| TOP |
| 7th Report of Market Access Ombudsman Council (March 18, 2002) |
1. Complainant: New Zealand Embassy
2. Ministry concerned: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
3. Complaint:
(1) Under Article 5-2 of the Plant Protection Law, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries designated "quarantine pests" as those that could damage useful plants where 1] domestic existence has not yet been confirmed or 2] part of its existence has already been confirmed by a program to detect the occurrence and other measures necessary for control taken by the government.
(2) On this point, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries contends as follows: 1] Japan is a major importer of plants. If Japan has to list quarantine pests, it has to list more than 100,000 kinds of harmful pests. Moreover, it is difficult to list unknown harmful animals and plants. On the other hand, it is necessary to prevent the entry into Japan of unknown harmful animals and plants as their safety has yet to be confirmed. 2] In New Zealand, where quarantine pests are listed, when an application for import of a new kind of agricultural produce is made, approval is not granted until PRA (pest risk assessment) of harmful animals and plants contained in the agricultural produce in question is finished. It is not appropriate to argue the issue by taking up the difference in listing method alone. Rather, the issue should be argued from the standpoint of taking the best measure for each country to prevent the entry of harmful animals and plants.
(3) However, as a result of listing the above non-quarantine pests, those pests that would not be subject to quarantine if quarantine pests were listed are subject to quarantine, including 1] pests whose existence in Japan has already been confirmed but a program to detect the occurrence and other measures necessary for control have not been taken, and 2] pests that are not designated as quarantine pests under the standard set by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
Specifically, they are Asynonychus cervinus (Boheman), Tetranychus urticae (Koch), Heliothripshaemorrhoidalis (Bouche), Tuckerellaflabellifera (Miller), Hemiberlesialataniae (Singnoret), Tyrophagusputrescontiae (Schrank), and Limothripscerealum (Haliday). These seven pests should not be subject to quarantine in Japan. But, due to the existence of the above list, they are required to be quarantined.
Among major agriculture-produce-importing countries, Japan is the only one that requires quarantine by making a list of non-quarantine pests, a practice not in line with international standards. Moreover, the issue in question is a problem not only for New Zealand but also for other countries exporting agriculture produce to Japan.
(4) Therefore, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries should discontinue its policy of listing non-quarantine pests and subjecting all other animals and plants to quarantine and instead adopt a policy of "listing quarantine pests" in order to bring it more into line with international standards. Meantime, the ministry should take measures to exempt quarantine on the seven pests.
(Second complaint)
(1) In its Corresponding Policy (1), the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries says that the New Zealand side is incorrect when it says, "all animals and plants other than the 63 kinds listed as non-quarantine pests are subject to quarantine." New Zealand agrees with the ministry's claim that "those that do not harm plants are not subject to import plant quarantine." But, what we are concerned about are those that may do harm to plants but are not designated as quarantine pests in Japan. This is because they have already occurred in Japan but are not defined as quarantine pests by the FAO. Therefore, we again request that Japan make a list of "only harmful animals and plants that may do harm to useful plants and that may have potential effects on agricultural production in Japan."
(2) In its Corresponding Policy (2), the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries asserts that "Japan has adopted an extremely transparent system, under which all plants except those that may contain pests subject to import prohibition or growth-site inspection can be imported if they pass import inspection (or disinfected, even if they failed to pass the inspection)." But, this underlies the point of our argument. What we are arguing is that the Japanese fumigation and disinfection system is based on a policy that is not scientifically justified and therefore imported goods are fumigated even when they contain harmful animals or plants that have already existed in Japan.
(3) In its Corresponding Policy (3), the Ministry of the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries did not respond to our request made in the complaint 2) dated June 29, 2001 that "in view of the recent adoption of the standard definition of 'official control' by the ICPM, we hope that the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will bring Japan's plant quarantine policy into line with international practice." We want to confirm that Japan will adopt and introduce the new definition of "official control" that was internationally agreed to in May of last year.
(4) The Corresponding policies of the Ministry of the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries do not respond to our complaints (made in the Complaint (3) dated June 29, 2001 and Complaint (1) dated July 12, 2000) about Japan's list of non-quarantine pests that Article 5-2 of the Plant Protection Law Enforcement Regulations does not meet the requirements prescribed in Article 5-2 of the Plant Protection Law to issue a ministerial ordinance designating "harmful animals and plants." The fact that the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, in its Corresponding Policy 1, recognized that there are animals and plants that do harm and that do not do harm among the animals and plants that are not included in the list of 63 kinds of non-quarantine pests proves that the current Japanese system listing only 63 kinds of non-harmful animals and plants does not meet the legal requirement of designating "harmful animals and plants." Therefore, we request that the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries designate "harmful animals and plants" as is stipulated in Article 5-2 of the Plant Protection Law.
(5) With regard to the Corresponding Policy (4) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, New Zealand requested more than one year ago (January 2001) that the ministry clarify the quarantine status of the seven harmful animals or plants as a temporary measure before a fundamental change of policy. To our regret, we have not received a response from the Ministry of the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. However, we welcome the reports that the ministry is studying how to deal with the seven pests. We would like the ministry to respond to our question of whether the seven pests exist in Japan or not.
4. Corresponding Policy of the Ministries concerned:
(1) New Zealand claims that "with regard to quarantine pests, Article 5-2 of the Plant Protection Law Enforcement Regulations lists 63 non-quarantine pests and subjects all other animals and plants to quarantine." This claim is not correct. Under the Japanese plant quarantine system, only harmful animals and plants that may do harm to useful plants and that may have potential effects on agricultural production in Japan are subject to quarantine. Those that do not harm plants are not subject to import plant quarantine.
(2) Regarding the argument of the New Zealand side that a list of quarantine pests should be drawn up, rather than using a list of non-quarantine pests, we are of the view that the listing method differs since the import quarantine schemes of Japan and New Zealand are different. In other words, we understand that importing new agricultural produce is basically prohibited in New Zealand. When an application for import of a new kind of agricultural produce is made, a decision on import quarantine measures is not made (the import prohibition remains) until PRA (pest risk assessment) of pests contained in the agricultural produce in question is finished. New Zealand ensures the quarantine safety by this system, under which it adds the pests that are deemed harmful as a result of PRA to the list of quarantine pests and prohibits the import of the pests whose PRA is not finished. On the other hand, Japan has adopted an extremely transparent system, under which all plants except those that may contain pests subject to import prohibition or growth-site inspection can be imported if they pass import inspection (or disinfected, even if they fail to pass the inspection).
(3) Regarding the argument of the New Zealand side that Japan should prepare a "list of quarantine pests," we are of the view that Japan has adopted the current system because expressing that quarantine pests are those harmful animals or plants not listed in the non-quarantine pests is more effective in preventing the entry and stay in Japan of more than 100,000 kinds of harmful pests, including unknown pests that may cause serious damage to domestic agriculture. Therefore, each country, based on its situation, should adopt the most effective measure to prevent the entry of quarantine pests. It is not appropriate to argue the issue by taking up the difference in listing method alone.
Incidentally, international standards do not prescribe the listing method. New Zealand is incorrect when it says that the Japanese method of making a "list of quarantine pests" runs counter to internationally prescribed methods.
(4) As to expanding the list of non-quarantine pests, the ministry intends to add harmful animals and plants that are not harmful to domestic agricultural production to the list of quarantine pests and implement plant quarantine in accordance with the degree of peril of harmful animals and plants by accelerating pest risk assessment. The ministry is now studying how to deal with the seven pests that the New Zealand side argues should not be subject to quarantine. We think it is necessary to study the matter carefully because the seven pests include those that have not occurred in Japan.
(Second corresponding policy)
(1) With regard to New Zealand's re-complaint (1)
1) We believe that New Zealand has consented to the Japanese policy of not subjecting pests that do not harm plants to import quarantine.
2) As to New Zealand's claim that "only harmful animals and plants that may do harm to useful plants and that may have potential effects on agricultural production in Japan should be subject to quarantine. We again request that Japan make a list of such harmful animals and plants," we believe this is a repetition of the same argument. On this point, New Zealand made similar requests in different words in its re-complaint (2) and re-complaint (4). only harmful animals and plants that may do harm to useful plants and that may have potential effects on agricultural production in Japan." We have already explained this point in our previous corresponding policy (2) and (4). We want to explain again in the following "Concerning (2)" and "Concerning (4)."
(2) Concerning New Zealand's re-complaint (2)
1) With regard to New Zealand's argument that "Japan underlies the point of our argument when it said that 'Japan has adopted an extremely transparent system, under which all plants except those that may contain pests subject to import prohibition or growth-site inspection can be imported if they pass import inspection (or disinfected, even if they failed to pass the inspection),'" we would like to explain as follows.
The Japanese system that designates a list of non-quarantine pest is a realistic measure conforming to the Japanese import quarantine system and the actual situation of agricultural import. We are of the view that the listing method differs since the import quarantine schemes of Japan and New Zealand are different. Under the Japanese system, all plants except those that may contain pests subject to import prohibition or growth-site inspection can be imported if they pass import inspection (or disinfected, even if they fail to pass the inspection). Under this system, Japan imports large quantities of various kinds of plants from around the world. Meanwhile, it is said that there are as many as 100,000 kinds of pests in the world. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to make a list of quarantine pests under the current import inspection system. If we were to make a list of quarantine pests by adding to the list one group of pests after another, we would be unable to quarantine a large majority of undecided pests (pests that are yet to be listed as quarantine pests) during the course of list making. This would mean that we cannot implement plant quarantine properly to prevent the entry and spread of pests into Japan. For this reason, making a list of quarantine pests is not realistic for Japan and we cannot adopt it as a system. However, if the import of new agricultural produce is basically prohibited as in New Zealand, a quarantine-pest listing method would be effective because it is possible to implement investigation and assessment of pests country by country upon receipt of an import application and to start (lift) import inspection by attaching conditions based on the results of the investigation and assessment. However, under the current situation in Japan, to which large quantities of agricultural produce are imported, it is impossible to adopt the kind of listing method adopted in New Zealand. Therefore, Japan has adopted a method of investigating the importance, degree of damage, prevention situation, etc. of the pests that have occurred in Japan and are not subject to the government's program to detect the occurrence and other prevention measures, and of adding those pests that do not cause damage to domestic agricultural production to the list of non-quarantine pests. Japan has adopted this method because it is a realistic method that does not hinder the objective of plant quarantine and does not cause trouble to the actual import situation.
2) With regard to New Zealand's argument that "the Japanese fumigation and disinfection system is based on a policy that is not scientifically justified and therefore imported goods are fumigated even when they contain harmful animals or plants that have already existed in Japan," we would like to explain as follows.
The Japanese fumigation and disinfection system is based on a policy that is not scientifically justified and therefore imported goods are fumigated even when they contain harmful animals or plants that have already existed in Japan.
The pests that are subject to fumigation and disinfection in import quarantine in Japan are the "quarantine pests" described above. Since these pests cause serious damage to domestic agricultural production in Japan, implementing disinfection effectively to prevent the entry and spread of quarantine pests is scientifically justified and indispensable. We hope that New Zealand will understand that the Japanese people never approve importing agricultural produce containing quarantine pests without disinfection.
3) Concerning re-complaint (3)
With regard to New Zealand's complaint that "We want to confirm that Japan will adopt and introduce the new definition of 'official control' that was internationally agreed to in May last year," we will explain as follows.
We believe that the international standard of "official control" that was adopted by the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (ICPM) of the IPPC in April last year should offer one of the bases when we consider an ideal plant quarantine system in the future. At the same time, we have to keep in mind that Japan is the largest importer of farm products in the world and that there is a high risk of pests contained in large quantities of farm products entering into Japan. For example, under the guidance of the central government, we have been making strenuous efforts to control pests that are covered by programs to detect the occurrence. If we fail to control large quantities of pests contained in farm products imported from foreign countries, our efforts on domestic agricultural production will be wasted. We believe that it is necessary to take these aspects into account when we study an ideal plant quarantine system and official control.
(4) Concerning re-complaint (4)
In the re-complaint, New Zealand argues that "the Plant Protection Law Enforcement Regulations does not meet the requirements prescribed in Article 5-2 of the Plant Protection Law to issue a ministerial ordinance designating 'harmful animals and plants'" and that "the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries recognized that there are animals and plants that do harm and that do not do harm among the animals and plants that are not included in the list of 63 kinds of non-quarantine pests proves that the current Japanese system listing only 63 kinds of non-harmful animals and plants does not meet the legal requirement of designating "harmful animals and plants." On these points, we would like to explain as follows.
Article 5-2 of the Plant Protection Law Enforcement Regulations based on Article 5-2 of the Plant Protection Law says that quarantine pests are "harmful animals or harmful plants that are not listed below," and it lists 63 non-quarantine pests. We have already explained in detail in the 2 above why Japan has adopted a method of designating non-quarantine pests. The legal and ministerial regulations concerning quarantine pests are based on the legislative deliberations and procedures (Diet deliberation, inspection by the Cabinet Legislative Bureau, examination by scholars, public hearings, etc.) that were required when the Plant Protection Law and the Plant Protection Law Enforcement Regulations were revised (1996). Therefore, we do not think they do not meet legal requirements.
(5) Concerning re-complaint (5)
As to New Zealand's "request for clarification of the quarantine status of the seven harmful animals or plants," the ministry is now studying how to deal with them. We have not yet reached a conclusion. We think it is necessary to study the matter carefully because the seven pests include those that have not occurred in Japan. We are not able to disclose the content of the study. As soon as the study is completed, we will notify it to the competent New Zealand plant quarantine agency via the New Zealand Embassy in the same manner as in the past.
5. Remarks
The complainant is now examining the matter.