Dolphin-Safe Tuna Labeling Dispute - Case Study Example

?Question Is the denial of market access an appropriate tool to enforce a country’s environmental standards? Answer: The researcher de s that adenial of market access, such as the imposition of embargos, cannot be considered as appropriate tool to enforce a country’s environmental standards. According to the case study, In February 1991, the United States imposed trade embargos on fishing import from Mexico fishermen using purse seine method in the ETP region. From a data centric view point, several million of dolphins died in tuna nets in ETP region before the embargo being imposed. It is evident from the report of McGowan (2004) that putting denial of market access for Mexico is unjustified due to the fact that other countries like fishing agencies of Costa Rica and Ecuador and even USA are also purse seine method to catch tuna; therefore only increasing world demand as the United States was not integrating with a particular market. Figure 1 illustrates the negative impacts to supply and demand that the imposition of an embargo imposes. Figure 1 Imposing embargo not only created trade barriers for Mexico but also caused a loss of millions of dollars for the countries involved in the dispute. It is evident from the argument of McGowan (2004) that fishermen of Mexico use purse seine methods due to non availability of alternatives; alternatives which ultimately could have saved the life of dolphins. Within such a context, a consideration of the research work of Porter (2006) reveals the fact that USA should provide knowledge and resource support to Mexico fishermen in order to encourage the use of alternate fishing methods; instead of purse seine nets. Porter (2006) found that using purse seine nets can cause serious damage to aquatic eco-system and might even increase death threats for dolphins. However, fishermen in Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) still using purse seine nets which are posing death threat for dolphins. Another point is concentric upon the fact that there is that there is no evidences available which shows denial of market access can discourage fishermen from using a particular approach to harvesting their products. In such context, taking help of the research work of Porter (2006), it can be said denial of market access can only increase trade barriers but cannot increase country’s environmental standards in sustainable manner. Question 2: Did the U.S. denial of market access ultimately work? Answer: The U.S. imposed a denial of market access for tuna imports from countries like Mexico, Costa Rica and Ecuador which were known to use purse seine nets. Recently, the USA and Mexico have both appealed to World Trade Organization (WTO) regarding favoritism in tuna exportation (United States Trade Representative, 2012). Mexico subsequently challenged the U.S. denial by stating that fishermen of the USA are also using purse seine nets to catch tuna. In 1992, after the meeting between USA representatives of countries whose market access was denied by U.S, Dolphin safety panels were installed in most of the nets. As could easily have been predicted, the United States denial of market access had both positive and negative impacts. Firstly, it allowed the partner nations to lose a great deal of business revenue and merely shifted the supply and demand curve for tuna throughout the regional and global markets. Secondly, it can be stated to have had a positive impact due to the fact that the United States and partner nations realized that this trade dispute was having negative impacts upon their own respective economies; thereby encouraging them to address the issue and seek to improve tuna fishing technology to better safeguard the plight of the dolphins. Due to such measures, dolphin mortality rate was decreased significantly between1986 to 1998. Figure 2: Decrease in Total Dolphin Death (Source: Czinkota & Ronkainen, 2002) However, U.S denial of market access cannot be classified as only factor behind the sharp decrease in dolphin’s mortality rate because coagulation of other actions like installation of safety panels, increase in depth of the purse seine nets, imposing of vessel quota system played vital role in decrease of dolphin death rate. It is evident from the above discussion that US denial of market access ultimately worked partially to reduce dolphin deaths. Question 3: What is your view on the quote, “Once again trade trumps science”? Is this case an example of that? Answer: The phrase “Once again trade trumps science” helps to highlight difference of importance between trade issues and issues of scientific or environmental concern. Palmer (1999) criticized the declaration of Commerce Secretary William Daley to reduce "Dolphin Safe" label as being driven by business pressure rather than actual scientific reasons. In ETP regions, fishermen target dolphins because tuna and dolphins are associated with each other. In such a context, Earth Island Institute launched various promotion campaigns and sought the help of legal actions in order to facilitate “Dolphin Safe" tuna program (which might direct no encirclement of dolphins). As a result of “Dolphin Safe" tuna program, death rate of dolphins was reduced by 97% during 1990’s (Czinkota & Ronkainen, 2002). As a result of protection measures, tuna trade export Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela reduced significantly and it was hurting economies of these countries. In such context, statesmen of Mexico, Colombia, and Venezuela started lobbying for weakening the “Dolphin Safe" norms in the name of free trade avocation. The USA has a large market for dolphin-deadly tuna and companies like StarKist, Chicken of the Sea, Bumble Bee and others supported the lobbying process of Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela. Although, “Dolphin Safe" tuna program reduced death of dolphins but the program also negatively affected tuna importing business in USA. On April 29th of 1999, William Daley weakened weakening "Dolphin Safe" norms in order to facilitate tuna trade between USA and other countries. Although, scientists of Earth Island Institutes International found that weakening "Dolphin Safe" norms can increase death threat for dolphins and they voiced their concern but concern of scientists was ignored in order to facilitate tuna trade in USA. Question 4: Is a zero-dolphin-death goal realistic? Answer: A zero-dolphin-death goal can be realistic option but such goal cannot be achieved without the support of governments and business (Eco Safe Tuna, 2013). Consideration of the arguments presented in the case study reveals the fact that previous measures like installation of safety panels in fishing nets, increasing depth of the purse seine nets, implementation of vessel quota system; warning ships to sail cautiously were successful in reducing dolphin death rates. In present context, additional to the mentioned steps, fishermen should take responsible steps like fishing tunas in aqua surfaces where dolphin population is less or avoiding the use of purse seine nets in order to reduce dolphin death rates to further extent. On the other hand, government should also raise the strength of Dolphin Safe" tuna program norms in order to reach zero-dolphin-death goal and considering above suggestions, it can be said that zero-dolphin-death goal is a realistic target. References Brown, J. (2004). An account of the dolphin-safe tuna issue in the UK. Marine Policy, 29, 39–46. Czinkota, M. R & Ronkainen, I. A. (2002). International marketing. San Diego, California: Harcourt College Publishers. Eco Safe Tuna. (2013). Support for AIDCP. Retrieved from http://www.ecosafetuna.org/case-for-ecosafe-tuna/aidcp.html. McGowan, M. (2004). “Dolphin-Safe” Tuna Label Safe for Now. Retrieved from http://nsglc.olemiss.edu/SandBar/SandBar3/3.3tuna.htm. Palmer, M. R. (1999). Dolphin-Safe label gutted. Retrieved from http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Environment/Dolphin_safe_gutted.html. Porter, C. P. (2006). A Place of Temporary Safety for the “Dolphin Safe” Standard. Retrieved from http://www.law.uh.edu/eelpj/publications/1-1/15Porter.pdf. Tucker, T. (2012). Memo. Retrieved from http://www.citizen.org/documents/memo-appellate-review-of-tuna-dolphin-ruling-01-05-12.pdf. United States Trade Representative. (2012). U.S. Appeal in WTO Dolphin-Safe Tuna Labeling Dispute with Mexico. Retrieved from http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2012/january/us-appeal-wto-dolphin-safe-tuna-labeling-dispute-m. Read More