The Shrimp Turtle CaseDeveloping Nations Perspective

Submitted to:- Dr. R. Roy Chowdhury

Group 6 :- Ambuj Singh (10PGDM066) Gaurav Gupta(10PGDM76) M.Srinivasan(10PGDM086)

Raka De(10PGDM097) Subhojoy Chanda(10PGDM108)

Vineet Saxena(10PGDM118)

Chronology

• 1991 and 1993 Guidelines violated Section 609

• 1996 Guidelines: Extended the scope of Section 609

• India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand took this matter to dispute settlement at the WTO.

Introduction

• The sudden move of U.S shrimp import restrictions, hurt the developing nations

• Four months to adopt the new technology standards.

• Process versus product issue.

Trade of Shrimps Imports

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

200019

88

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

1000

MT

USA Japan Spain Denmark

France UK Others

Trade of Shrimps – Exports

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

1000

MT

Others

Indonesia

Viet Nam

Denmark

India

China

Thailand

Eco-imperialism

• Industrialized countries : international species conservation

• Developing countries: Development• Should the U.S be allowed to impose its

environmental standards on other countries?• Don’t such policies put an unfair burden on

developing countries?

Non-Tariff Barriers

• WTO disallowed discrimination among member country products.

• Unilateral regulation as a condition of entry(non-tariff barrier).

• “Judicial activism” undermines the ability of developing countries to participate in international policy formation.

India

• 5 of 7 species• CITES, the Indian Wildlife Protection Act of

1972• Worship• The Orissa Marine Fishing Regulation Act,

1982 • TSD

India

• Reluctance towards TEDs– 30 per cent of catch is lost– Increased fuel cost– Royalty

• Non-exclusionary approach– Seasonal ban– Area closure

Pakistan

• Culture-sin to kill turtles• 1950 Legislation-Imports and Exports (Control)

Act – Illegal to export protected species

• 1979-Pakistan's Sindh Wildlife Dept– Training programmes– Enclosure on beaches

• TEDs not the only way

Thailand

• 1947 Fisheries Act of Thailand • Wild Animals Conservation and Protection Act

1992• Drawing trawls-prohibited• Seasonal Ban

Malaysia• 4 species of sea turtle found

• Turtle conservation measures started as early as 1927

• Fishery Act, 1985

• Other legislations: The Turtle Trust Ordinance (1957), the Turtle Rules (1962), the Wildlife Protection Ordinance(1958)

Malaysia

• Legislation for 13 individual states

• Established Turtle Sanctuaries

• Shrimping operations far from turtle nesting and breeding areas (Sabah & Sarwak)

• First raised the issue ‘unjustifiable discrimination’

Southern Environmentalist’s View

• Justified objectives : Wrong approach

• Extend ban to those shrimps that are produced in environmentally damaging aquaculture farms.

Annual World Shrimp Production, 1980-2005

The U.S, before imposing the ban had not raised the issue in the CITES conferences.

It had not signed the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species.

It had not signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity.

US is the world’s biggest polluter and destructor of environment.

U.S Inaction

Threats Aside From Trawlers

• Oil Spills & Pollution– 20% of the hatchlings studied had ingested tar near Florida’s mid-

Atlantic Coast (2002)– 26 spills – Gulf of Mexico, 9 spills – Florida’s Atlantic coast (1992-

2001)– Loggerheads again vulnerable– Other forms of pollution: Marine Debris (Plastic), Rubbish on

beaches, abandoned fishing gear– US remains highest marine polluter (2,742,993 kilograms per day of

organic pollutants)• Land Development

– 20% of historic nests lost entirely– 50% of remaining nests – extremely low populations

Major points of Discontentment

• They are predominantly developing countries • The TED’s were very expensive , cost around

20-30 USD.• These countries were given only 4 months to

adapt.• TED’s : not the only way• Insistence on US certification, without any aid

Actual Reasons

• Majority of Caribbean trawlers were owned by US firms.

• Tropical shrimps (a new product) were capturing market share from Temperate shrimps.

THAILAND “DUMPING” AIRBUS

• Export markets -North America, the EU and Japan

• Switch airliner purchases from Airbus to Boeing.

World Shrimp Production

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

1000

MT

Others

Canada

Mexico

Viet Nam

India

Indonesia

Thailand

China

• 2.4 million MT in 1987 to 6.6 million MT in 2006.

• China is the main shrimp producing country with 2.7 million MT

• Other major shrimp producing countries - Indonesia, India and Thailand

Why CHINA is not banned?

• U.S -> china uses “aquaculture approach” which harms the turtle least.

• China have been using antibiotics on their shrimp but till date only one shipment of Chinese shrimp has been stopped.

• Major export is White shrimps.

Ruling & Subsequent Events• The import ban on shrimps applied by the US

on the basis of Section 609 was not consistent with Article XI:1 of GATT 1994, and can’t be justified under Article XX of GATT 1994.

• On 6 November 1998, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) acknowledged US efforts to preserve the sea turtles but requested it to bring its measures consistent with the Articles of GATT.

• On 21 January 1999, the US and the other parties to the dispute agreed to a 13-month reasonable period of time to comply with the recommendations of the DSB.

Recent Developments

• Thai shrimp companies were accused of using child and forced labor in their production sector.

• Thailand remains the top supplier of shrimp to the US market, with 73,367 tones or 31% of total imported volumes, followed by Indonesia, Ecuador, México, Vietnam and China

• In 2005, the US imposed duties that can be more than 100 per cent on shrimp imports.(Brazil, China, India, Thailand and Vietnam).

• US International Trade Commission (USITC) to consider impact of rollback on local industry.

Jagdish Bhagwati’s View

• Jurists were reflecting the political pressures of the rich-country environmental NGOs, increasing the dissatisfaction of developing nations , further widening the North-South divide.

Conclusion• It was basically a Trade war fought under the

environment versus free trade banner.

• Developing nations wanted environment protection, multilateral dialogue on environment in WTO

• Game of bargaining power

• Trade-offs and protectionism.

Conclusion(Contd..)

• The North-South divide is widening since Seattle Rounds.

• No agreement on environmental issues, WTO losing relevance.

Thank You