Hawksbill Turtle Imports to Japan (HAWKSBIL)



CASE NUMBER:32
CASE MNEMONIC:HAWKSBIL
CASE NAME:Hawksbill Turtle Protection


A. IDENTIFICATION

1. The Issue
In April, 1990 five environmental conservation groups filed a petition urging the Departments of Commerce and Interior to look into Japan's continued exploitation of the Hawksbill turtle for its domestic craft industry. The Hawksbill turtle is protected under the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) treaty. In January of 1991, federal officials determined that Japan was indeed endangering the survival of the species. On March 20, 1991, the Departments "certified" the allegations, giving the President sixty days to determine whether or not to impose trade sanctions. The United States threatened sanctions on Japanese fish and other wildlife products. Eventually, Japan complied.

2. Description
The 1978 Pelly Amendment to the 1967 Fishermen's Protective Act allows the President to use trade sanctions against countries trading in endangered species and undermining the effectiveness of any international program to protect those species (see TUNA and SHRIMP cases where the Pelly amendment applies). It requires the Departments of Commerce and Interior to monitor and investigate the activities of foreign nationals for violations of the international programs.

Of the 110 signatories of the 1973 CITES treaty, 107 protect the Hawksbill turtle. The treaty allows for countries to claim exemptions, as Japan did when it signed in 1981. Since that time, over 234,000 Hawksbill shells have been imported from more than twenty countries. This amounts to an average of 30 metric tons per year; in 1990 alone Japan imported 18,000 shells or 20 tons. Different varieties of Hawksbill turtles are found in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, as well as the Caribbean and Persian Gulf (see GREEN case).

The turtles are caught illegally and sold on the black market to Japan. The "bekko" industry, largely based in Nagasaki, is a unique industry that is historically tied to Japanese culture, where the shells are also used to make eyeglass frames, ornamental combs, and jewelry. Over 2,000 people, of which 660 are craftsmen, are employed in this industry. The trade is worth approximately $125 million dollars per year.

In April of 1990, five environmental groups -- the Center for Marine Conservation, the Earth Island Institute of San Francisco, The National Wildlife Federation, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the National Audubon Society -- filed petitions to urge the government to take action against Japan under the authority of on the Pelly Amendment. By January of 1991, the Interior and Commerce Departments had found that the survival of the Hawksbill turtle was being endangered by Japan's trade. In March of 1991, they certified these allegations; by law the President had sixty days to make a decision on whether or not to take action against Japan. The United States threatened to impose sanctions, either in the form of a ban or high duties, on imports of Japan's wildlife products, such as pearls and ornamental carp, which is a $200 million dollar market.

On May 17, 1991, Japan agreed to phase out trade over a three year period. This satisfied U.S. government requirements enough to remove the trade sanction threat, but most of the environmental groups, as well as the U.S. Government, wanted the trade stopped by the end of 1992. On June 19, 1991, Japan announced that it would ban trade in the turtles by the end of 1992, and to import no more than 7.5 metric tons of shells between August 1, 1991 and December 31, 1992. After that date, Japan pledged to prohibit imports of the Hawksbill turtle and Olive Ridley turtles, another endangered sea turtle.

3. Related Cases
TUNA case
SHRIMP case
GREEN case
Keyword Clusters
(1): Trade Product = CRAFT
(2): Bio-geography = OCEAN
(3): Environmental Problem = Species Loss Sea [SPLS]
4. Draft Author: Jenny Jones

B. LEGAL Clusters

5. Discourse and Status: DISagreement and COMPlete
The case is a disagreement between the United States and Japan over whether or not Japan can continue to use of an endangered species to produce a traditional craft. There was never a legal proceeding, but rather negotiations between the two countries. Japan finally agreed to protect the Hawksbill turtle under the 1973 CITES treaty.

6. Forum and Scope: CITES and MULTIlateral
The forum is the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species; the scope is therefore multilateral. U.S. domestic law is also pertinent: i.e., the Pelly Amendment to the 1967 Fishermen's Protection Act.

7. Decision Breadth: 107 (CITES signatories)
With Japan joining the 107 signatories of CITES who protect the endangered Hawksbill turtle, most countries of the world will be party to this agreement. Cuba, the primary supplier of Hawksbills to Japan in recent years, is a CITES signatory nation but does protect the turtle. Non-signatory nations do not necessarily extend protection.

8. Legal Standing: TREATY

C. GEOGRAPHIC Clusters

9. Geographic Locations
a. Geographic Domain : ATLANTic
b. Geographic Site : CARIBbean
c. Geographic Impact : JAPAN
Geographic domain, or where the turtles are being caught, includes the Pacific and Indian Oceans, the Persian Gulf, and the Caribbean Sea. In recent years, the majority of the imports were reportedly coming from Cuba and illegal smuggling was suspected through Hong Kong. The geographic impact of the case, which indicates areas affected by the legislation is Japan.

10. Sub-National Factors: NO

11. Type of Habitat: OCEAN

D. TRADE Clusters

12. Type of Measure: Import Ban [IMBAN]
Although the U.S. government never specifically stated the exact nature of impending retaliatory trade sanctions, officials speculated that there would either be a ban or high tariffs on Japanese imports of other products.

13. Direct vs. Indirect Impacts: DIRect
The Hawksbill turtle protection case is an example of a direct impacts): Japan agreed to prohibit imports of Hawksbill and Olive Ridley turtles, which directly impacts the existence of the "bekko" industry.

14. Relation of Measure to Environmental Impact
a. Directly Related : YES TURTLE
b. Indirectly Related : YES CRAFT
c. Not Related : NO
d. Process Related : YES Species Loss Sea [SPLS]
15. Trade Product Identification: CRAFT

16. Economic Data
Little economic data is available, but it is known that "Japan has been importing about twenty tons a year of such [Hawksbill] turtles in order to convert their shells into jewelry, combs and eyeglass frames."

17. Impact of Measure on Trade Competitiveness: BAN

18. Industry Sector: NOTH

19. Exporter and Importer: MANY and JAPAN

E. ENVIRONMENT Clusters

20. Environmental Problem Type: Species Loss Sea (SPLS)

21. Name, Type, and Diversity of Species
Name: Hawksbill Turtle
Type: Animal/ Vertibrate/Reptile
Diversity: Sustainable yield of 2,600 metric tons/year (Eastern Central Pacific)
22. Resource Impact and Effect: HIGH and PRODuct Before agreeing to protect the Hawksbill turtle under the CITES treaty, Japan posed the primary threat to the animal's existence: "Much of the Hawksbill hunting now is the direct result of merchants seeking shells in poor countries for shipment to Japan." Thus the resolution of the dispute will have a high impact on the resource, eliminating its foremost "predator".

23. Urgency and Lifetime: SHORT and about 60 years
If current trends continue, the Hawksbill turtle will be extinct "early in the next century." The animal is said to have 25 or 30 years of life once they have reached sexual maturity. Using this as a guide, a turtle's life span can be sixty years plus.

24. Substitutes: SYNTHetic products
The bekko industry has largely converted over to plastic products that closely resemble the shell of the Hawksbill. However, some customers still insist on combs and other items made from the shell of the turtle.

VI. OTHER Factors

25. Culture: YES
The persistent decline of the turtle is not related to any economic need but a cultural desire to have a ceremonial adornment.

Plastic substitutes for the turtle shell have existed in Japan for years but the purchase and use of the product has been largely consumer-driven. Many consumers do not regard the plastic substitutes as acceptable and prefer the purchase of the real shell products. Since the work force is aging, the bekko industry is also viewed as a sort of traditional occupation and one to be admired and preserved.

26. Trans-Border: NO

27. Rights: NO

28. Relevant Literature
Bradsher, Keith.  "Sea Turtles Put New Friction in U.S.-Japan
     Trade Quarrels."  The New York Times (May 17, 1991): A1,
     D4.
Harbrecht, Douglas.  "How an Obscure Law is Saving Turtles." 
     National Wildlife 30 (April/May, 1992): 22.
"Japan Bans by `93 Imports of Endangered Sea Turtles."  The Wall 
     Street Journal (June 20, 1991): A10.
"Japan Staves off Sanctions with Vow to Protect Turtles."  The 
     Wall Street Journal (May 20, 1991): A6.
Lancaster, John.  "Endangered Sea Turtle Seen Jeopardized by
     Japan."  The Washington Post (January 19, 1991): A3.
Moyer, Jack T.  "Trading in Turtles."  World Press Review 39 
     (May, 1992): 45.
Reid, T.R.  "Japan to End Imports of Endangered Turtle."  The 
     Washington Post (May 18, 1991): A17.
Sanger, David E. "Japan, Backing Down, Plans Ban on Rare Turtle 
     Import."  The New York Times (June 20, 1991): D6.
Schneider, Keith.  "US Moves to Punish Japan for Trade in   
     Turtles."  The New York Times (March 21, 1991): A12.
Shinohara, Makiko. "Japan and US at Loggerheads Over Endangered 
     Sea Turtles."  Christian Science Monitor (May 10, 1991):
     7.
Sterngold, James.  "Japan Agrees to Gradual Ban on Imports of 
     Turtle Shells."  The New York Times (May 18, 1991): A35,
     A46. 
"U.S. House Passes Wild Bird Conservation Act."  Focus 14/5
     (Washington, DC, World Wildlife Fund, September/October
     1992): 1.

Go to Super Page