards Australia.

Australia

Aquaculture in Australia is the country's fastest growing primary industry accounting for 34% of the countries seafood production. Salmon is apart of this movement across the country with Atlantic salmon becoming a mainstream fish produced through the aquaculture systems. Salmon farms are found in Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia and while they are making an effort to improve salmon farming offshore and inshore it is still producing a small amount of salmon for Australia.

Product at Issue

Salmon for sale at a fish market.

Salmon is one of Canada's largest exported fish serving over thirty-three countries in 2010. From salmon farms to fresh caught salmon in the Atlantic Ocean there is a continuous supply simply because of the continuous demand. . Salmon is also one of Australia's heavily farmed fish. The efforts behind this are arguably because of the dispute between Canada and Australia and their trade dispute.

History of the Dispute

In 1995 Australia's prohibition of imports of salmon from Canada were exposed by the Canadian government. The Australian prohibition was in place because of quarantine regulations on the salmon. In 1997 a panel was created at Canada's request consisting of third party countries such as, Norway, United States, India and European Communities. These were the third party countries participating in a panel to consult the prohibition. In 1998 the panel was appealed by Australia and the panel was continued on with the Dispute Settlement Body. The next year in 1999 the panel decided that the ban on importation of Canadian salmon was not consistent with the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) on Australia's behalf. The decision lifted the ban and increased quarantine requirements for several species of fish not just Canada's salmon.

In 2000 it was announced that the two countries, Canada and Australia have come to an agreement to the WTO dispute over quarantine measures on imports of salmon to Australia. After much discussion between the two countries, sectors of each government and the panel, the agreement became effective as of June 1st, 2000.

The WTO Case

Canada brought a dispute to the WTO against Australia regarding the importation of salmon. Norway, United States, India and European Communities joined the panel to settle the dispute at the WTO level. Canada claims the prohibition that has been set by Australia is inconsistent with certain trade agreements such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and is also inconsistent with the SPS Agreement.

After Canada brought this dispute to the WTO, Australia published the "1999 Import Risk Analysis". This publishing by Australia was an additional analysis explaining why the import of frozen, fresh or chilled salmon is a health risk.

The Dispute Settlement Panel ruled against Australia over a reasonable period of time. The dispute was brought to the WTO's attention in 1995 and the two countries settled on an agreement in the year 2000. With both countries producing salmon for their large populations it raises speculation when a country such as Australia will turn away imported goods from a reputable country such as Canada. The WTO saw through their barrier and reasons behind their Canadian salmon prohibition and successfully created an agreement between the two countries.

Articles 2.2, 5.1, 5.5, and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement

2.2

"“It is apparent from the text of Article 2.2 that this provision contains three separate requirements: (i) the requirement that SPS measures be applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health; (ii) the requirement that SPS measures be based on scientific principles; and (iii) the requirement that SPS measures not be maintained without sufficient scientific evidence.”

5.1

"Members shall ensure that their sanitary or phytosanitary measures are based on an assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, of the risks to human, animal or plant life or health, taking into account risk assessment techniques developed by the relevant international organizations."

5.5

"With the objective of achieving consistency in the application of the concept of appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection against risks to human life or health, or to animal and plant life or health, each Member shall avoid arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions in the levels it considers to be appropriate in different situations, if such distinctions result in discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade. Members shall cooperate in the Committee, in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 12, to develop guidelines to further the practical implementation of this provision. In developing the guidelines, the Committee shall take into account all relevant factors, including the exceptional character of human health risks to which people voluntarily expose themselves."

5.6

"Establishing or maintaining sanitary or phytosanitary measures to achieve the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection, Members shall ensure that such measures are not more trade-restrictive than required to achieve their appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection, taking into account technical and economic feasibility."

References

PaulSirignano24 (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)