5.408. The responses of the experts also reflect widespread agreement that TEDs, when properly installed and used, substantially reduce the mortality of sea turtles caused by shrimp trawls. "Studies of TEDs ... demonstrate that properly installed TEDs are very effective at virtually eliminating the trawl catch of sea turtles".⁵⁶⁶ "[T]here can be no question that TEDs reduce sea turtle mortality when installed and operated properly".⁵⁶⁷ "[W]hen properly installed and used, different kinds of TEDs can significantly reduce the incidental capture and mortality of sea turtles in shrimp trawl nets".⁵⁶⁸ "TEDs will allow the majority of adult turtles to escape [from shrimp trawl nets]".⁵⁶⁹

5.409. Beyond this general conclusion, the experts elaborate a number of specific points that the United States has advanced throughout these proceedings:

• TEDs help to protect sea turtle populations.

• TEDs are inexpensive and easy to use.

• TEDs cause minimal shrimp loss and produce other benefits.

• TEDs are adaptable to different shrimp fishing environments.

• Other methods to protect sea turtles are insufficient, unless coupled with the use of TEDs.

5.410. The experts describe how the required use of TEDs by shrimp trawlers in the United States has produced significant benefits for sea turtle populations. Dr. Eckert reports that, "for green, loggerhead and Kemp�s ridley sea turtles in the Atlantic, the most serious threat was shrimp trawling. ... The requirement that TEDs be utilized in all waters at all times has reduced this threat".⁵⁷⁰ Dr. Frazier also states that, "during the last few years there have been clear indications from the commercial shrimp fishery in the United States that TEDs have significantly reduced turtle mortality. Stranding data from South Carolina for the period 1980 to 1993 show remarkable declines, particularly when TED regulations were in place. Crowder et. al. (1995) concluded that the decline in strandings was because of reduced mortality from TED use".⁵⁷¹

5.411. Similarly, many of the experts attest to the fact that TEDs are inexpensive and easy to use. Dr. Eckert, for example, explains that:

5.412. Mr. Guinea adds that, "it would be condescending and culturally insensitive to suggest that any fisherman could not operate a net fitted with a TED". Dr. Frazier concurs that neither socio-economic distinctions nor level of formal education is likely to be relevant to the ability of a shrimp fishermen to use a TED successfully.⁵⁷³

5.413. A number of the complainants have alleged that TEDs cause significant losses of shrimp. The experts disagree. Dr. Eckert, for example, reviews studies from the United States which show that "commercial catch rates were higher in years after TEDs were required (though it is probably not valid to suggest that TED use necessarily resulted in increased catch rates)". According to Dr. Eckert, the study submitted by Thailand which purports to show otherwise "is probably invalid due to poor data gathering methodology and data analysis". By contrast, Dr. Eckert found that a recent study in Malaysia on TEDs and the Thai Turtle Free Device, which "showed that TEDs will prevent marine turtles from being trapped in the net without effecting [sic] the catch of shrimp and fish", cannot be considered conclusive due to the very small sample size; however, it does seem to be a very well executed and analyzed preliminary experiment".⁵⁷⁴

5.414. Mr. Guinea, summarizing the results of TEDs trials in the Northern Prawn Fishery in Australia, reports: "a reduction in small fish bycatch by about 30 per cent, a reduction in large fish, no sea turtles were captured during trials. Other studies reported a slight increase in prawn catch (4 per cent and 7 per cent) ... The catch was of better quality with fewer broken or damaged shrimp. The better catch of unbroken shrimp could command a higher price".⁵⁷⁵ The comments of Mr. Guinea in this regard also demonstrate, as the United States has argued, that TEDs are adaptable to different shrimp fishing environments. Dr. Frazier further mentions studies in Malaysia which "indicated that the gear was suitable for use by local fishermen... [and] a preliminary trial recently carried out in Orissa showed that TEDs installed in local trawls successfully excluded turtles". Dr. Frazier goes on to cite another expert in the use of TEDS: "According to Randall Arauz, who has been working on TEDs in Costa Rica for the last four years: 'with proper modifications of the TED technology and fishing practices, together with scientific documentation, research [can] make TEDs work efficiently under virtually any fishing conditions, as we have proven in Costa Rica'".⁵⁷⁶ In light of these findings, it should not be surprising that the experts also generally agree that TEDs should be used wherever there is a likelihood that sea turtles will be incidentally caught in commercial shrimp trawl nets.

5.415. Mr. Guinea argues that the use of TEDs should be one of the management regulations adopted where trawling is responsible for the deaths of sea turtles. "Trawls over areas where sea turtles occur should be of short duration (60 minutes) and employ TEDs".⁵⁷⁷ Dr. Eckert simply says that, "TEDs provide the best opportunity to reduce turtle bycatch with the greatest efficiency and lowest cost to the fishing industry ... It is the most easily enforced conservation measure available".⁵⁷⁸ Dr. Frazier, summarizing reports of other researchers (including Dr. Poiner), concludes that the use of TEDs, together with other conservation measures, would be instrumental in the survival of marine species, including sea turtles.⁵⁷⁹ Mr. Liew concurs that the use of TEDs in trawl nets should be implemented as a matter of "priority" to reduce the incidental catch of adult and juvenile turtles. "All shrimp trawlers operating in areas where the likelihood of incidental turtle capture is high should be encouraged to use TEDs or other similar devices".⁵⁸⁰

5.416. Most of the experts also concur that, while other methods to protect sea turtles may have value, they will not succeed in producing the recovery of decimated sea turtle populations unless they are coupled with the use of TEDs in areas where sea turtles are subject to capture in shrimp trawl nets. For example, Mr. Liew states emphatically that, "saving the eggs and protecting nesting turtles on the beach alone while allowing them to be killed in the sea will not work ... Egg protection methods alone are not sufficient especially if other threats are still present and have significant impact on the population".⁵⁸¹ Dr. Frazier is equally pessimistic about the likelihood of success of these approaches: "focusing on protection of just eggs and hatchlings, and not reducing mortality in older animals, will be doomed to failure."⁵⁸² Dr. Eckert also agrees: "It is simply not adequate to concentrate all efforts on protecting reproducing females and eggs ... no population can be preserved by such methods alone. ... Nesting beach protection alone is not enough to restore sea turtle populations". As evidence of the failure of such methods, Dr. Eckert notes that extensive efforts by Mexico to protect nesting stocks of leatherbacks did not prevent a 95 per cent decline in the population over 10 years caused by incidental mortality in fishing operations.⁵⁸³

5.417. The experts similarly disfavour the practice of "headstarting", which involves the keeping of hatchlings in protected captivity for some period of time before releasing them into the wild. Mr. Liew describes headstarting as "the wrong conservation strategy".⁵⁸⁴ Dr. Eckert adds that headstarting "has not yet proven successful ... at this time, headstarting is not considered a valid conservation tool". According to Dr. Eckert, one primary reason why such other methods cannot work by themselves is that, unlike TEDs, they do not adequately protect adult, subadult and large juvenile sea turtles, which have much higher reproductive values than eggs and hatchlings. These latter classes of sea turtles are most vulnerable to incidental mortality in trawl fisheries.⁵⁸⁵ Dr. Frazier further explains that:

5.418. Furthermore, the experts cast serious doubts on the efficacy of methods, asserted by some Complainants to be effective, consisting of prohibitions on trawling in certain areas or at certain times ("area and time closures") or of requirements that trawling times not exceed a certain duration ("tow-time limitations"). "Area closures do not work because of a lack of enforcement. This has been widely documented in many countries, including those involved in this dispute". Seasonal and time closures are ineffective for similar reasons. "Tow-time limitations are least enforceable of all measures".⁵⁸⁷ Similarly, "tow-time limitations are almost impossible to enforce and actually do not provide much protection to turtles subject to multiple captures".⁵⁸⁸

5.419. There is some disagreement among the experts as to the validity of claims by some of the Complainants that they have produced population recoveries through methods not involving the use of TEDs. Mr. Guinea believes that "conservation measures devoted to eggs and hatchlings have been successful for some breeding units of some species e.g., olive ridleys in Orissa", that green and hawksbill turtles nesting on the Turtle Islands of Sabah have recovered and that, in general, the conservation measures of Malaysia and Thailand "appear to be successful".⁵⁸⁹ Most of the other experts flatly reject these assessments. Dr. Poiner states that "there is no clear documented case of recovery in the world. ... Some countries (e.g., Malaysia and Thailand) have instigated management measures to prohibit or control egg harvests as a conservation measure but there is no evidence of recovery of any of these populations".⁵⁹⁰ Dr. Frazier concurs: "I am unaware of conclusive evidence for the recovery of any sea turtle population in any of the five countries involved in this dispute so that there is not or will soon not be a risk of extinction".⁵⁹¹ Dr. Eckert, for his part, states that, "to the best of my knowledge, no nesting population of sea turtles has shown any recovery in any of the countries of dispute. There are encouraging signs that the Kemp�s ridley nesting population may be growing ... If there is a recovery [of Kemp's ridleys], it is likely due to the required use of TEDs in the United States and Mexico and the protection afforded nesting females". Referring to arguments presented by Malaysia in this dispute, he adds that it is erroneous to assume that a trend in green turtle populations can be determined after only a few years. This is simply not the case.... The trend described in this study will not be valid for at least another 15 or more years depending on the maturity time of the turtles within this population".⁵⁹²

5.420. To conclude, the United States notes that it is natural that in five sets of separate responses for the experts there would be some differences of view expressed. What is remarkable about these particular responses is the high degree of consensus among the experts on the core factual issues in question. In the view of the United States, the responses of the experts emphatically support our contentions that the measures at issue in this dispute relate to the conservation of an exhaustible natural resource and that they are necessary to protect animal life and health.

5.421. The United States also wishes to comment on certain specific responses of the experts. The responses of Mr. Guinea call for the following comments.

5.422. The concept of sea turtles as a shared global resource may be "cumbersome", as Mr. Guinea puts it, but global efforts are necessary for sea turtle conservation to succeed. In fact, Mr. Guinea's very first observation (Introductory Comment #1) is that sea turtle conservation must be based on the "breeding unit", and he notes that "breeding units" may be found in the waters of other countries.⁵⁹³ As noted in a Limpus study (widely quoted by the experts in this case), "Marine turtles are internationally migratory species that cannot be managed at single localities. Indeed they cannot be successfully managed even at the level of a single country. They are internationally shared resources that need to be managed at the level of individual stocks".⁵⁹⁴ Further, in response to Question 5(a), all of the experts, including Mr. Guinea, note that sea turtles commonly feed over 1000 km from their nesting grounds.

5.423. Mr. Guinea also notes that "most greens and usually hawksbills and leatherbacks are relatively unaffected by trawling". While it is true that loggerheads, olive ridleys, Kemp's ridleys and flatbacks may be more susceptible to incidental capture in shrimp trawls, greens, hawksbills and leatherbacks have been documented as bycatch in shrimp trawls. In fact, the paper he refers to in his answer to question 6(c) (Sachse and Wallner, in press) notes that in one study, green sea turtles were the second most captured species of sea turtles. There was also a significant catch of hawksbill sea turtles (368 green and 62 hawksbill sea turtles captured - p. 3). Further, in his response to question 1(c), Mr. Guinea identifies the flatback, olive ridley, loggerhead, green and hawksbill turtles as bycatch in Australian prawn fisheries. He lists greens as the second most prominent sea turtle species found in the bycatch in the Queensland Trawl fishery.⁵⁹⁵ Other experts in this case also address the mortality of all sea turtle species in shrimp trawl nets. Dr. Eckert identifies trawl fisheries as a contributing source of decline of leatherbacks⁵⁹⁶ and shrimp trawling as a significant source of mortality for greens and hawksbills on the Pacific coast of Mexico, in North Eastern South America and Thailand. Mr. Liew writes, "[f]eeding habitats of different sea turtles would differ depending on their diet but these habitats may overlap. An area of seabed may have green turtles, hawksbills, loggerheads and ridleys occurring together as the area may have pockets of seagrass, sponges, crabs, shrimps, mollusc and fish there".⁵⁹⁷ Furthermore, Guinea's statement only takes into account the feeding habitats of sea turtles, it does not consider threats to sea turtles when they migrate from their feeding grounds to the nesting beach or when they are in coastal waters during the internesting period. In discussing the various feeding habitats of different species and the risks they face from incidental capture in fisheries in those habitats, Dr. Liew writes, "[h]owever, for all these species of turtles, they are also vulnerable in the waters off their nesting grounds during the nesting season where they aggregate in numbers depending on the size of the nesting population".⁵⁹⁸

5.424. In his introductory, Mr. Guinea further argues that the US measure is ineffective because affected countries may circumvent the US measures by various means, such as by transshipping their shrimp through certified countries. To support this argument, he cites a statement purportedly made by a delegate of India at an FAO Workshop.⁵⁹⁹ The United States responds that this issue is outside the purview of the Panel�s questions, and, moreover, each one of the Complainants - including India - claims that they have been substantially affected by the US measure. Finally, Section 609 applies to shrimp based on the country of harvest, regardless of whether the shrimp is processed in or shipped through a third country. Thus, it should not be possible for a nation to avoid the requirements of Section 609 simply by transshipping its shrimp through another country.

5.425. In his answer to question 1(c), Mr. Guinea states that he relies on certain cited sources for his ranking of threats to sea turtles. However, Mr. Guinea's ranking of threats to sea turtles in the United States is incorrect. The source he cites, Lutceavage, M.E. et. al. (1997), simply delineates the threats to sea turtles without ranking them. In fact, the authors note that the National Academy of Science study ("Decline of Sea Turtles") found incidental capture in shrimp trawls to be the leading cause of sea turtle mortalities due to human activities. Moreover, his ranking of threats to sea turtles in the other countries that are parties to this dispute supports the United States contention that shrimp trawling is a significant source of mortality for sea turtles. For each of the complainant countries, incidental capture of marine turtles in fishing operations is ranked within the top four threats to sea turtles.

5.426. In answering question 2(d), Mr. Guinea does not provide a citation for his contention that the green and hawksbill turtles on the Sabah Turtle Islands have staged a "remarkable recovery". He seems to be contradicted by other experts. Limpus writes, "[i]t appears that all marine turtle populations in the Indo-Pacific region outside Australia are severely depleted and/or subject to overharvest and/or to excessive incidental mortality".⁶⁰⁰ Drs. Eckert and Frazier in their response conclude that there are no sea turtle populations in the countries involved in this dispute that have recovered. Dr. Poiner states, "there is no clear documented cases of recovery in the world." Poiner specifically mentions the sea turtle conservation efforts in Malaysia and Thailand and the fact that there is no evidence of recovery of these populations.⁶⁰¹

5.427. Answering question 2(e), Mr. Guinea reasons that 5000 deaths in shrimp-trawl nets per year is a sustainable level of mortality for Indian olive ridley turtles. This reasoning is without foundation. Mr. Guinea transfers Dr. Crouse�s conclusions on loggerhead sea turtles to olive ridleys which is biologically unsound. The major flaws with this approach are age to maturity differences, reproductive strategy differences (i.e. arribada or mass nesting vs. solitary nesting) and stage-based mortality differences. Under question 3(c), Mr. Guinea�s response is misleading. The quoted source, Todd Steiner of Earth Island Institute, said that TEDs are part of an integrated approach to sea turtle conservation and restoration, not that TEDs were simply one option available to managers, as Mr. Guinea asserts. In his answer to question 3(d), Mr. Guinea states that TEDs, without modification to local conditions, have unacceptably poor performance. The sources cited by Mr. Guinea do not support his contention.

5.428. In answering question 4(a), Mr. Guinea makes a very broad and generalized statement that is not supported by any further facts when he states that the egg/hatchling conservation measures employed by Malaysia and Thailand appear to be successful. Drs. Eckert, Frazier and Poiner contradict his response in their statements. They conclude that there are no sea turtle populations in the countries involved in this dispute that have recovered. Dr. Poiner writes, "[s]ome countries (e.g., Malaysia and Thailand) have instigated management measures to prohibit or control egg and sea turtle harvests but there is no evidence of recovery of these populations.⁶⁰² In particular regard to Thailand, it has been noted that "there is no clear link between the high numbers of turtles at Khram island and the headstart programme there. The effects, positive or negative, of headstarting will only be seen after two or four decades if and when the raised creatures return to breed and nest. In the interim, Thailand will lose its sea turtles for sure if 'conservation' is limited to headstarting. ... Simply raising more turtles and introducing them into habitat ill-suited to support them is a waste".⁶⁰³ Limpus writes, "[i]t appears that all marine turtle populations in the Indo-Pacific region outside Australia are severely depleted and/or subject to overharvest and/or to excessive incidental mortality".⁶⁰⁴ Mr. Guinea himself equivocates on this issue later in his statement when he writes, "the relative significance of egg protection is difficult to determine without knowing the other threatening processes impacting on the breeding unit".⁶⁰⁵

5.429. Under question 6(a), Mr. Guinea implies that time and area closures near turtle rookeries may be sufficient measures to protect sea turtles, but he never addresses the serious difficulties with this approach. Time and area closures only protect large juvenile or adult turtles while they are in the closed area near the rookery, or during the time when shrimping is banned and not at other times or places, such as when turtles are feeding in shrimp grounds. In fact, time/area specific closures and sanctuaries are not sufficient to protect sea turtles from incidental mortality in shrimp fisheries.⁶⁰⁶ Two other experts in this case, Drs. Eckert and Frazier, disagree that time/area closures are viable management tools in and of themselves. Eckert points out the various problems with seasonal and time closures: (a) they are difficult and expensive to enforce, (b) they do not facilitate rapid adjustment for stochastic fluctuations in the migratory patterns of turtles, and (c) tow time limitations are almost impossible to enforce and actually do not provide much protection to turtles subject to multiple captures.⁶⁰⁷ Dr. Frazier also points out the problems with these approaches. Both area closures and tow times are difficult to enforce. Additionally, seasonal and time closures tend to "concentrate fishing effort just before and just after the closure ('pulse fishing'). In general, seasonal and time closures simply offset mortality around the time of the closure".⁶⁰⁸

5.430. The United States also wishes to comment on some aspects of Dr. Poiner's answers.

5.431. In his answer to question 3(c), Dr. Poiner states that although the "obligatory" use of TEDs is one management tool that can be used, he cites with approval a source noting that voluntary TEDs use may be a better alternative, at least for Australia. However, the factual matter at issue in this case is whether TEDs reduce sea turtle mortality, not whether TEDs should be adopted voluntarily, or by regulation. None of the four Complainants claims that their shrimp trawlers voluntarily use TEDs. Furthermore, the Sachse and Wallner study, cited by Mr. Guinea⁶⁰⁹, notes,

Thus, the study itself seems to call into question the effectiveness of the voluntary approach.

5.432. Dr. Poiner also states that there are other measures such as area, seasonal and time closures and tow-time limitations that can be used to prevent sea turtle mortality. But, like Mr. Guinea's response, his response does not address the sea turtle mortality due to shrimp trawling in areas outside the banned area, or due to trawling at times when the ban is not in effect (see paragraph 5.429).

VI. INTERIM REVIEW

6. 1. On 16 March 1998, Malaysia submitted comments regarding the interim report in accordance with Article 15.2 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (hereafter "DSU"). Malaysia added that, in the event the United States would provide any comments on the interim report, Malaysia, together with the other co-complainants, reserved their rights to respond to such comments and to request a further meeting with the parties to discuss those comments. India, Pakistan and Thailand did not request a review. On 16 March 1998, the United States requested the Panel to review, in accordance with Article 15.2 of the DSU, the interim report that had been issued to the parties on 2 March 1998. The United States also requested the Panel to hold a meeting with the parties to discuss the issues raised in its comments. We met with the parties on 31 March 1998, reviewed the entire range of arguments presented by the parties, and finalized our report, taking into account the specific aspects of these arguments we considered to be relevant.

6.2. With respect to the comments made by Malaysia on the descriptive part, we have taken a number of them into account and accordingly modified paragraph 2.2, paragraph 3.9(f), footnote 80 to paragraph 3.38, and paragraphs 3.84, 3.131, 3.221 and 3.286.

6.3. With respect to the findings, Malaysia and the United States make several specific comments. We have accepted most of them and accordingly have made the appropriate changes in paragraphs 7.2, 7.5, 7.6, 7.19 and 7.48. However, we have not modified paragraph 7.46, as requested by the United States. We agree with the United States that none of the parties cited or discussed the 1952 Belgian Family Allowances case⁶¹⁰, but in our view a reference to that case is relevant to our findings because, even though it did not relate to Article XX, it addressed a situation similar to this case, where a country had imposed conditions on access to its market based on the existence in the exporting countries of a family allowance system meeting specific requirements. Finally, we cannot agree with the comment of the United States on paragraph 7.52 that we should review the statement that the 1992 Rio Declaration "stresses the diversity of environmental situations and responsibilities". When we refer to diversity of responsibilities, we do not base ourselves on Principle 2 only, to which the United States seems to refer exclusively, but also to Principle 11 as well. Both Principles are quoted in footnote 661 and our purpose is to illustrate the right of States to design their own environmental policies on the basis of their particular environmental and developmental situations and responsibilities. We have clarified the relevant part of paragraph 7.52 accordingly.

6.4. The United States also makes comments of a more general nature. We address them successively hereafter. First, the United States considers that the findings of the Panel never identified or analysed the particular terms of the chapeau of Article XX and disregarded the relevant language of the GATT 1994. In response, we have expanded the discussion of the terms of the chapeau in paragraphs 7.33 and 7.34.

6.5. The United States also claims that the Panel adopted a new test based on the Panel's view of the object and purpose of the Article XX chapeau. However, this mischaracterizes our findings, which do not rely solely on the object and purpose of Article XX. They are based on an analysis, pursuant to Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), of the ordinary meaning of the terms of the chapeau of Article XX, taken in their context and in the light of the object and purpose of the WTO Agreement. Moreover, in our reasoning, we rely also on general principles of public international law such as pacta sunt servanda. Consequently, our findings are the result of the application of interpretative methods required by Article 3.2 of the DSU. In our view, our process of interpretation of Article XX in this case does not add to Members' obligations in contravention of Article 3.2 of the DSU.

6.6. The United States further claims that the Panel has adopted a so-called "threat to the multilateral trading system" test that is tautological and undermines Article XX. In our view, the concept of "threat to the multilateral trading system" is an application in this case of the principle according to which Members should not deprive the WTO Agreement of its object and purpose. This concept is elaborated in paragraphs 7.44 and 7.45. We have not imposed a new test, but merely found that the type of measure at issue in this case deprives the WTO Agreement of its object and purpose and, thus, is beyond the scope of Article XX. The analysis is not tautological, since it elaborates on the function of Article XX in the WTO framework. As the United States put it in its request for interim review: "A measure meeting the provisions of Article XX, by definition, cannot be a 'threat to the multilateral trading system'." Thus, where a panel believes that a measure does constitute such a threat, it is appropriate to interpret Article XX so as not to permit it. We do not believe that the notion of "threat to the multilateral trading system" entrusts panels with unfettered discretion as to what measure would satisfy the conditions of Article XX. On the contrary, it preserves the right of Members to implement the environmental policies of their choice through trade measures, as long as those trade measures do not affect the multilateral system to the point where the WTO Agreement is deprived of its object and purpose.

6.7. The United States argues in addition that "the interim report contains troubling language indicating that under the object and purpose of the WTO, trade concerns outweigh environmental concerns" and that the Panel's categorical language according to which measures are only allowed if they do not undermine the WTO system is much broader than necessary for the resolution of this dispute. We do not believe that our findings reflect such a view. Our examination of the object and purpose of the WTO Agreement led us to conclude that the central focus of that agreement is the promotion of economic development through trade. That means that there is room for other concerns, and, in particular, environmental concerns, as underlined by the wording of the preamble and the existence of exceptions. Moreover, we have not in any way passed judgement on the relative importance of trade and environmental policies.

6.8. Finally, we reject the US assertion that we have used unnecessarily broad language in our findings. Indeed, our findings have been written narrowly to address certain specific attributes of the US measure at issue, attributes which we do not believe would typically be found in environmental regulations. Indeed, as the United States concedes in its request for interim review, we stated that "there should not be nor need be any policy contradiction between upholding and safeguarding an open, equitable and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system on the one hand and acting for the protection of the environment on the other". In light of such statements, we see no scope for a future panel to misconstrue our narrowly drafted findings in this case.

To Continue With Section VII

⁵⁶³ Eckert paras. 5.37 and 5.95.

⁵⁶⁴ Liew para. 5.113.

⁵⁶⁵ Eckert para. 5.93.

⁵⁶⁶ Poiner para. 5.209.

⁵⁶⁷ Eckert para. 5.202.

⁵⁶⁸ Frazier para. 5.203.

⁵⁶⁹ Guinea para. 5.65.

⁵⁷⁰ Eckert para. 5.92.

⁵⁷¹ Frazier para. 5.215.

⁵⁷² Eckert paras. 5.144 and 5.202.

⁵⁷³ Guinea para. 5.296 and Frazier para. 5.205.

⁵⁷⁴ Eckert paras. 5.211-213.

⁵⁷⁵ Guinea para. 5.219.

⁵⁷⁶ Frazier paras. 5.204 and 5.233.

⁵⁷⁷ Guinea paras. 5.86 and 5.181.

⁵⁷⁸ Eckert para. 5.223.

⁵⁷⁹ Frazier paras. 5.84 and 5.225.

⁵⁸⁰ Liew paras. 5.183 and 5.207.

⁵⁸¹ Liew paras. 5.192 and 5.252.

⁵⁸² Frazier paras. 5.242.

⁵⁸³ Eckert paras. 5.73, 5.171 and 5.34.

⁵⁸⁴ Liew para. 5.113.

⁵⁸⁵ Eckert paras. 5.173, 5.73-74.

⁵⁸⁶ Frazier paras. 5.77, 5.82 and 5.171.

⁵⁸⁷ Frazier paras. 5.226-27.

⁵⁸⁸ Eckert para. 5.223.

⁵⁸⁹ Guinea paras. 5.189, 5.243-44.

⁵⁹⁰ Poiner paras. 5.71 and 5.247.

⁵⁹¹ Frazier para. 5.188.

⁵⁹² Eckert para.186.

⁵⁹³ Guinea para. 5.14.

⁵⁹⁴ C.J. Limpus, (1997), Marine Turtle Populations of Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific Region: Distribution and Status, Proceedings of the Workshop on Marine Turtle Research and Management in Indonesia, Jember, East Java, November 1996.

⁵⁹⁵ Guinea, paras. 5.15, 5.291 and 5.112.

⁵⁹⁶ Eckert para. 5.34.

⁵⁹⁷ Liew para. 5.282.

⁵⁹⁸ Liew para. 5.115.

⁵⁹⁹ Guinea para. 5.16-17.

⁶⁰⁰ C.J. Limpus, (1997), Marine Turtle Populations of Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific Region: Distribution and Status, Proceedings of the Workshop on Marine Turtle Research and Management in Indonesia, Jember, East Java, November 1996.

⁶⁰¹ Poiner paras. 5.71 and 5.140.

⁶⁰² Poiner para. 5.140.

⁶⁰³ Settle, (1995), Status of Nesting Populations of Sea Turtles in Thailand and their Conservation, Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 68, p. 11.

⁶⁰⁴ C.J. Limpus, (1997), Marine Turtle Populations of Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific Region: Distribution and Status, Proceedings of the Workshop on Marine Turtle Research and Management in Indonesia, Jember, East Java, November 1996.

⁶⁰⁵ Guinea para. 5.251.

⁶⁰⁶ Crowder et al., (1994), Predicting the Impact of Turtle Excluder Devices on Loggerhead sea Turtle Populations, 4(3) Ecological Applications, p. 437; Statement of Deborah Crouse, Ph.D. 23 July 1997 (document submitted to the Panel by the United States).

⁶⁰⁷ Eckert para. 5.223.

⁶⁰⁸ Frazier para. 5.226.

⁶⁰⁹ Guinea paragraph 5.291.

⁶¹⁰ Adopted on 7 November 1952, BISD 1S/59.