Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Shrimp turtle case


Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Shrimp turtle case

  1. 1. Shrimp-TurtleA Case For Developing Countries Group 6: Alisha Sukhija Arnab Moitra Kamaldeep Singh Paritosh Saini Sanchit Gupta Sumit Kumar Jain
  2. 2. Agenda • Why Did US Demand TED?(a) • TED – Alternative • Where US flouted rules(b) • Other such cases • Defense by Developing Countries(c) • WTO Rulings & Implications • Conclusion(d)
  3. 3. The Past… 1973 Endangered Species Act is approved Voluntary guidelines are issued for including turtle 1987 exclusionary devices Legislation is negotiated to protect all sea turtles in1989 & 1991 American waters, including Central America and the Caribbean. A full prohibition of all shrimp from any country that 1996 does not have sufficient precautions and regulatory measures
  4. 4. The Problem
  5. 5. Solution to the problem by US TED systems
  6. 6. Setback for developing countries Requirements Expensive and they will have to compromise on the cost / comparative advantage Time difference in implementation (implementation to be done within 4 months) Preferential treatment for some countries (ACP countries the main beneficiary) Apart from TED, the US did not accept alternative methods of ensuring lower mortality for turtles
  7. 7. India Orissa banned Indian Wildlife fishing, createdFive of the The turtle Protection Act sanctuaries,seven species considered an (1972), CMFRI operatedfound in Indian incarnation of Signatory of a hatchery forcoastal waters Lord Vishnu CITES since 1976 sea turtles in Madras
  8. 8. Malaysia (1/2) Laws in place from The use of Active 1932 Sabah and TED alone enforcing of (againstUsed hand Sarawak – could not fishery laws killing ofretrieval Mating and absolutely by the turtles),nets Nesting ensure the Department 1988 areas survival of of Fisheries (Import / turtles Export Prohibition)
  9. 9. Malaysia (2/2)
  10. 10. Pakistan Sindh Wildlife 1950 - the Department Unacceptable Imports and engaged in interference inCulture - sinful Exports protection policies withinto kill sea (Control) Act to Pakistans programs inturtles protect sovereign conjunction endangered jurisdiction with WWF and species IUCN
  11. 11. Thailand Extensive sea Suggested in turtle1947 - the ASEAN restorationFisheries Act 1967 to 1996, no meetings of programs: theprohibiting the observed sea March 1997 to Department ofcatching, turtle killing in draft MOU Fisheries, theharvesting or connection with jointly for the Department ofharming of any shrimping protection and Forestry, andsea turtle conservation of the Royal Thai sea turtles Navy
  12. 12. Not for TED VS TSD larger sea turtles Not a “multilateral Debris environmental damaged standard” TEDsNot the only and Is TED Increasedmost effectivedevice the only transaction costs option?
  13. 13. Ulterior Motives for USOur tropical The Asian Protectionist Adhering toshrimps had countries had the measures – richermuch more comparative saving its lobbyistsdemand than advantage of domestic representingthe temperate providing industry environmentalshrimps in the shrimps at lower and anglingUS market costs than were interests available domestically
  14. 14. Shrimp Turtle WTO Case
  15. 15. Dispute Settlement Process STAGE 1 –Consultations (up to 60 days) STAGE 2 – PanelsPanel Appointment( Up to Final Panel Report to Parties Final Panel Report to WTO(3 45 Days) (6 months) weeks)STAGE 3 – Provision of Appeal -Appellate Body Setup(60 days – 90 days) DSB adopts Appeal Report (30days)
  16. 16. AdvantagesThe system is based on clearly-defined rules, with timetables Adoption not by consensus but adoption by rejection of consensus Panelists chosen in consultation with the countries in disputeAppellate Body Member are individuals unaffiliated to anyGovernment
  17. 17. Case Timeline 4 nations (India, Malaysia, Pakistan & Thailand) jointly haveOct 8th, 1996 consultations with the U.S. Nov 19th, Consultations held without resolution 1996 Jan 9th – India, Malaysia, Pakistan & Thailand request DSB to establish a panel to Feb 25th , look into the US embargo on import of shrimp & shrimp products 1997 April 15th, DSB establishes 3 member panel 1997 April 6th, Panel issues final report and ruling 1998 July 13th, US appeals against the panel’s ruling 1998 Oct 1998 Appellate Body gives its final report
  18. 18. Argument by Plaintiff Nations Ban imposed by Ban imposed byEmbargo of the US was the US was inshrimp and inconsistent with contravention ofshrimp products Art XI of GATT Art XIII.I as thewas against the (Art XI limits the ban restrictedMFN principle of use of import importation ofArt I.I of GATT prohibitions or like products restrictions)
  19. 19. Argument by United StatesUS measures Measures to Complainants US is incomplied protect sea did not compliancewith the turtles - an introduce with therelevant endangered effective “WTOrequirement natural shrimp / turtle Agreement”of Art XX resource policies
  20. 20. Panel Ruling: April 6th, 1998 Ban Imposed by the US inconsistent with GATT Article XIThe import ban applied by the US on the basis of Section 609 of Public Law 101-162 is not consistent with Article XI - Section I of GATT 1994 US could not justify its measure under GATT Art XX (dealing with general exceptions to Art XX) The U.S. measure constituted unjustifiable and arbitrary discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail The Panel made the following RecommendationUnited States bring this measure into conformity with its obligations under the WTO Agreement
  21. 21. Appellate Body recommendation and thereafter… • US and parties to the dispute reached agreement on a 13 month compliance period which ended in December 19991 • The US Department of State guidelines for implementing Section 609 was revised and issued after providing notice and an opportunity for public comment2 • US to provide financial and technical assistance (training in the design, construction, installation and operation of TEDs to any government requesting it)3 • In October 2000, Malaysia requested the re-establishment of the original panel to examine whether the United States had in fact complied with the Appellate Body4 findings • The implementation panel ruled in favor of the United States: •Appellate Body ruling was an obligation to negotiate5 •United States had indeed made serious “good faith” efforts to negotiate
  22. 22. A few disputes at the WTO…US MEXICO CASE – Dolphin Safe Tuna US EC CASE- Meat without hormones Source:
  23. 23. Disputes involving the U.S. Source:
  24. 24. Devil in disguise - Developed Countries “Poor countries hold 40 per cent of the worlds population, but receive only 3 per cent of the worlds income from trade. Rich countries make up 14 per cent of world population and yet get 75 per cent of the income from trade” Rich countries force poorer countries to sell the same products at lower prices than rich countries, by charging exporters many times more import tax simply because they live in a poor country
  25. 25. Few examples of unfair trade practicesDiscrimination in case of Clothing, Indias secondCocoa by US and EU. largest export to the US, The average tax rate onHigher the addition of is taxed by Washington Vietnamese goodsvalue by a poor, higher at 19 %. Imports from entering the US is 8 perthe tariffs imposition countries such as France, cent. For Dutch goods it(Germany, Britain against Japan, and Germany are is just 1%Ivory Coast, Ghana) charged at between 0-1 %
  26. 26. Developing nations in WTO Attractive opportunities due to free trade among nations Growth of industries in developing nations Domestic industry of developed nations faced competitione.g. Multi-Fibre Restrictions in the form of Trade SanctionsArrangement and Anti-dumping investigations(MFA) forinternationaltrade in WTO has been used as a medium to enforceTextiles restrictions on the developing countries
  27. 27. Future of WTO - Challengesbefore developing nationsSubjects and pattern of negotiations have become much morecomplex than in the past The attitude and approach of developed countries appear to have changed in recent years by focusing on immediate gains from current opportunities Developed countries are now more coordinated in their objectives and methods in the WTO and no longer sensitive towards the developing nations in seeking their supportReaching the stage of recommendations and findings in the disputesettlement process has become a very costly and time-intensiveprocedure Source:
  28. 28. The Hitch…Is globalization a debt-trap for Should free trade be restrictedthe developing and poor in the name of environmentalnations? protection and to what extent? GLOBALIZATIONWTO Members unilaterallyadopting their own conditional Why can’t the consumer makemarket access measures - Does the purchasing decisionit not undermine the instead of the governments?multilateral trading system?
  29. 29. Thank You!!!