Fisheries Administration and Lagislation

Unit 10 - International law of the sea

10.6. Shrimp-turtle case-WTO
Endangered species act-ban on import of Indian shrimp
Seven species of sea turtles have to date been identified. They are distributed around the world in subtropical and tropical areas. They spend their lives at sea, where they migrate between their foraging and nesting grounds. Sea turtles have been adversely affected by human activity, either directly (their meat, shells and eggs have been exploited), or indirectly (incidental capture in fisheries, destruction of their habitats, pollution of the oceans). In early 1997, India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand brought a joint complaint against a ban imposed by the US on the importation of certain shrimp and shrimp products. The protection of sea turtles was at the heart of the ban.

The US Endangered Species Act of 1973 listed as endangered or threatened the five species of sea turtles that occur in US waters, and prohibited their “take” within the US, in its territorial sea and the high seas. (“Take” means harassment, hunting, capture, killing or attempting to do any of these.) Under the act, the US required that US shrimp trawlers use “turtle excluder devices” (TEDs) in their nets when fishing in areas where there is a significant likelihood of encountering sea turtles. Section 609 of US Public Law 101–102, enacted in 1989, dealt with imports. It said, among other things, that shrimp harvested with technology that may adversely affect certain sea turtles may not be imported into the US — unless the harvesting nation was certified to have a regulatory programme and an incidental take-rate comparable to that of the US, or that the particular fishing environment of the harvesting nation did not pose a threat to sea turtles.

In practice, countries that had any of the five species of sea turtles within their jurisdiction, and harvested shrimp with mechanical means, had to impose on their fishermen requirements comparable to those borne by US shrimpers if they wanted to be certified to export shrimp products to the US. Essentially this meant the use of TEDs at all time. Many have missed the importance of the Appellate Body’s ruling on this case. In its report, the Appellate Body made clear that under WTO rules, countries have the right to take trade action to protect the environment (in particular, human, animal or plant life and health) and endangered species and exhaustible resources). The WTO does not have to “allow” them this right.
It also said measures to protect sea turtles would be legitimate under GATT Article 20 (i.e. XX) which deals with various exceptions to the WTO’s trade rules, provided certain criteria such as non-discrimination were met. The US lost the case, not because it sought to protect the environment but because it discriminated between WTO members. It provided countries in the western hemisphere-mainly in the Caribbean- technical and financial assistance and longer transition periods for their fishermen to start using turtle-excluder devices. It did not give the same advantages, however, to the four Asian countries (India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand) that filed the complaint with the WTO. The ruling also said WTO panels may accept “amicus briefs” (friends of the court submissions) from NGO’s or other interested parties.

Similar to the Shrimp and Turtle Case was Dolphin Tuna Case in the 1970s. Companies such as Sunkist and Del Monte Fresh modified ocean floor trawling for wild-caught tuna as dolphins and their pods were depleted through unsustainable fishing practices. The US and the public later required the ban of tuna caught by ocean floor trawling. Tuna sold to the US markets had to be labeled "Dolphin Safe".