June, 2001 - WTO dispute settlement panel ruled that the U.S. government has effectively implemented the October 1998 decision of the WTO Appellate Body in the "shrimp and sea turtle" dispute. The panel reaffirmed that countries may take strong, trade-based measures to protect internationally recognized endangered species such as sea turtles while international agreements are being negotiated. Some aspects of the decision could have troubling future implications, however, by limiting the ability of countries to take such actions in the absence of international agreements.
December, 2000 -NWF filed a precedent-setting amicus brief on behalf of environmental groups in Chile, India, Kenya and the United States defending U.S. sea turtle protection laws at the World Trade Organization (WTO). The brief supports international sea turtle protection efforts and U.S. laws restricting the import of shrimp harvested in a manner that is harmful to endangered sea turtles. These U.S. laws have been challenged by shrimp exporting countries as an unfair barrier to free trade.
NWF argued that the U.S. law, as implemented, appropriately balanced several different objectives, all of which are consistent with WTO rules, namely: encouraging a negotiated agreement as the most satisfactory solution of this dispute, while at the same time, preventing irreparable environmental harm while the negotiations take their course. While the WTO is a closed-door organization that normally does not accept amicus briefs by non-governmental organizations, NWF submitted the brief with the goal of opening up the WTO to critical public input and furthering global awareness and action to protect sea turtles worldwide.
June, 2001 -WTO dispute settlement panel ruled that the U.S. government has effectively implemented the October 1998 decision of the WTO Appellate Body in the "shrimp and sea turtle" dispute. The panel reaffirmed that countries may take strong, trade-based measures to protect internationally recognized endangered species such as sea turtles while international agreements are being negotiated. Some aspects of the decision could have troubling future implications, however, by limiting the ability of countries to take such actions in the absence of international agreements. December, 2000 -NWF filed a precedent-setting amicus brief on behalf of environmental groups in Chile, India, Kenya and the United States defending U.S. sea turtle protection laws at the World Trade Organization (WTO). The brief supports international sea turtle protection efforts and U.S. laws restricting the import of shrimp harvested in a manner that is harmful to endangered sea turtles. These U.S. laws have been challenged by shrimp exporting countries as an unfair barrier to free trade. NWF argued that the U.S. law, as implemented, appropriately balanced several different objectives, all of which are consistent with WTO rules, namely: encouraging a negotiated agreement as the most satisfactory solution of this dispute, while at the same time, preventing irreparable environmental harm while the negotiations take their course. While the WTO is a closed-door organization that normally does not accept amicus briefs by non-governmental organizations, NWF submitted the brief with the goal of opening up the WTO to critical public input and furthering global awareness and action to protect sea turtles worldwide. October, 2000 -Malaysia formally challenged the steps the United States government had taken to comply with the October 1998 WTO Appellate Body ruling in the "shrimp and sea turtle dispute." Joined by other shrimp-exporting countries, Malaysia argued that U.S. sea turtle protection laws restricting shrimp imports are a violation of international trade rules under the WTO and must be altered. Malaysia contended that the United States must drop the shrimp import restrictions to comply with the Appellate Body ruling.
September, 2000 -The United States Senate formally ratified the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles. This precedent-setting agreement requires, among other things, that all signatory nations mandate the use of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in domestic shrimp trawling operations to protect endangered sea turtles. NWF has supported the development of the Inter-American Convention and similar agreements as a cooperative means of providing strong environmental protection and reducing trade-related tensions between nations.
July, 2000 -Countries in the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asian region concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia. In the MOU, countries of the region acknowledge the pervasive and varied threats to sea turtle survival, including fishing-related threats and direct harvesting, and commit to working together to protect, conserve and restore the severely depleted sea turtle populations of the region. Many of the countries involved in the WTO "shrimp and sea turtle" dispute, including Malaysia and the United States, were also involved in the negotiation of the sea turtle protection MOU. Negotiations on the agreement and its conservation and management plan are on-going, but, at this time, the MOU does not mandate the use of TEDs.
December, 1999 -The United States had until December, 1999 to bring implementation of US. sea turtle protection laws into compliance with international trade rules, following the October 1998 Appellate Body decision in the "shrimp and sea turtle" dispute. While many of the steps the U.S. government took to implement the WTO Appellate Body decision will benefit sea turtles, for example, by increasing U.S. support for the negotiation and implementation of international sea turtle protection agreements, one step could have serious, negative, long-term implications for imperiled sea turtle populations.
The U.S. government changed the regulations implementing the U.S. "shrimp and sea turtle law" to allow individual shipments of shrimp to be certified on a shipment-by- shipment basis. Previously, countries wishing to export their shrimp to the United States were required to adopt national sea turtle conservation policies. But now, only those individual shrimpers exporting their shrimp to the United States are required to use TEDs. This policy leaves more turtles exposed to the serious risk of drowning in nets not equipped with TEDs.
January, 1999 -The United States government agreed to abide by the decision of the WTO Appellate Body and took steps to implement the decision, including by: increasing efforts to negotiate a sea turtle protection agreement in the region and by according shrimp exporting countries more procedural fairness and due process in the shrimp import certification process.
October, 1998 -The World Trade Organization Appellate Body ruled that the implementation of U.S. Public Law 101-162, Section 609 (restricting the import of shrimp from countries which do not adopt policies protecting sea turtles from trawling- related threats), constituted arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination on international trade. As a result of the Appellate Body decision, the U.S. government was required to change implementation of the law, but was not required to change the law itself.
In a significant improvement over the highly-damaging WTO Panel ruling, the WTO Appellate Body formally recognized that countries can take strong measures, including trade-related measures, to protect international endangered species such as sea turtles. The U.S. was required to change its implementation of the turtle protection law or face trade sanctions from the countries that brought the dispute to the WTO.
April, 1998 -A World Trade Organization dispute settlement panel -after meeting and deliberating in secret -ruled that a U.S. law protecting sea turtles from death in shrimp nets violated international trade rules as outlined in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The law required countries wishing to export shrimp to the United States to adopt national policies protecting sea turtles from death in trawl nets, including through the use of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs). The U.S. government appealed the highly damaging decision.
February, 1997 -The governments of India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand requested that the World Trade Organization establish a dispute settlement panel to determine whether the U.S. law protecting sea turtles from death in shrimp trawl nets violated international trade agreements.
May, 1996 -U.S. trade restrictions on shrimp imports were extended to over 70 countries around the world, affecting over $1 billion in shrimp exports to the United States and potentially saving over 100,000 sea turtles each year.
December, 1995 -A U.S. Court of International Trade judge affirmed that the United States "must prohibit not later than May 1, 1996 the importation of shrimp or products from shrimp wherever harvested in the wild with commercial fishing technology which may adversely affect those species of sea turtles, the conservation of which is the subject of regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Commerce on June 29, 1987" (Earth Island v. Christopher). This decision meant that all countries wishing to export their shrimp to the United States would be subject to U.S. shrimp import requirements designed to protect sea turtles.
May, 1991 -The United States government began certifying countries In the Western Hemisphere as having national sea turtle protection programs comparable to the United States program. Countries protecting sea turtles from death in shrimp trawls were then allowed to export shrimp to the United States .Many U.S. environmental groups, however, were worried that the State Department was attempting to restrict the geographic scope of the law in order to avoid affecting the international shrimp trade. A group of environmental organizations sued the government to have the law applied on a world-wide basis.
1989 -Sea turtles are highly migratory species and research showed that protecting sea turtles from shrimp trawling in U.S. waters alone would not be enough to conserve the species. To ensure that U.S. shrimp consumption would not further threaten sea turtle survival in other parts of the world, Congress passed a complementary law to the Endangered Species Act, U.S. Public Law 101-162, Section 609. The law implemented restrictions on shrimp imports into the United States, stating that "all nations exporting shrimp to this country must be certified by the U.S. government for protecting sea turtles from incidental death in shrimp trawl nets. Certification requires levels of protection be comparable to those in the United States. Shrimp harvested using TEDs, manually hauled nets, or aquaculture qualifies for certification. Shrimp from states not complying is subject to embargo" (Public Law 101-162). Countries which trawl in areas where sea turtles are not present are automatically qualified for certification, but certification for other countries primarily depends on the implementation of a TEDs program. Initially, the State Department applied Section 609 only to countries where U.S. sea turtles migrated, in the Western' Hemisphere.
19705 and 19805 -Extenslve researcn by the U.S. National Academy ot ~ciences and scientists worldwide showed that shrimp trawling was a leading cause of sea turtle deaths around the world, and a primary factor in propelling sea turtles toward extinction. In response to the dramatic decline of sea turtle species in U.S. waters, the National Marine Fisheries Service developed Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs), small grids placed in shrimp trawl nets which guide sea turtles and other large marine species out of the net through a trap-door. When used effectively, TEDs can reduce sea turtle mortality caused by shrimp trawling by up to 97%. The U.S. began requirinfJ the use ofTEDs on all domestic shrimp trawlers in the late 1980's.