Shrimp turtle case

=Shrimp and turtle case=

In 1994, the WTO intervened to address member concerns regarding the import of shrimp and its impact on turtles. This became known as the Shrimp and Turtle. The environmental group from Oakland, California, Earthjustice sued the Environmental Protection Agency for a lack of oversight among US shrimp fishers and international fishermen. Sea turtles, endangered species on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) were caught as by-catch by shrimp. The US Environmental Protection Agency sought to protect endangered species. In 1989, Congress amended the Endangered Species Act and the US, at first, tried to place an embargo or tariff on the imported shrimp from countries that do not use the TED (Turtle Excluder Device) technology introduced by the National Marine Fisheries Services. Presently, the NMFS requires US shrimp fishermen to use the technology while fishing for shrimp.

The new technology allowed the capture and harvest of shrimp without ensnaring sea turtles in the indiscriminatory bottom-trawling process. The patented trap door was very effective and the US fishermen quickly adopted the technology; however, implementation and adoption of the shrimp turtle trap door was limited at best among international countries to comply. One of the hurdles in adopting the shrimp/turtle trap door was the prohibitive cost of the modified nets. The TEDS were estimated $20-$35.

Because the fishermen from overseas, some of them earning a yearly income equivalent to the trap door,Fact|date=November 2007 could not afford the trap door, the farmers/fishermen refused to acknowledge the US's demands and later, their respective countries, Malaysia, India, and Pakistan jointly filed suit with the WTO. Many environmental groups within Western Countries, in an effort to protect five species of sea turtle: the Hawksbill Riley Turtle and the Green turtle, motivated the EPA and US government to subsidize the TED. Initially, the WTO ruled against the United States. According to the WTO, the United States could not discriminate between each country and evoke tariffs when certain countries do not have environmental protection policies in place. The US later amended the EPA. Unsatisfied, Malaysia continued to assert the United States banned the import of shrimp. After further review, a WTO compliance panel ruled in favor of the US in 2001. They stated the US was justified under GATT.

Dolphin Tuna case

Similar to the Dolphin Tuna Case in the 1970s. Companies such as Sunkist and Del Monte Fresh modified ocean floor trawlings 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 trawlings. Tuna sold to the US markets had to be labeled "Dolphin Safe".

Unlike the ruling, the United States lost the Shrimp and Turtle Case.

After Earthjustice successfully sued the EPA, the US required that all shrimp fishermen, including those from India and Guam adopt the technology.

Bibliography

(Available Online; http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/edis08_e.htm)

(Available Online: http://www.earthisland.org/dolphinSafeTuna/consumer/)

(Available Online: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5575102-description.html)