WTO case: dispute between US and Developing countries on shrimp import ban imposed by US.

1. The Shrimp Turtle CaseDeveloping Nations PerspectiveSubmitted 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)

2. 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.

4. 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.

5. Trade of Shrimps Imports

6. Trade of Shrimps – Exports

7. 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?

8. 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.

9. India 5 of 7 species CITES, the Indian Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 Worship The Orissa Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1982 TSD

10. India Reluctance towards TEDs 30 per cent of catch is lost Increased fuel cost Royalty Non-exclusionary approach Seasonal ban Area closure

11. 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

12. Thailand 1947 Fisheries Act of Thailand Wild Animals Conservation and Protection Act 1992 Drawing trawls-prohibited Seasonal Ban

13. Malaysia 4 species of sea turtle found Turtle conservation measures started as early as 1927 Fishery Act, 1985 Other legislations: The Turtle TrustOrdinance (1957), the Turtle Rules (1962), the Wildlife Protection Ordinance(1958)

14. 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’

15. Southern Environmentalist’s View Justified objectives : Wrong approach Extend ban to those shrimps that are produced in environmentally damaging aquaculture farms.

16. Annual World Shrimp Production, 1980-2005

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

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

20. US is the world’s biggest polluter and destructor of environment.U.S Inaction

21. 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

22. 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

23. Actual Reasons Majority of Caribbean trawlers were owned by US firms. Tropical shrimps (a new product) were capturing market share from Temperate shrimps.

24. THAILAND “DUMPING” AIRBUS Export markets -North America, the EU and Japan Switch airliner purchases from Airbus to Boeing.

26. China is the main shrimp producing country with 2.7 million MT

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. Conclusion(Contd..) The North-South divide is widening since Seattle Rounds. No agreement on environmental issues, WTO losing relevance.

35. Thank You