Marine Turtle Newsletter 54:1-3, © 1991
Japan Bans Import of Hawksbill Shell Effective December 1992
Marydele Donnelly
Center for Marine Conservation, 1725 DeSales Street NW, Washington D.C. 20036 USA
seaturtle.org : MTN : ARCHIVES : Sign In
Marine Turtle Newsletter 54:1-3, © 1991
Marydele Donnelly
Center for Marine Conservation, 1725 DeSales Street NW, Washington D.C. 20036 USA
On 20 March 1991, the U. S. government formally censured Japan under the Pelly Amendment for that country's continuing trade in endangered sea turtles, setting into motion negotiations which have culminated in Japan's announcing an end to its import of hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) shell for its centuries-old carving industry. Without doubt, resolution of this issue is one of the most important victories ever in the arena of sea turtle conservation, and one for which conservationists have worked for many years.
In this landmark decision Japan was cited for "undermining the effectiveness of international programs for the conservation of sea turtles" under the Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman's Protective Act of 1967 (22 U.S.C. 1978). This powerful but seldom-used legislation allows the United States to embargo fish and/or wildlife products from nations which undermine international conservation or fishery programs for endangered species. This was the first use of the wildlife provision of the Pelly Amendment. This action came in response to a petition brought by the Center for Marine Conservation, Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society, and National Wildlife Federation in April 1990 to censure Japan and Mexico for their sea turtle trade.
The Pelly Amendment works in two phases. First, the Secretary of Commerce or Interior must make a determination that the nationals of a foreign country are, directly or indirectly,
The Secretary certifies such fact to the President. Upon receipt of certification, the President has the discretion to impose partial or complete embargoes on fish and wildlife products from the offending country as long as he deems appropriate. He has 60 days to notify Congress of his intentions. If a country is certified under part (1) for fishing operations, fishery products can be embargoed. If a country is certified under part (2), wildlife products can be embargoed. Since 1974, seven countries have been certified on six separate occasions for fishing violations. Japan, the USSR, Chile, Peru, Korea, and Norway have been certified for whaling, and Korea and Taiwan were certified for fishing with drift nets in 1988. However, sanctions have never been imposed.
Shortly after our Pelly petition was submitted, Mexico ended its harvest of olive ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) [see MTN 50:1-3], which had been the subject of the petition. For more than 20 years Mexico sanctioned, under a quota system, the killing of 25,000 olive ridleys per year for their skins. Enforcement of the quota was inadequate, however, and in some years the slaughter exceeded 75,000 turtles, the majority of which were mature females preparing to nest. In light of the announcement and subsequent implementation of the harvest ban, the U. S. government chose not to certify Mexico. We support this decision.
In the case of Japan, among the evidence that our organizations provided to the U. S. government was documentation of excessive levels of hawksbill shell ('bekko') imports from around the world and the trade in olive ridley skins from Mexico. While 107 nations of the world have banned the trade in sea turtles and their products under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), Japan's markets have flourished because of their registered exemption to the CITES provisions with regard to sea turtles. Until recently, Japan imported 30,000 kg of shell annually under a quota system. In 1990, Japan agreed to reduce the quota to 20,000 kg. Although shell weights from various regions appear to vary, 1.06 kg represents, on average, the shell of one adult hawksbill.
Our analysis of Japan's trade shows that more than half of the hawksbill shell imported by Japan in 1989 could not have been legally obtained from 11 of the 14 nations cited as countries of origin, and in 1990 10 of 15 nations exporting shell could not have done so legally in the quantities cited [see Canin, this issue]. Around the globe, Japan's trading patterns have undermined regional conservation programs as migrating turtles protected by one country have been exploited under the jurisdiction of another nation. Mounting evidence also indicates that hawksbill populations cannot withstand the levels of exploitation to which they are subjected. By some estimates, Japan's annual consumption may be the equivalent of the number of hawksbills that nest globally each year.
After Japan was censured in March for its sea turtle trade, the Japanese made various offers to avoid the imposition of trade sanctions, including dropping the annual quota to 5,000 kg. This concession was rejected by the United States as insufficient. On 17 May 1991, two days before the President's deadline to notify Congress, Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) announced that it would drop the hawksbill reservation at a date to be announced later and that the quota would be reduced to 5,000 kg as of 1 August 1991. President Bush gave the Japanese until 17 June to announce when the reservation would be dropped. On 14 June, final negotiations to resolve the effective date of the ban and allowable import quota in the interim began. For three days negotiators considered a number of possibilities. In the end they agreed that Japan will ban all imports after December 1992. In the interim, 5,000 kg of shell will be imported between August 1991 and August 1992 and another 2,500 kg will be imported between August and December 1992. The reservation will be dropped in July 1994.
Japan's decision to ban the hawksbill trade is significant and incredibly important for the future of the hawksbill sea turtle. It was also an exceedingly difficult decision for which the nation should be commended. It is our contention that the reservation should be dropped in December 1992, at the latest, but we do understand that there is considerable pressure at home for the ban to be phased in over three years, despite the fact that shell will not be imported during the last 18 months. We have been assured the ban is an "international promise", and that the Government will not renege on this agreement. Changing attitudes in Japan, and a growing awareness of environmental problems, contributed to the resolution of this issue. The Government of Japan recognizes that international criticism over their wildlife trade, and especially the turtle trade, is hurting the country internationally. In addition, it is increasingly difficult to obtain shell, legally or otherwise. Finally, the time was right for this decision because the Eighth CITES Meeting will be held in Kyoto, Japan in March 1992.
Many, many individuals and organizations have worked for years in order to make this victory possible. Resolutions such as the one recently drafted by the IUCN Species Survival Commission's Marine Turtle Specialist Group [see Bjorndal, this issue] have repeatedly called on Japan to withdraw its reservation for the hawksbill under CITES and to end all trade in this globally endangered species. Now that the end of this trade is near, we can be exceedingly proud of this very significant conservation achievement, which will have implications for generations to come.