Chilean avocado producers expressed their discontent after Santiago's Court of Appeals rejected the appeal against the SAG's ruling, which authorized the entry of avocados from Peru.
Gonzalo Bulnes, chairman of Chile's Hass Avocado Committee, spoke about this resolution and the steps to follow.
This week the Fifth Chamber of the Santiago Court of Appeals rejected the appeal for protection, filed by indigenous communities and associations, against the decision of the Agriculture and Livestock Service (SAG), which authorized the entry into the country of Hass avocados from Peru. The Court ruled that the authorization given by the SAG wasn’t an arbitrary or unlawful act of authority.
It should be noted that the indigenous communities are seeking to stop the spreading of the PSTVd virus while Chilean avocado producers are demanding that the Peruvian fruit be supplied from certified orchards free of the Sunblotch virus.
Regarding this, the ruling states that "the SAG has taken measures that, in their opinion, are necessary to prevent the entry of pests or diseases that endanger the country; measures which, in any case, have not been contested by way of this action, as this appeal only contested those phytosanitary measures on fruit flies that were adopted via Resolution No. 8.186-2013."
Thus, according to the Court of Appeals, the SAG "acted according to the law and authorized the entry of Hass avocado from Peru based on a Risk report. Hence, as it wasn't an arbitrary or illegal act, they have not broken any alleged constitutional guarantees," so the writ of protection must also be rejected.
Following this, Bulnes expressed his dissatisfaction, ensuring that the resolution did not take into consideration several key factors related to the entry of Peruvian avocado to Chile.
"They say we have been importing avocado since 2006 and that nothing has happened, but they don't take into account the volume being imported nor where the avocado entered the country, which is critical because if most of the avocado (more than 60-70%) is coming from the north, (Arica, Iquique, Antofagasta), then, because there is a desert in between, we have no reason to be concerned that it will cause any damage. However, if it comes in bulk from the central area, where the avocado plantations are, then there is a risk," he said.
"Of course we will appeal, there is a 10 day period for us to do so. We are convinced that we will reverse this in the Supreme Court because the argument that the Court of Appeals has very little weight. I hope the Supreme Court reverses this decision," he said.
Bulnes said that they already knew they would have to go to the Supreme Court to resolve the matter and that he expected they would take into consideration the documents showing the risk involved in the entry of Peruvian avocado to Chile.
"We expected this would be taken to the Supreme Court by whomever didn't obtain a favourable ruling in the Court of Appeals. It was obvious. We knew that," he said.
"The Court of Appeals did not go into the merits of the situation and didn't attend the unanimous reports of Chilean universities that have studied the issue and the unanimous report of prestigious foreign technicians who have reported on the matter. They took the easy road, saying that the Peruvian avocado had been entering the country during some time without analysing where it had entered, and in what quantities. Ultimately, as producers, we see that this was a very light resolution," he said.
Source: Fresh Fruit Portal