Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:01:03.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A WTO Safe Harbour for the Dolphins: The Second Compliance Proceedings in the US–Tuna II (Mexico) case

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2020

Elisa Baroncini  and
Claire Brunel
Elisa Baroncini*
Affiliation:
Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna, Italy
Claire Brunel*
Affiliation:
American University, USA
*
*Email: [email protected]
**Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Subsequent to the 2016 modifications concerning the strengthening of the administrative requirements on dolphin-safety outside the ETP fishery zone, the second WTO compliance proceedings have finally found the US Dolphin-Safe labelling scheme compatible with the multilateral trade system. We provide an overview of the long-running US–Mexico dispute and assess the final findings of the WTO adjudicators attempting to determine the effects of the multilateral litigation on the involved non-trade values and the real winners of the case. We find an improvement in dolphin protection, though more could be achieved through a qualification of the US measure under the principle of sustainable development also contemplated in the Preamble of the WTO Agreement, as well as an enhancement on consumer information, since declaration of dolphin-safety may now be better monitored and enforced through the new discipline for non-Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean tuna products. However, we also observe that with no change to the appearance of the label or an informational campaign, the improved credibility of the label may hardly be passed-through to the average consumer. Furthermore, despite an increase in the stringency of the regulation for their competitors, Mexican producers do not gain greater access to the US and instead have been diversifying towards other markets. We then highlight that the Appellate Body missed an opportunity to reinforce the transparency of the system by supporting the first-ever decision to grant partially open panel meetings.

Keywords

TBT AgreementLabelling SchemesConsumer InformationAnimal WelfareSustainable DevelopmentArticle XX, lett. g) of the GATT 1994Transparency
Type
Research Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 196 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Coglianese, C and Sapir, A (2017) Risk ad Regulatory Calibration: WTO Compliance Review of the US Dolphin-Safe Tuna Labeling Regime. World Trade Review 16(2), 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, CR (2011) Processes and Production Methods (PPMs) in WTO Law – Interfacing Trade and Social Goals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowley, MA and Howse, R (2014) Tuna–Dolphin II: A Legal and Economic Analysis of the Appellate Body Report. World Trade Review 13(2), 321–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ITC (2003) World Markets for Organic Fruit and Vegetables: Opportunities for Developing Countries in the Production and Export of Organic Horticultural Products, www.intracen.org/mds/sectors/organic/.Google Scholar
Johnston, R, Roheim, C, and Donath, H (2001) Measuring Consumer Preferences in Ecolabeled Seafood: An International Comparison. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26(1), 20–39 .Google Scholar
Lam, VWY, Sumaila, UR, Dyck, A, Pauly, D, and Watson, R (2011) Construction and First Applications of a Global Cost Database. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68(9).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marceau, G (2018) Do PPM Concerns Have A Future?. Prévost, D, Alexovicova, I, Hillebrand Pohl, J (eds.), Restoring Trust in Trade – Liber Amicorum in Honour of Peter Van den Bossche, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 175–198.Google Scholar
Marette, S, Messean, A, and Millet, G (2012) Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Eco-Friendly Apples under Different Labels: Evidences from a Lab Experiment. Food Policy 37(2),151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mavroidis, PC (2019) Last Mile for Tuna (to a Safe Harbour): What is the TBT Agreement All About? European Journal of International Law 30(1), 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, L, Lacroix, A, and Ruffineux, B (2019) Environmental Labeling and Consumption Changes: A Food Choice Experiment. Environmental and Resource Economics 73, 871–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onyango BM, HallmanWK, and Bellows, AC (2007) Purchasing Organic Food in US Food Systems: A Study of Attitudes and Practice. British Food Journal 109(5), 399–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poseidon (2016) Estimates of Global Sale Values from Tuna Fisheries – Phase 2 report. February. 1059 REG/R-02/E.Google Scholar
Stempel, J (2019) US Consumers Sue Bumble Bee, Chicken of the Sea, StarKist over ‘Dolphin-Safe’ Tuna Claims, Reuters, 14 May 2019.Google Scholar
Teisl, MF, Roe, B, and Hicks, RL (2002) Can Eco-Labels Tune a Market? Evidence from Dolphin-Safe Labelling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43, 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udomkit, N and Winnett, A (2002) Fair Trade in Organic Rice: A Thai Case Study. Small Enterprise Development.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNEP (2005) The Trade and Environmental Effects of Ecolabels: Assessment and Response.Google Scholar
USDA (2001) Dolphin-Safe Tuna Labelling. Economics of Food Labelling, Agriculture Economic Report No. AER793.Google Scholar
USITC (1990) Tuna: Competitive Conditions Affecting the US and European Tuna Industries in Domestic and Foreign Markets. United States International Trade Commission Report No. 332-291.Google Scholar
USITC (1992) Tuna: Current Issues Affecting the US Industry. Report to the Committee on Finance, United States Senate, on Investigation No. 332-313 under Section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as Amended.Google Scholar
USITC (2007) The Economic Effects of Significant US Import Restraints. USITC Investigation No. 332-325, Fifth Update, Publication 3906.Google Scholar
Van den Bossche, P and Zdouc, W (2017) The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wier, M and Calverley, C (2002) Market Potential for Organic Foods in Europe. British Food Journal 104(1), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar