Australia - Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon Report of the Panel (Continued) 8.59 Recalling the relatively wide range of salmon products covered by the sanitary measure in dispute and noting the relatively limited scope of salmon products dealt with in the 1996 Final Report - the only risk assessment submitted by Australia - we consider, therefore, that Canada has raised a presumption (i.e., made a prima facie case) that the measure in dispute in so far as it relates to salmon products at issue other than those covered by the 1996 Final Report (i.e., other than adult, wild, ocean-caught Pacific salmon) is not based on a risk assessment in accordance with Article 5.1 and that Australia, in turn, has not provided evidence to rebut that presumption. To that extent we thus find that Australia, by maintaining the measure at issue, acts inconsistently with Article 5.1. Given our earlier finding -that a violation of the more specific Article 5.1 can be presumed to imply a violation of the more general provisions of Article 2.2 250 - we find that Australia, to that extent, also acts inconsistently with Article 2.2. 8.60 Given the fact that (1) most of the studies and reports before us, and in particular the 1996 Final Report (Australia's only formal risk assessment) specifically address and discuss adult, wild, ocean-caught Pacific salmon (even though the data they contain may relate to or be relevant for other salmon) and (2) Canada itself also focused on adult, wild, ocean-caught Pacific salmon during our proceedings, we, in turn, concentrated our attention and questions (to both the parties and the experts advising the Panel) on adult, wild, ocean-caught Pacific salmon. For these reasons, the evidence and arguments before us which are relevant to Articles 5.5 and 5.6 are centred on adult, wild, ocean-caught Pacific salmon. We do not therefore consider it appropriate or necessary "in order to resolve the matter in issue in the dispute" 251 to further address the salmon products in dispute other than those from adult, wild, ocean-caught Pacific salmon. Any subsequent findings we thus make are limited to those salmon products at issue from adult, wild, ocean-caught Pacific salmon. Hereafter, we refer to this more limited category of salmon products at issue as "the salmon products further examined". (b) Salmon products in dispute from adult, wild, ocean-caught Pacific salmon (i.e., the "salmon products further examined") (i) Arguments of the parties 8.61 Canada argues that the 1996 Final Report - invoked by Australia as the risk assessment on which its measure as it applies to the salmon products further examined is based - is not a "proper" risk assessment in the sense of Articles 5.1. For Canada, a "proper" risk assessment has to: (1) evaluate the likelihood (i.e., determine the probability) of the establishment of the diseases of concern on the basis of an examination of the different possible scenarios and the different sub-events required for such establishment to take place (not simply posit, as - according to Canada - Australia did, the possibility of disease establishment, however remote); (2) make such evaluation for each disease of concern (not just assess, as - according to Canada - Australia did, the totality of risk linked to 24 different diseases); and (3) make such evaluation for each SPS measure which might be applied (i.e., for all five quarantine policy options mentioned in the 1996 Final Report). For Canada these three requirements can be deduced from the first part of the definition of "risk assessment" provided in paragraph 4 of Annex A to the SPS Agreement: "Risk assessment - The evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of a pest or disease within the territory of an importing Member according to the sanitary or phytosanitary measures which might be applied, and of the associated potential biological and economic consequences or the evaluation of the potential for adverse effects on human or animal health arising from the presence of additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms in food, beverages or feedstuffs". (underlining added by Canada) In support of its claim that these three requirements exist, Canada further refers to the definitions of risk and risk assessment, as well as the "Guidelines for Risk Assessment", provided in the OIE Code which, according to Canada, have to be taken into account as "risk assessment techniques" in accordance with Article 5.1. 8.62 According to Canada the second part of the definition of "risk assessment" in paragraph 4 does not apply in this case. Canada submits that the two parts of the definition are mutually exclusive. In support of this Canada puts forward the same arguments as those it developed under paragraph 1 of Annex A which provides the definitions of a "sanitary measure". 252 8.63 Canada also argues that the SPS measure at issue - which is in Canada's view heat treatment - is not "based on" a risk assessment in the sense required by the Appellate Body in EC - Hormones. For Canada, there is no rational relationship between the heat-treatment conditions set out in Australia's measure and the available scientific evidence contained in the 1996 Final Report. Canada further submits that Australia, therefore, also violates Article 5.2 in that it does not "take into account available scientific evidence" in assessing risk. 8.64 Australia points out that the definition of "risk assessment" as set out in paragraph 4 of Annex A contains two parts joined by the word "or". For Australia, this clearly indicates that there is no requirement for a risk assessment to meet all the terms in paragraph 4. According to Australia, compliance with either of the two parts of the definition is sufficient and Canada does not contest that the 1996 Final Report complies with the second part. 8.65 Australia argues that Canada's assertion that a risk assessment needs to make probabilistic estimates has been rejected by the Appellate Body in EC - Hormones where the requirement for a risk assessment "to establish a minimum magnitude of risk" 253 was rejected. For Australia, a risk assessment in accordance with Article 5 need not be a quantitative risk assessment, but may also be - especially where scientific data is not complete - qualitative and need not separately evaluate risk of occurrence for each disease and for each measure which might be applied. Australia submits that Canada reads requirements in the definition of "risk assessment" provided in the SPS Agreement for which there is no textual basis. For Australia, the important words in the definition of risk assessment are "evaluation of likelihood". According to Australia, there is no limitation as to the form that this evaluation should take except that it should consider the possible management measures and the consequences. Australia concludes that the 1996 Final Report achieves this and makes an evaluation that the risk is unacceptable. Australia submits that there are many different methodologies for risk assessment and that views of risk assessment techniques vary between experts, over time and on a case by case basis, as explicitly recognized by the requirement in Article 5.1 that a risk assessment should be "as appropriate to the circumstances". 8.66 With respect to the OIE risk assessment techniques relied upon by Canada, Australia argues that they have been fully "taken into account" in the 1996 Final Report as required in Article 5.1. Australia also refers to Article 1.4.1.3 of the OIE Code on "Methodology": "Risk analysis must be able to deal with the complexities of real life situations and no single method is applicable in all cases. For this reason, countries wanting to conduct import risk analyses may find it necessary to design their own process for carrying out the exercise. Several countries have already developed processes". 254 8.67 With respect to Canada's claim that the measure at issue is not "based on" the 1996 Final Report, Australia submits that Article 5.1 requires that the results of a risk assessment must sufficiently warrant or reasonably support the SPS measure at stake, but that this does not require the risk assessment to embody only the view of the majority of the scientific community. Australia argues that heat-treated product was not addressed in the 1996 Final Report because Canada's request for access was limited to fresh, chilled and frozen product. (ii) The applicable definition of "risk assessment" 8.68 We first address the problem of which of the two definitions of "risk assessment", provided in paragraph 4 of Annex A to the SPS Agreement, apply to this dispute. We recall our finding that in this case we need to examine the measure in dispute as a sanitary measure applied "to protect animal ... life or health within [Australia] from risks arising from the entry, establishment or spread of pests, diseases ... or disease-causing organisms" in the sense of paragraph 1(a) of Annex A (rather than a "sanitary measure" in the sense of paragraph 1(b) of that Annex). We consider, moreover, that there is a close link between the defnition of a "sanitary measure" in paragraph 1(a) and the first definition of "risk assessment" in paragraph 4, as well as between the definition of a "sanitary measure" in paragraph 1(b) and the second definition of "risk assessment" in paragraph 4. The first set of definitions deals with risks arising from the entry, establishment or spread of pests or diseases. The second addresses risks arising from specific substances in food, beverages or feedstuffs. We note that this link has been confirmed in the panel and Appellate Body Reports on EC - Hormones where the measure at issue was found to be a sanitary measure in the sense of paragraph 1(b) and the risk assessment had to be in accordance with the second definition in paragraph 4. 255 8.69 In this case, we find, therefore, that since the measure in dispute is a "sanitary measure" in the sense of paragraph 1(a), it has to be based on a "risk assessment" in the sense of the first definition of paragraph 4, i.e., on an "evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of a pest or disease within the territory of an importing Member according to the sanitary or phytosanitary measures which might be applied, and of the associated potential biological and economic consequences ...". (iii) Is the 1996 Final Report a risk assessment in accordance with Articles 5.1 and 5.2 ? 8.70 To answer the question whether the 1996 Final Report constitutes a risk assessment as required under the SPS Agreement, we need to examine and apply Articles 5.1 and 5.2 256 as well as the definition of risk assessment applicable in this case and this, in our view, in light of both Article 2.2 and the "risk assessment techniques developed by relevant international organizations" (in casu, those of the OIE) which WTO Members, in accordance with Article 5.1, have to "take into account". 8.71 Following Article 5.1, a risk assessment needs to be "appropriate to the circumstances". Answering a Panel question in this respect, Canada is of the view that the circumstances thus referred to are the source of the risk (e.g., an animal pathogen or a chemical contaminant) and the subject of the risk (i.e., whether it is to human, animal or plant life or health). For Australia, the phrase "as appropriate to the circumstances" confers a right and obligation on WTO Members to assess the risk, on a case by case basis, in terms of product, origin and destination, including, in particular, country specific situations. We agree that both interpretations may be covered by the term "as appropriate to the circumstances". In our view, also the OIE risk assessment techniques as well as the scientific opinions we gathered, may shed light on what is a risk assessment "appropriate to the circumstances". 8.72 Examining the definition of risk assessment applicable to the measure at issue, i.e., the "evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of a pest or disease within the territory of an importing Member according to the sanitary or phytosanitary measures which might be applied, and of the associated potential biological and economic consequences", we consider, first of all, that the risk thus to be assessed includes (1) the risk of "entry, establishment or spread" of a disease and (2) the risk of the "associated potential biological and economic consequences". When we refer hereafter to the risk related to a disease, this risk thus includes the risk of entry, establishment or spread of that disease as well as the biological and economic consequences associated therewith. We further note that, in our view, three elements are contained in this definition of risk assessment: (1) the definition of risk assessment implies that the Member imposing the sanitary measure first has to identify the disease(s) whose "entry, establishment or spread" within its territory it wants to prevent as well as the "associated potential biological and economic consequences"; (2) the definition then requires an "evaluation of the likelihood" of entry, establishment or spread of these diseases and of the associated potential biological and economic consequences"; and (3) the definition further requires that the evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of these diseases be conducted "according to the sanitary ... measures which might be applied". We next examine whether the 1996 Final Report fulfils these three requirements. Identification of the disease(s) whose "entry, establishment or spread" Australia wants to prevent and of the "associated potential biological and economic consequences" 8.73 The 1996 Final Report identifies 24 diseases whose "entry, establishment or spread" Australia wants to prevent 257 as well as the "potential biological and economic consequences" associated to the entry, establishment or spread of these 24 diseases. 258 We thus find that the 1996 Final Report meets the first requirement of a risk assessment in accordance with Article 5.1. In reply to a Canadian comment made at the interim review stage, we note that our finding that Australia thus identified 24 diseases of concern to Australia does not mean that the measure at issue also actually addresses these diseases in the sense that this measure actually affects the likelihood of the entry, establishment or spread of these diseases into Australia. The latter element is addressed in the section of our report where we examine whether the measure at issue is "based on" a risk assessment. 259 An "evaluation of the likelihood" of entry, establishment or spread of the disease(s) of concern and of the associated biological and economic consequences 8.74 We agree with Canada that, given the definition of risk assessment applicable in this case (the "evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of a ... disease", in the singular form), a risk assessment for the measure at issue in this dispute at least has to identify risk on a disease specific basis, i.e., it has to identify the risk for any given disease of concern separately, not simply address the overall risk related to the combination of all diseases of concern. (The issue of how the risk thus identified should be evaluated is addressed in paragraphs 8.76 and following.) The experts advising the Panel on this issue confirmed this. 260 In the EC - Hormones case as well, both the panels and the Appellate Body required some degree of specificity for a risk assessment - or a study or report allegedly part thereof - to be in accordance with the requirements imposed in Article 5.1. 261 We recognize, however, that some of the elements of an assessment of risk related to one disease might be used as part of the assessment for another disease and that, in that sense, disease-by-disease assessments may overlap. 262 We also acknowledge that as soon as there is a disease specific assessment for one disease of concern on which the sanitary measure as a whole can be based, there might be no more need to assess risk related to the other diseases of concern. 8.75 We note, however, that, according to the experts advising the Panel on this issue 263, the 1996 Final Report does identify the risk of disease "entry, establishment or spread" on a disease specific basis. Section 1.4 of the Report examines "Risk analysis factors" on a disease-by-disease basis and provides specific "Disease agent conclusions". 264 Section 2 provides a detailed "Technical Review of Data for 24 Salmonid Diseases", doing so disease-by-disease. 265 We, therefore, reject Canada's claim to the extent it implies that the 1996 Final Report does not identify risk on a disease-by-disease basis. In response to a Canadian comment made at the interim review stage, we note that our finding that Australia thus identified risk on a disease specific basis, does not mean that Australia also evaluated or assessed this risk as required in the definition of risk assessment. The requirement of an "evaluation of the likelihood" of risk is addressed in the following paragraphs of our report. 8.76 Canada also puts forward the requirement - allegedly contained in Article 5.1 - to determine the probability of the adverse effects occurring, as opposed to only addressing possibility. In its answer to Panel Question 19, Canada agreed, however, that this requirement can be fulfilled by either a quantitative or qualitative risk assessment. For Canada, probability could be expressed qualitatively by saying, for example, that the probability of a risk event is "extremely low" or is "negligible". 8.77 We recall, first, that the definition of risk assessment applicable in this dispute requires the "evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of a pest or disease ... and of the associated potential biological and economic consequences". We further note the following statement by the Appellate Body in EC - Hormones with respect to the meaning of "potential" or "possibility" as opposed to "probability": "The ordinary meaning of "potential" relates to "possibility" and is different from the ordinary meaning of "probability". "Probability" implies a higher degree or a threshold of potentiality or possibility". 266 (underlining added) A footnote to this sentence reads as follows: "The dictionary meaning of "potential" is "that which is possible as opposed to actual; a possibility"; L. Brown (ed.), The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, Vol. 2, page 2310 (Clarendon Press, 1993). In contrast, "probability" refers to "degrees of likelihood; the appearance of truth, or likelihood of being realized", and "a thing judged likely to be true, to exist, or to happen"; Id., page 2362". (underlining added) The Appellate Body, referring to the ordinary meaning of "probability", thus related "likelihood" (the word used in the definition of risk assessment applicable in this case) to "probability". The dictionary meaning of "likelihood" refers, indeed, to "a thing that is likely, a probability". 267 8.78 We further note that the requirement to evaluate "likelihood" or "probability" is also reflected in the OIE definition of risk and risk assessment, as well as in the OIE "Guidelines on Risk Assessment": "Risk - means the probability of an adverse event of aquatic animal health, public health or economic importance, such as a disease outbreak, and the magnitude of that event. Risk assessment - means the processes of identifying and estimating the risks associated with the importation of a commodity and evaluating the consequences of taking those risks". 268 (underlining added) "Guidelines for Risk Assessment Article 1.4.2.1 Estimation of the probability of an adverse event In the risk assessment of an importation, the risk associated with one or more disease agents may have to be considered. The importing country should elaborate the scenarios that could be involved in the introduction of a disease agent in an imported commodity and its subsequent exposure and transmission to aquatic animals and humans. In constructing a scenario by which a disease agent might be introduced into the importing country, some or all of the following factors (and other factors) need to be considered: (1) the probability of the disease agent being present in aquatic animal populations in the water of origin; (2) the probability of the disease agent being present in the particular aquatic organism; (3) he risk of flesh becoming contaminated during processing; (4) the probability of the disease agent being present in the particular tissues imported; (5) the probability of infected or contaminated aquatic animals, gametes, embryos or product passing diagnostic screening, inspection or grading procedures; (6) the probability of the disease agent surviving at an infectious dose during processing, transport or storage of the aquatic animals, gametes, embryos or products under consideration; (7) the probability of the disease agent coming into contact with susceptible hosts in the importing country at a suitable dose and by a suitable route to cause infection; (8) the risk of disease spreading from the index case and establishing in host populations in the importing country; (9) risk mitigation by optimising detection of pathogens and minimising their likelihood of survival (see Risk reduction factors). Each scenario would comprise a set of factors that should be identified for the estimation of the likelihood of some risk. In these guidelines, the factors are loosely grouped into four categories, namely country factors, commodity factors, exposure factors and risk reduction factors. Depending on the commodity and disease agent, any number of these factors may be used to estimate the probability of an adverse event for the importing country. Point estimates or probability distributions are employed to represent the values associated with each factor ...". 269 (underlining added) 8.79 In this respect we also note the following opinions from experts advising the Panel: Burmaster (Answer to Panel Question 1, Burmaster answers, page 1): "With some exceptions in some situations (of which this dispute is not one), I think that a risk assessment must use quantitative methods to estimate the probability and the magnitude of desired and adverse consequences". 270 (underlining added) Rodgers (Written version of Rodgers' statement at the meeting with experts, page 3): "This concept [determination of probability based on the information available] is though embodied in the OIE guidelines, which indicate that the risk factors should be used to estimate the probability of an adverse event occurring with point estimates or probability distributions then employed to represent the values associated with each factor. Effectively, risk assessment should estimate, either quantitatively or qualitatively, the probability of an adverse effect occurring"271. (underlining added) Winton (Transcript, para. 47): "... the idea at least that you can begin to assess probability estimates, I think is important and I think that all of us will be looking towards that approach in the future". (underlining added) Wooldridge (Answer to Panel Question 3, Wooldridge answers, page 8, emphasis in original): "In my opinion, the requirement of a risk assessment is to evaluate the probability of risk. This is one of my minimum requirements ... Given the existence of a particular disease agent, one can always construct a possible infection transmission scenario, however improbable, and therefore demonstration of the possibility of successful transmission and disease is not adequate. However, the probability does not have to be expressed quantitatively, and frequently it cannot be. In qualitative assessment there is therefore the difficulty of what is meant by the terms used, for example high, medium or low risk, and subjectivity is a potential problem". 272 The experts advising the Panel thus agree that an evaluation and expression of probability or likelihood, either quantitative or qualitative, is crucial to a risk assessment. 8.80 For the above reasons, we find that for the measure at issue in this dispute, a risk assessment - in accordance with Article 5.1 and paragraph 4 of Annex A and taking into account the risk assessment techniques developed by the OIE - not only has to state that there is a possibility of the diseases of concern being introduced into Australia when imports of the salmon products further examined would be allowed, but also needs to provide some evaluation or estimation of the likelihood or probability, expressed either qualitatively or quantitatively, of these diseases thus being introduced and of the associated biological and economic consequences then occurring. In our view, the SPS Agreement does not require that such evaluation needs to be done quantitatively. Moreover, we consider that this requirement on how a risk assessment should evaluate risk does not at all imply that a risk assessment in accordance with Article 5.1 needs to demonstrate a certain magnitude or threshold level or degree of risk (expressed either quantitatively or qualitatively). 273 8.81 In this respect, we consider that a risk assessment, on which to base an import prohibition in accordance with Article 5.1, cannot be premised on the concept of "zero risk". Otherwise, all import prohibitions would be based on a risk assessment since there is a risk (i.e., a possibility of an adverse event occurring), however remote, associated with most (if not all) imports. 274 In this respect, we refer to the Appellate Body's Report on EC - Hormones: "In one part of its Reports, the Panel opposes a requirement of an "identifiable risk" to the uncertainty that theoretically always remains since science can never provide absolute certainty that a given substance will not ever have adverse health effects. 275 We agree with the Panel that this theoretical uncertainty is not the kind of risk which, under Article 5.1, is to be assessed". 276 8.82 We next examine whether the requirement set out above is met in the 1996 Final Report. We note that the 1996 Final Report uses the words probability, possibility and likelihood on different occasions and evaluates elements of probability for some of the diseases of concern. 277 For example, in the Executive Summary: "Clearly there is a possibility that up to 20 disease agents exotic to Australia may be present in Pacific salmon products. It is acknowledged that the probability of establishment of disease would be low ...". 278 (underlining added) with respect to Aeromonas salmonicida: "Infection with A. salmonicida may be unusual in adult, wild, marine Pacific salmon and, if it exists, the concentration of bacteria present in fish may be low and the likelihood of transmission of infection to Australian fish would be consequently low. The more significant scenario may be one in which untreated waste products are continually discharged into water over time ...". 279 (underlining added) with respect to Parvicapsula sp. "Since Parvicapsula is a myxosporean parasite, it needs an alternate host to complete its life cycle. Parvicapsula disease has not spread from the Pacific rim of North America, despite the substantial trade in uncooked salmon product from the region. The possibility that the disease could become established in Australia cannot be completely discounted; however, the likelihood is considered to be very low". 280 (underlining added) disease agent conclusions: "Some general observations can be made about the likelihood of the disease agents under consideration being present in product imported into Australia. The risk reduction procedures raised for each disease agent would be expected to have an impact on the risk - both by removing tissues that potentially could contain the agent and by removing tissues that would have a higher propensity for being disposed of in Australia. However, the critical gaps in the information base for each of the disease agents makes it difficult to estimate with any confidence the likelihood that product entering Australia would be infected. There will be an unknown chance - with some degree of uncertainty about the confidence that can be had in any estimation - that imported product will be infected. Limitations on the source of product and its preparation will reduce that chance to low, but uncertain, levels". 281 (underlining added) "It is clear that all the questions arising in relation to the likelihood that animal products intended for human consumption may, in one form or another, ultimately be consumed by, or come into direct contact with susceptible animals, cannot be resolved. This risk factor is difficult to quantify; the chance, although present, is likely to be small. However, because of the potential consequences this chance cannot be ignored". 282 (underlining added) To continue with Australia - Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon: Section 8.83 250 Para. 8.52. 251 Appellate Body Report on US - Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, adopted 23 May 1997, WT/DS33/AB/R, pp.17-20, addressing the issue of judicial economy, at p.19 ("A panel need only address those claims which must be addressed in order to resolve the matter at issue in the dispute"). 252 Para. 8.33. 253 Appellate Body Report, op. cit., para. 186. 254 OIE Code, Chapter 1.4.1, p. 30. 255 Op. cit., para. 182, and Panel Reports, op. cit., paras. 8.21, and 8.98, (US complaint) and paras. 8.24, and 8.101, (complaint by Canada). 256 We recall that in this dispute Canada does not contest that the 1996 Final Report meets the requirements contained in Article 5.3 (see para. 8.50). 257 1996 Final Report, pp.18-19. Australia slightly changed this list in its submissions before the Panel (see Table 3 in the descriptive part). 258 1996 Final Report, Section 3 (Impact of salmonid disease introduction into Australia). 259 Paras. 8.93 ff. 260 Rodgers, Transcript, para. 28: "If you are concerned about several diseases, effectively the risks are identified by drawing up a list of the potential diseases of concern that would be associated with the importation of a particular fish product, followed by an examination of the consequences of their entry and establishment. Now, although many risk factors are common between different diseases, each disease may have unique factors to consider and each of these will have a variable quality and quantitative of available data that will need to be dealt with separately, which does make it necessary to assess risks on a disease-by-disease basis" (emphasis added); Winton, Answer to Panel Question 29, Winton answers, p.4: "I believe the FDC ["Fish Diseases Commission" of the OIE] would support the concept of individual risk assessment for each listed disease because important epidemiological features (presence of susceptible hosts, temperatures etc.) will vary with each country"; Wooldridge, Answer to Panel Question 29, Wooldridge answers, p.14: "... in considering any particular product for import, and in undertaking a risk assessment for that product, each potential disease hazard identified has to be separately assessed"; see also Wooldridge, Answer to Panel Questions 3 and 4, Wooldridge answers, p.9 and Wooldridge, Transcript, para. 242. Burmaster did not express his view on this specific issue. 261 This, not in the sense of requiring a disease specific assessment, but by requiring a separate assessment for each of the six hormones at issue, when used for growth promotion purposes and requiring the evaluation of risks arising specifically from hormones in meat or meat products (Appellate Body Report, op. cit., paras. 199-200, also confirmed in para. 141 and Panel Reports, op. cit., paras. 8.129 and 8.257 (US complaint), and paras. 8.132 and 8.260 (complaint by Canada). 262 Para. 8.58. 263 Rodgers' Answer to Panel Question 1, Rodgers answers, p.3, when assessing both the 1995 Draft Report and the 1996 Final Report: "The other basic factors required for a risk assessment, namely country factors, commodity factors, exposure factors and reduction factors, are considered on a diseases by disease basis from a textual technical/scientific point of view. The potential adverse consequences of disease introduction are also outlined in the same way" (see also Rodgers, Transcript, para. 26) and Wooldridge, Transcript, para. 59: "Section 2 of the 1996 Final Report describes, with references, the diseases it considers relevant on a disease-by-disease basis, with a summary of the information given". Burmaster and Winton did not express their view on this specific issue. 264 1996 Final Report, pp.37-56. 265 Ibid., pp.132-270. 266 Op. cit., para. 184. 267 L. Brown (ed.), The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, Vol. 2, p.1588, Clarendon Press, 1993. 268 OIE Code, Section 1.1, Definitions, p.13. 269 OIE Code, Chapter 1.4.2, pp. 33-34 270 See also Burmaster, Transcript, para. 13. 271 See also Rodgers, Transcript, para. 13. 272 See also Wooldridge's answer to Panel Question 1, Wooldridge answers, p.3 and p.6 and Wooldridge, Transcript, paras. 51, 52 and 55 and (with respect to associated consequences) paras. 127-128. 273 Appellate Body Report on EC - Hormones, op. cit., para. 186: "In another part of its Reports, however, the Panel appeared to be using the term "scientifically identified risk" to prescribe implicitly that a certain magnitude or threshold level of risk be demonstrated in a risk assessment if an SPS measure based thereon is to be regarded as consistent with Article 5.1. To the extent that the Panel purported to require a risk assessment to establish a minimum magnitude of risk, we must note that imposition of such a quantitative requirement finds no basis in the SPS Agreement" (footnote omitted). 274 Australia, First Submission, para. 19: "Australia does not have a no risk policy with respect to imports of salmon products - imports of heat-treated salmon are permitted. Stopping the import of a particular product does not mean that there is a no risk policy, only that the risk is too high and that the product cannot be treated to reduce the risk to an acceptable level". See also Australia, Rebuttals, para. 16; Australian Quarantine - Looking to the Future: a Government policy statement, circulated by Senator the Hon. Peter Cook, Minister for Resources, December 1988, p.12 ("The Government accepts the strongly expressed view of the Quarantine Review Committee that a policy of 'no risk' would be impossible to implement. Such a policy would mean for example a ban on most products"); the 1995 Draft Report, p.217 and Nairn, M.E., et. al., Australian Quarantine: a shared responsibility, DPIE, 1996, pp.21-22 and 83-84. See also Burmaster, Transcript, para. 177, Winton, Transcript, para. 43 and Wooldridge, Transcript, para. 52. 275 The Appellate Body refers to the Panel Reports, op. cit., paras. 8.152-8.153 (US complaint) and paras. .155-8.156 (complaint by Canada). 276 Op. cit., para. 186, underlining in original. 277 At the meeting with experts advising the Panel Australia stated that "we contend we have conducted a probability risk assessment" and implied that assessing risk as low or small is a statement of probability (Transcript, para. 155). 278 1996 Final Report, p.XI. 279 Ibid., p.39. 280 Ibid., p.48. 281 Ibid., p.50. 282 Ibid., p.56. See also on pp.66-68 (Conclusions), e.g., at p.66: "The potential for pathogenic exotic organisms to enter Australia via imports of salmon from Canada and the United States is a risk and for some of the disease agents under consideration it is probable that if commercial quantities of product were imported some of the exotic agents would be introduced with the product" (emphasis added).

Agreements  |  Disciplines | Trade Policy Developments | Countries | Trade & SMEs Home | What's New | SiteMap | Resources | Search | Disclaimer