./.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/CTE/W/95
31 July 1998
(98-3040)
Committee on Trade and Environment Original:  English
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION
OF ATLANTIC TUNAS (ICCAT)
Communication from Brazil
The delegation of Brazil has requested that the following statement, which it made at the
Information Session with Secretariats of Multil ateral Environmental Agreements on 23 July 1998, be
circulated to Members of the Committee on Trade and Environment.
_______________
1. Let me seize this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to congratulate the representative of ICCAT for
his very clear and objective presentation.  I would also like to extend my congratulations to the
Secretariat of ICCAT for the paper provided to us in advance.  It is concise and straight to the point,
while being very informative.
2. As many of us here know, the 15th plenary meeting of ICCAT, last November, approved a
recommendation regarding the compliance with the established quotas for albacore catch in the South
Atlantic.  This recommendation extends to the South Atlantic the same trade restrictive measures
applied to North Atlantic countries that do not observe the quota limits for the catching of tuna and
albacore.
3. In the understanding of Brazil, this recommendation has discriminatory elements, for it does
not take into account specific economic, social and commercial considerations, nor environmental
concerns and fishing practices in the South Atlantic, which are obviously different from those of theNorth Atlantic.
4. In the South Atlantic region, fleets from developing coastal countries have to compete for the
same fish stocks with fleets from the North Atlantic, which are much better equipped and
technologically more advanced.
5. Besides the technological edge, the fleets from developed countries are more numerous and
cover a larger geographic area, including the vicinities of the exclusive economic zones of the South
Atlantic nations.
6. In addition, the catches of North Atlantic countries in the southern waters are for national
consumption, whereas the South Atlantic coastal countries depend highly on foreign markets to export
nearly all their production.  The South Atlantic fishery industry is, therefore, much more vulnerable tothe same trade restrictive measure.
7. During the discussions that led up to the adop tion of this recommendation, Brazil, supported
by some southern countries, presented to ICCAT members the preceding arguments with a view to
postpone a decision on the matter and have a more thorough analysis of the consequences of such aWT/CTE/W/95
Page 2
recommendation.  Regardless of the efforts conducted by Brazil - and some like-minded countries -
the recommendation was approved.
8. Brazil also pointed out that the exclusive utilization of historic catch criterion to allocate
shares of the total quota for albacore fishing has only favoured countries well established in the
fishery sector, which employ the most advanced technology in their fishing operations.
9. This situation has strongly worked against the interests of coastal states in the south - whose
fishery industry is still being developed - by imposing constraints on their legitimate aspirations to
further develop this industry.  This situation also condemns some economies, which strongly rely on
coastal and fishery activities to stagnation or deterioration.
10. In light of these circumstances, Brazil was left with little alternative but to present to ICCAT -
according to paragraph 3, Article 8, of the ICCAT Convention – a formal objection to the recently
approved recommendation.  In doing so, Brazil also reiterated its expectation that, in its future work,ICCAT incorporates criteria that take into account the specific interests of the coastal states, whose
sovereignty rights regarding the use, management and conservation of the natural resources within
their exclusive economic zones are ensured by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
11. On a constructive approach to this matter, Brazil has been defending the review of the historic
criterion.  In its proposal, Brazil envisages alternative scenarios and methods for the catch quotaallocation in the South Atlantic, which could encompass elements such as:  (i) distribution of stock
biomass;  (ii) economic dependency on the fishing activities;  and (iii) participation of adult fish in the
catches.  These are criteria that take into account environmental concerns, but do not neglect
legitimate economic and social considerations.  As we like to say it here in the CTE:  a good example
of a “win-win" situation.
12. Having said that, I would like to ask the representative of the ICCAT Secretariat the
following questions:
- Should a recommendation that aims at restricting trade for the purposes of compliance with
quotas that are based only on historic data and do not account for specific economic, social
and commercial considerations, be considered a least restrictive trade measure  capable of
addressing environmental issues?
- When examining this case, did ICCAT consider other possible criteria besides the historic
catch?
- The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides for preferential treatment to
be given to coastal states in relation to the expl oitation of fishery resources.  Has this element
been taken into account when considering the recommendation?
- Has ICCAT ever used criterion other than “historic catch” to determine quota allocation?
__________