Page Content
Addressing the Quarantine Risks of Imported Packaging Materials
The Quarantine Review Committee
The AQIS response
Survey findings
High risk countries
Other countries' experience
Outcomes effectiveness
Future directions
AQIS Outcomes is an occasional series of publications that is designed to keep you up to date with AQIS programs.
The AQIS Import Clearance Program is responsible for the screening, surveillance and clearance of cargo and associated packaging from overseas.
Timber and other materials used for packaging around imported goods is often termed dunnage. Timber used as dunnage is usually of very low quality and can constitute a high quarantine risk. However, there are other contaminants that can be associated with cargo, such as soil, insects, seeds, straw or snails.
The quarantine threat
Each year about 2.6 million consignments of air cargo, bulk sea cargo or containerised cargo arrive from overseas. It’s impossible for AQIS to inspect all these consignments, so risk analysis, profiling, certification by overseas authorities or treatment providers are used to manage the risks these consignments pose.
The difficulty of addressing these risks is illustrated by a recent incident in which inspectors found an adult exotic longhorn beetle as well as large numbers of beetle larvae in packaging at a bond store in Sydney.
These potential pests were detected in timber packaging used for airfreight consignments of mobile telephones - goods not normally considered a quarantine risk. Because profiling for this kind of risk is very difficult, increased surveillance and close co-operation with industry are key strategies in managing this issue.
The Quarantine Review Committee
Australian Quarantine – a shared responsibility, the 1996 report of the Australian Quarantine Review Committee, highlighted that AQIS needed to address the risks associated with all types of imported cargo packaging.
The report showed that the risk from this area was significant, and that the resources allocated to the problem were inadequate. The Government agreed to an additional $5.75 million over four years to address the issue of imported packaging materials.
Resources for managing contamination of cargo packaging - previously allocated only on an ad hoc basis - have risen to $1.5 million in 1999-2000.
These costs are recovered from Australia’s import industry, represented by the AQIS-Industry Cargo Consultative Committee (AICCC), which has agreed with and supported arrangements to address quarantine concerns relating to packaging.
The AQIS response
Additional funding has allowed AQIS to increase resources to undertake general monitoring of packaging and dunnage on wharves, in registered premises and airfreight depots.
Given the potential for disruption of industry processes, AQIS consulted with stakeholders (represented by AICCC) to quantify the level of risk associated with packaging.
AQIS identified three major packaging groups requiring assessment:
-
Air cargo packaging
-
Break-bulk shipping cargo, and
-
Less-than-container-load (LCL) packaging.
Surveillance units were established in Cairns, Townsville, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth from November 1997, and inspections of cargo packaging were carried out at major airports, seaports and deconsolidation depots to accurately identify the extent and distribution of the concerns associated with high-risk packaging.
Survey findings
The quarantine contaminants found on packaging throughout the survey included bark (which could harbour timber pests), borers and other insects, seeds, snails and soil.
Air cargo
Over a two-year period almost 78,000 aircargo consignments have been inspected. Detection rates have averaged 1.66 per cent, of which the main contamination was bark (1.53 per cent).
The conclusion drawn from these data was that air cargo packaging was a relatively low risk and will be addressed through general surveillance of aircargo depots.
Break-bulk cargo
Out of 1600 break-bulk consignments surveyed, an average of 11.5 per cent of cargo — not packaging — was contimated by soil (5%), bark (4.9%) and seeds (0.5%). These levels of contamination are of concern, but break-bulk cargo is concentrated in a small number of cargo packaging points and is adequately controlled by general wharf surveillance.
LCL packaging
LCL containers comprise more than one consignment, often from different sources — making the packaging used in LCL containers the most difficult to control.
Over the two-year survey period 77,000 LCL consignments were inspected, with a detection rate of 5.86 per cent (more than 4500 consignments). Bark was the major contaminant (5.3%), and wood-boring insects were found in 0.3% of consignments. About 50 per cent of insects associated with wooden packaging and dunnage were exotic or possibly exotic.
High risk countries
Asia - particularly Southeast Asia - was identified as the greatest packaging-related source of risk from contamination and exotic incursion (apart from soils and other insects). Figure 1 compares Asia with the rest of the world.
Other countries’ experience
Countries such as the United States, Canada and New Zealand have similar concerns regarding the pest and disease risk of imported packaging materials.
A recent incursion of Asian longhorn beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis) in the USA was attributed to imported packaging from China, and eradication has so far cost more than $A14 million.
Canada’s Food Inspection Agency conducted a survey of wooden packaging in 1997 that found many insects of quarantine significance, especially for Canada’s vital forest industries.
New Zealand surveyed 2547 LCL containers in 1992 and found damage in 4.1%, bark in 3.7%, insects in 2.7% and fungi in 0.7%. Goods from Asia and Europe were more often infested than from other countries.
Offshore treatments such as fumigation to address the risk posed by imported wooden packing materials will depend largely on:
-
quality of the overseas treatment, and
-
the ability of the importing country’s plant protection authority to endorse treatments and to carry out physical verification inspections of imported material.
Many overseas treatments are found to be inadequate when cargo arrives in Australia.
Outcomes effectiveness
In Figure 2, the trend of the detection rate shows a decrease in the percentage detection from June 1998 to December 1999. A number of factors may be affecting this downward trend, but industry awareness and compliance are major contributing factors.
Future directions
AQIS has discussed these findings with the import industry through the AICCC.
It is difficult to apply one overall solution to the issue of imported packaging: a combination of measures has been considered, and will be progressively implemented.
These measures will involve a commitment by AQIS and industry to enhance co-regulation initiatives and to improve information provided to exporters, governments and overseas suppliers.
The surveillance by AQIS staff of cargo packaging will continue.
AQIS will be implementing co-regulation arrangements with import brokers and cargo facilities to more effectively target risk consignments. These arrangements will be introduced in the second half of 2000.
AQIS will also increase the monitoring of cargo from countries with a record of ineffective treatments of packaging, and will contact treatment providers and certifying authorities to improve their compliance with Australia’s requirements.
The quarantine risk posed by timber packaging is a global concern. Any longer term solution will involve regional or international action on wooden packaging and treatment. Options such as a total ban on timber packaging may need to be considered.
AQIS will also be pursuing the development of and acceptance of international standards for (non-infestable) packaging with concerned countries such as Canada, New Zealand and the United States.