United States of America: Adoption of a ban against imports of Mexican shrimp.
Description
On April 20, 2010, the ban adopted by the United States against imports of Mexican wild-harvested shrimp entered into force.
United States Public Law (P.L.) 101-162, Section 609, prohibits the importation of shrimp harvested with commercial fishing technology that may adversely affect sea turtles.
The import ban does not apply to nations that have adopted sea turtle protection programs comparable to that of the U.S. —i.e. require and enforce the use of turtle excluder devices (TEDs), or to fishing nations where incidental capture of sea turtles do not occur —. The U.S. Department of State (DOS) is the implementing agency of this law.
Thus, nations that seek to import shrimp into the U.S. must be certified to meet the requirements of P.L. 101-162 on an annual basis.
The DOS withdraw Mexico’s certification last March, after the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service determined that Mexican turtle excluder devices no longer meet U.S. standards.
The U.S. ban will only apply to shrimp wild-harvested in open oceans, which account for only about 20% of Mexico's annual shrimp production and will remain in force until U.S. authorities have determined the situation has been addressed.
Mexican farmed shrimp and the one caught in shallow coastal waters may continue to be exported to the U.S.
In accordance with officials of Mexico's National Fisheries Council, authorities of both countries are working to remedy the situation as soon as possible, so that shrimp fleets could be recertified following new inspections in August and September of this year.
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
| Question | Result |
|---|---|
| Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations? | |
| Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered? | |
| Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government? | |
| Was such evidence identified? | |
| Is such evidence publicly available? | |
| Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives? | |
| Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken? | |
| Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory? | |
| Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation? |
Date Discovered: 20/04/2010
Implemented: Yes
Date of inception: 20 Apr 2010
GTA Evaluation: Red
Source:
Government Response:
- 393 reads
