Working group continues to fight Thai fruit ban

The Thailand ban on the importation of SA fresh produce is still in place, and having the devastating effect of leading to export losses estimated at R150 million a year, according to a study by the Bureau for Food and Agricultural Policy in the Western Cape. This has led to job losses in the industry and concomitant socio-economic problems in the communities serving the fruit industry. Although it’s a relatively small market, said Anton Rabe, executive director of Hortgro Services, it was growing nicely, at about 5% a year. “Some of our SA fruit products are more suited in flavour to the Asian palate than those of the traditional markets in Europe and the UK,” he said. So fresh produce exporters in SA have been fighting for well over three years to have the ban on the fruit industry’s products lifted – a ban that was imposed because of a technical error in SA’s documentation submitted to the Thailand authorities after that country joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2008. “Effectively,” Rabe said, “Thailand requested all its trading partners to indicate that they had fulfilled all the necessary export conditions for each of their export products – which, in the case of fresh produce from SA, were that we fulfilled the necessary phytosanitary conditions. But there was this technical error, and, instead of giving us a window to correct this mistake, Thailand slapped a unilateral ban on SA fresh fruits.” It has, however, proved to be a complicated issue, and one involving multidepartmental government groups, SA and Thailand ambassadorial staff and representatives of the SA fruit industry. The latest state of play has been detailed in information from the Department of International Relations and Co-operation (Dirco). There is a working group on the ongoing stoppage introduced by Thailand in 2008 on the exportation of fresh produce from SA – including Dirco, the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Daff), the Department of Trade and Industry and representatives of the fruit industry. The role played by Dirco is that it facilitates the convening of meetings of the group, and also serves as the link to the Thai Embassy in SA and the SA Embassy in Bangkok. The lead department on the technical aspects of the issue, meanwhile, is Daff – or more specifically the Directorate of Plant Health – since the Thai authorities have to conduct and conclude plant risk analyses (PRAs) for the various commodities before concluding protocols on their importation into Thailand. At the same time, Daff also represents SA on the WTO’s sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) committee and at meetings of the international plant protection commission (IPPC). At the meetings of the SPS committee and the IPPC, it appears that the delegation from Daff tries to have sidebar meetings with the Thai delegation to further engage them on the issue of the ban. Currently, the Thai position is that SA has to await its turn for the PRAs to be conducted. Further complicating the multi-departmental nature of the ban-lifting team is that the dti is the lead department on engagement with the WTO. It is currently leading the team to collect information and consider whether Thailand contravened WTO regulations in introducing and maintaining the ban on the exportation of these commodities, and whether SA has grounds to lodge a trade dispute.