import restrictions on apples in june 2005 new zealand explained that it had been actively pursuing access to the australian apple market since 1986. fresh apples were the second most significant horticultural export of new zealand after kiwifruit. australias ban on new zealand apples was based on the perceived risk of fire blight transmission although science had clearly demonstrated that the risk of mature symptomless apples in trade being vectors for the transmission of fire blight was negligible. since 1999 when new zealand made its fourth application for regaining access to the australian apple market the australian authorities had only released two draft risk analyses systematically followed by a round of comments. this undue delay of six years was unacceptable chile the european communities and the united states indicated that they had experienced similar difficulties. the european communities hoped that since australia was reviewing the scientific justification of its 2004 risk assessment in light of the panel findings in the japan-apples case its phytosanitary import policy might improve. the united states recalled that the major plant pest of concern was fire blight. a wto dispute settlement panel had recently found that stringent control requirements were not justified on the basis of the available scientific evidence which clearly demonstrated that mature symptomless apple fruit did not pose a risk of transmitting fire blight. it encouraged australia to expeditiously modify its existing import prohibitions on apples and other fruits due to fire blight concerns. chile requested to be kept informed of any progress on this issue. australia reminded the committee that recent changes to australias biosecurity agency had caused some delays in the time taken to complete a number of risk analyses. australia was committed to deliver a science-based risk assessment for new zealand apples as soon as possible. in february 2006 new zealand informed the committee that since june 2005 australia had issued a new revised draft import risk analysis for new zealand apples. this new revised draft allowed the import of new zealand apples into australia under certain conditions. australia had already proposed a similar conditional access in response to previous requests without justifying the scientific basis of these conditions. australia required not only that orchards be inspected by their own officials and found free of fire blight but also that apples be immersed in chlorine prior to export. these measures were unjustified. australia also prohibited imports of new zealand apples into western australia because of apple scab disease although another outbreak of apple scab had been reported in western australia at the time the revised draft import risk analysis had been released. new zealand considered that australias biosecurity import risk analysis process based on cycles of drafts and consultations resulted in undue delays and constituted a disguised restriction on trade. these undue delays created uncertainty about whether and when the australian government would complete its import risk analysis. the united states recalled that there was an outstanding us request for access to the australian market. given both the strong science and the legal record established by the wto dispute settlement process with regard to the risk of transmitting fire blight via mature symptomless apples australia should remove its unjustified import prohibitions and ensure that its import requirements were based on science and consistent with the sps agreement. the european communities recalled that in june 2005 australia had suspended its import risk assessment for new zealand apples pending a review in the light of the japan-apples case. then a new revised draft had been submitted for consideration leading to more delays. the european communities had similar experiences with australia in trying to get access for chicken meat and pig meat