5.341. Malaysia notes that some experts have cited several studies conducted on loggerheads and attempted to superimpose or extrapolate the findings uniformly on all species of sea turtles in all geographical regions. This is not acceptable for the following reasons:

• The reproductive values of sea turtles: population modelling of loggerheads in the United States (Crouse et al. 1987)⁴⁷⁰ give a reproductive value of 584 for breeders, as opposed to the value of 1 for eggs or hatchlings. Studies on Australian loggerheads put a reproductive value of 200-400 on adult females, depending on the population.⁴⁷¹ These two examples show that even for the same species, the values will vary according to geographical location. This is obviously the case since the same conditions do not prevail.
• Similarly, survivorship values must necessarily differ among species and geographical locations. The extent of threats confronting sea turtles would differ from location to location.
• Dr. Eckert cites the case for loggerheads which "pick foraging habitats that are most strongly correlated to shrimp fisheries".⁴⁷² This is true for loggerheads, and accounts for the fact that loggerheads suffer the most serious impacts of shrimp trawls. However, it has not been shown anywhere that leatherbacks, green or hawksbill turtles similarly pick such habitat (see paragraph 5.332).

5.342. Evidence is provided in the experts' responses that green turtles are directly harvested in the thousands annually in some countries (approaching 30,000 annually)⁴⁷³, but yet, these same countries are given exemption to the import prohibition. Does this not amount to arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries?

5.343. Malaysia recognizes the effort and time Dr. Frazier has dedicated towards preparing his lengthy discourse on the issue of bycatch in modern fisheries (Annex I, Appendix 1). The international community, Malaysia included, is well aware of all the issues associated with bycatch. In recognising this, FAO adopted the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in 1995. Malaysia fully supports the Code, and is especially appreciative of the way in which it has been mediated - through international consensus. Malaysia would like to state that nations should not impose trade prohibition on every fisheries product found to have a relationship with an endangered species. Such actions cannot bring about conservation, and is certainly not the way to bring about cooperation in saving an endangered species. Malaysia believes on a proper balance between the urgent and recognized need for conservation and impact on people and livelihood. Any form of conservation requires the dedicated cooperation of the various groups of people directly dealing with and affected with conservation matters. FAO and fisheries bodies and organizations are working out ways to mitigate the problems recognized in modern fisheries, and they are the ones most competent to do so.

5.344. With reference to the example mentioned in paragraph 72 of Appendix 1, Malaysia would like to repeat that the TEDs trial referred to in Ali (1997) was conducted in a zone which is off limits to trawling. Therefore, Dr. Frazier should not use the CPUE derived from this study to calculate the potential number of turtles caught per year. For extrapolation, the CPUE should be derived from trawling activities, which are conducted in those zones where trawling is permitted.

5.345. With regard to Appendix 2 provided by Dr. Frazier, Malaysia notes that the Panel did not request the experts to provide information on the issue of transfer of TED technology. However, in Appendix 2, Dr. Frazier has obtained a long list of documents relating to TED technology transfer. Malaysia would only point out that the correspondence appended to Appendix 2 merely lists down individuals who have written to NMFS. There does not demonstrate any actual transfer of TED technology. Malaysia therefore requests the Panel to disregard Appendix 2 as any form of proof that there was technology transfer. Malaysia does not contend that the United States has been incompetent or made inadequate attempts at TED technology transfer. Malaysia, however, wishes to reiterate that the United States has not made any official offer or attempt at a government-to-government level to negotiate an agreement for the protection of sea turtles in Malaysia. Malaysia further reiterates that there has been no workshop conducted by the United States in Malaysia itself, apart from the participation by Malaysia in a regional workshop organized by the Department of Fisheries, Thailand, in cooperation with the Department of Foreign Trade and NMFS, US Department of Commerce. Malaysia similarly reiterates that this workshop was held way after the imposition of the import prohibition which commenced on 1 May 1996.

5.346. To conclude, Malaysia notes that the United States is merely addressing shrimp trawling in its effort to conserve turtles. Malaysia contends that merely introducing TEDs for shrimp trawling only may save certain breeding units in certain places, for example the Gulf of Mexico, where shrimp fishing grounds coincide with habitats of turtles there. In other parts of the world where interactions do not occur, fish trawling, gill nets etc. would cause more turtle mortality rather than shrimp trawling alone. Therefore, there is a need to address the conservation of turtles in a broader spectrum rather than confining one's effort to the effect of shrimp trawling on turtles. Dr. Frazier's report contained in Appendix 1 aptly highlights the issues and concerns for selective fishing and the conservation of turtles and the need for international cooperation rather than a unilateral initiative on the part of the United States in this case. It simply demonstrates the magnitude of the problem which we believe the United States alone, as one of the 132 WTO Members, could never hope to address adequately in a unilateral manner. In conclusion, Malaysia would like to request the Panel to consider the introductory comments of Mr. Guinea⁴⁷⁴ which have captured the essence of the present dispute.

3. Comments by Pakistan

5.347. Pakistan is located along the rich and bountiful Arabian sea which is very rich in species diversity. A large number of marine animals and plants are found along the coast of Pakistan. Among the reptiles, sea snake and sea turtles are commonly found along the coast of Pakistan sea. Sea turtles, as in other parts of the world, inhabit shallow coastal waters especially along sandy, sandy cum rock and rocky shores. Females come to lay their eggs at high water marks on sandy shores. Along the coast of Pakistan turtles are found on a number of sandy beaches; important among them are Sandspits, Hawks Bay, Paradise Point, Cape Monz, Goth Mubarak, Gaddani, Malan, Had Ormara (West Bay), Tay, Sakoni, Astola Island, Shumal Bundar and Jiwani. Five species of marine turtles are known from Pakistan including loggerhead, green turtle, olive ridley, hawksbill, and leatherback, though only the green turtle and the olive ridley seem to be common.⁴⁷⁵ Other species are known to have very rare occurrence. Very little work has been done on the population of turtle in coastal waters of Pakistan except Kabrahi and Firdous (1984)⁴⁷⁶ who calculated the population of green turtles to be about 24,000 to 36,000 and that of olive ridley turtle to be 800 and 1,200. The figures for green turtles are seemingly overestimated because even visual and casual observations of the coastal area do not verify such high concentrations of green turtle in waters of Sindh. Along the coast of Balochistan, major turtle populations are observed in Taq (Ormara), Sakoni, Astola Island and Jiwani.

5.348. Turtles are very slow growing animals and achieve maturity at about 30 to 50 years. Recruitment is considered to be very low because of high mortality at early ages due to natural predation and human interference. Most turtle species world over are considered to be severely depleted due to human and natural factors. All turtle species are considered to be threatened along the coast of Pakistan. Their populations are considered to be thin along the entire coastline. Steps have been taken by the Government to enhance population of sea turtles by banning their commercial exploitation through Wildlife acts and through a programme of enhanced recruitment by protection of eggs and juveniles of hatchling. As with most recovery programmes of sea turtles, recruitment is very slow and considerable changes will be seen only after a very long period. In Pakistan the major threats to sea turtles are anthropogenic (Table I).

5.349. Decline in sea turtle population is attributed to a number of factors in other parts of the world, including habitat alteration, loss of nesting and foraging areas, pollution and commercial harvesting. In Pakistan, probably pollution may be the only factor which to some extent started affecting turtle populations; however, it is not a serious threat owing to circulation pattern and restriction of pollution to city of Karachi. Fishing operations not targeting sea turtles, shrimp trawling, can lead to incidental catches of sea turtles, especially in the United States. However, this is not a problem in Pakistan because trawl nets have smaller mouth, the operation is done manually, the duration of fishing operation is short and shrimping grounds are located in areas not inhabited by turtles. On very small scale commercial harvest of sea turtles was done along Karachi coast in early 1970's but since then this commercial harvesting was totally stopped. Along Balochistan coast in 1982, turtle commercial harvesting was done for a few months but the Fisheries Department took immediate action and since then no commercial harvesting of turtle is done. Groombridge⁴⁷⁷ had reported mortality of turtles in Balochistan owing to commercial harvesting. These statements were based on a rapid assessment trip made to Balochistan coast during late 1980's. The harvesting referred to in these studies occurred in 1982, after which commercial harvesting was altogether stopped. Authentic information cannot be collected during snap visits to one particular area, especially if one is not familiar with the major turtle beaches and because of language barriers. Similar sweeping statements are made in these articles about utilization of sea turtles by local population. These area all based on speculations. Local population do not consume or utilize sea turtle for any specific purposes. Sonmiani has not been visited but nevertheless turtle utilization has been presumed in these areas. It can be categorically stated that turtles are not utilized nor consumed in Pakistan for any specific purpose.

5.350. The major cause of mortality amongst various factors in Pakistan seems to be natural factors. Along the Sindh coast in 1970's and along Balochistan in 1982, the major cause for the mortality was due to commercial harvesting. At that time, eggs on small scale were also harvested for utilization in some bakeries. But these practices were altogether stopped since then. About 3 to 4 turtles die each year entangled in gillnets. However, no mortality is reported from shrimp trawling operations. Habitat alteration and other human activities do not cause any mortality of turtles.

5.351. Disposal of solid waste seems to be the important anthropogenic factor which may interact with turtle populations; in particular, disposal of polyethylene bags may result in accidental ingestion by turtles. Anthropogenic factors seem to be more important at sea, especially around the city of Karachi. The pollution is restricted to Karachi area. Most of the nesting grounds are located in areas not affected by sea pollution. Egg harvesting is not done in Pakistan and no harvesting of sea turtles is practised. With the exception of gillnetting, which may lead to a few turtle mortality, other fishing operations do not affect turtle population in Pakistan. Shrimp trawling, in particular, does not lead to sea turtle mortality. It is worth mentioning shrimp trawling is not practised along the major part of the coastline. There is a total ban on the shrimp trawling along Balochistan coast which covers about 800 km (out of a total of about 1050 km coastline). It is also interesting that along the Sindh coast (about 250 km) the turtle population is restricted to about 50 km along the Western coastline. Turtles are rarely seen along the remaining 200 km of the coastline facing mouth of River Indus, which is mostly muddy. Mortality of turtles in gillnet fisheries is mostly confined to green turtles and olive ridleys are seldom reported entangled in gillnets. Other species, though reported from Pakistani waters, are of very rare occurrence.

5.352. Shrimp trawling in Pakistan does not lead to any sea turtle mortality. A few turtles, however, do die every year in gillnet fishery. Along Balochistan coast, gillnet mortality is comparatively higher (about 4 to 5 each year) as compared to Sindh where about 2 to 3 turtles die entangled in gillnets.

5.353. Direct exploitation of sea turtles is done in Pakistan. As already pointed out, in the 1970's along Sindh coast and in 1982, commercial harvesting of sea turtle was practised but since then commercial harvesting of sea turtle is effectively banned in Pakistan. Under Sindh and Balochistan Wildlife regulations turtle are declared protected animals and thus no commercial harvesting is allowed. Since turtles are not consumed locally, no illegal fishing is in practice in Pakistan. Conservation measures taken by the Government have led to the protection of the turtle populations in Pakistan.

5.354. Turtle harvesting is not done on a commercial scale in Pakistan; therefore, there is no relation of dispute with socio-economic condition of Pakistan. Turtle harvesting done in 1970's along the Sindh coast was not a regular fishery of the area. It was started by a group of exporters to meet the demand in South East Asian countries. Fishermen and the local population resented this harvesting; in particular, the local population was very much annoyed with commercial harvesting done in Ormara, Balochistan, in 1982. The Fisheries Department had to take action and stopped this operation effectively.

5.355. There is a need to start protection of the nursing ground, especially that of hatchlings and to ensure their safe release in the sea, as has been done by Sindh Wildlife Department in Sanspits area. This programme may be started in Balochistan, as well as in other areas of the Sindh coast. There is also a need to start mass scale tagging programmes to understand migration and population biology of sea turtles. There is also a need to study other aspects of sea turtle biology, such as stock assessment, natality and mortality parameters.

5.356. Turtle population in area of Taq (Ormara), which was exploited at a commercial level in 1982, has started showing signs of recovery for a period of about 3 years. In 1982 commercial harvesting was done on a small scale but because the local population protested, the Fisheries Department stopped this harvesting. Taq now receives a large number of females which lay their eggs on these beaches. Along the Sandy beaches of Sandspits, where the Government of Sindh has started egg protection in fences, more females are reported visiting these beaches for laying eggs. There seems to a stable population of turtles in the Sandspits area. Protection of sea turtles through Wildlife Acts has helped population stabilization. Though not adequately managed, the wildlife acts were instrumental in controlling commercial harvesting. This was supported by the fact that there is no commercial utilization of sea turtles by local population in Pakistan.

5.357. There is not enough long term data from Pakistan on the various life stages (eggs, hatchlings, large juveniles, sub-adults and adults) which may indicate the importance of any particular stage in population recovery or stabilization. However, results from various parts of the world showed the importance of all these stages in population recovery, depending on the areas.⁴⁷⁸ The programme of protection of eggs and hatchlings by the Government of Sind may have a bearing on the population of adults after a decade because this programme was started in 1980 and hatchlings released will mature by 2010 or later (because sea turtle mature in about 30 years or so). Since the species of sea turtles are protected by law and mortality due to gillnet fisheries or pollution is negligible, there seems to be no potential threat to turtle stocks in Pakistan. However, this does not mean that further protective measures are not needed. There seems to be a need to start work on various aspects of population biology of turtles, as well as to take steps for protection of eggs and hatchling, so that natural mortality due to predation and other factors may be reduced.

5.358. TEDs are not installed in shrimp trawlers in Pakistan because of following reasons:

• Pakistan has a substantially large shrimping fleet, consisting of about 2,000 medium sized trawlers. The net used on these trawlers is comparatively much smaller. Its opening during operation is about 2m x 15 m. In addition, the net is towed at a very slow speed, usually less that 2 knots. Because of the small size of the opening and the slow speed of the trawler, turtles can easily avoid these nets. The entrapment of turtles is seldom noticed in shrimp trawlers.
• Major shrimping grounds are located along the Sindh coast, in the areas east of Karachi.⁴⁷⁹ Indus estuarine creek and adjoining areas of the mouth of the creeks are the main areas of concentration for shrimp catching activity. The bottom of these areas is muddy cum sandy, therefore, not suitable for sea turtles. No turtle nesting is reported from the Indus estuary, associated creeks and adjoining areas.
• Major turtle nesting, feeding and breeding areas are located between Sanspits, Hawks Bay up to Cape Monz. These areas have sandy and sandy cum rocky bottom, which is ideal for turtles. Shrimp trawling is not carried out in these areas because of the bottom is not suitable. Shrimp are also not reported in these areas.
• Turtle are regarded as sacred animals and killing them is considered to be a bad omen. Fishermen, therefore, do not kill any turtle if accidentally entrapped in the net but release it immediately. In addition, there is no turtle fisheries in the country. Similarly turtles are not eaten and there is also a ban on the export of any products derived from turtles. Turtle mortality because of shrimp trawling is therefore insignificant.
• By-catch studies carried out by research organizations in Pakistan have not reported a single case of turtle entrapment, even juvenile or hatchling, in shrimp by-catch.
• Studies carried out by the Sindh Wildlife indicate that turtle population is static. There is no increase in turtle nesting due to breeding programmes.

5.359. Shrimp trawl net used in Pakistan was designed in 1958 when shrimping was introduced for the first time in Pakistan.⁴⁸⁰ No change in the design of the shrimp trawl net has been made since then. A typical shrimp trawl has a circumference of 860 meshes by 50 mm stretched mesh and a cod end of 25 mm stretched mesh, lined with a second layer of 10 mm stretched mesh.⁴⁸¹ Wooden trawlers of about 15 m are used for shrimp purposes. There is no mechanical device used on the shrimp trawler and every operation of deployment and retrieval is done manually. The crew consists of about 8 to 16 fishermen. Duration of trawl operation is about 30 minutes to one hour, depending upon the catch rate. In addition to target species, i.e. shrimp, a variety of fish and invertebrates are caught as bycatch. The Marine Fisheries Department started a programme of analysis of shrimp bycatch which indicated a preponderance of juveniles of food fishes, small fishes, invertebrates and flotsam. The study revealed that adult and juvenile turtles are not represented in the bycatch. A creel survey was conducted by Marine Fisheries Department in June and July 1997 and about 146 fishermen were interviewed to find out the frequency of turtle entrapment in shrimp trawl nets. The results revealed that turtles are very rarely entrapped in shrimp trawl nets. In almost all cases where a turtle was accidentally entrapped, it was released immediately. Fishermen have not reported any case of mortality due to drowning in net. It is worth mentioning that along the coast of Balochistan (which covers about 800 km out of 1050 km of the entire coastline of Pakistan) shrimp trawling is not allowed.

5.360. TED's are known to reduce bycatch in various parts of the world. Since no turtle dies in shrimp trawl nets in Pakistan, there seems to be no justification to press upon installation of these gears. However, under a phased programme, TED's or other bycatch reduction devices may be installed in shrimp trawl nets in Pakistan so that catch of non target species may be reduced. There is no data on TEDs efficiency in Pakistan because these gears are not installed in shrimp trawl nets. Turtle stranding has been reported by Firdous recently, especially in June; however, the mortality cannot be attributed to shrimping because June and July are closed season for shrimping. The mortality during this period may be attributed to intensive monsoonic wave action, which may result in colliding of sea turtles with man-made structures or vessels operating in the area or to any other cause but not to shrimping.

5.361. There seems to be not adequate justification for installation of TEDs in all shrimp fisheries. Pakistan shrimp fishery is an excellent example where the size of nets, tow duration and area exclusion result in no mortality of turtles. Similar practices in other parts of the world can lead to protection of sea turtle population. Advocating the installation of TEDs in all shrimping activities is, therefore, not justified. Other management tools, if properly used, can result in similar reduction of incidental mortality of sea turtles. Since TEDs are not used in Pakistan, comments on efficiency of TEDs in Pakistan cannot be made. However, there is a need for TEDs to be selected and adapted to individual local fishing conditions, in particular to the design of shrimp trawl net used in a particular area, including Indo-Pacific waters.

5.362. An effective programme of protection of sea turtle eggs and hatchlings was started under the auspices of the Wildlife Department, Government of Sindh in 1980. This work is confined to Sandspits area. It is believed that this programme has helped to at least maintain the population of sea turtles to a static level, if not to restore the population. Stop and control on commercial onslaught of sea turtles and harvesting of their eggs, general public awareness are other benefits of this programme. Long terms effects of these conservation measures will be known only after a few decades because turtles take a very long time to mature. Similar programmes started in other countries, especially to control or prohibit control of egg harvests as a conservation measure, but no evidence of recovery of any of these populations.⁴⁸² Although egg protection and hatchling release started in Pakistan in early 1980's, it seems difficult to assess the effects of such a programme on the recovery of the adult population after a period of about two decades. It will take another ten to fifteen years before any substantive evidence on the population recovery is available. However, studies in other parts of the world based on modelling indicate that protection of eggs/hatchlings may have a major impact on long term stock viability.⁴⁸³

5.363. Sea turtle migration is not well understood in all parts of the world. However, it is known that breeding adults usually migrate over very long distances from breeding areas to foraging grounds. Such information is especially lacking about sea turtle populations inhabiting the Arabian Sea. One specimen of sea turtle tagged in Pakistan (Sindh coast) was captured in Kutch, India, which indicates that there is a long distance migration involved in populations inhabiting Arabian Sea; however, to understand the actual migration pattern and their seasonality, etc., it is necessary to have regional cooperation amongst the countries of the area, as well as to increase tagging programme. Information on the typical range of migration of sea turtles is not available for sea turtle populations living along the coast of Pakistan. However, sea turtles are known to have extensive migration.

5.364. Shrimp are known to inhabit shallow coastal waters predominantly in areas with muddy cum candy bottom. This is the reason why most shrimping grounds along the coast of Pakistan are located in front of River Indus delta. Other shrimping grounds are Gaddani (in Sonmiani Bay) and Pasni, etc. All these areas have muddy cum sandy bottom. Major turtle populations of sea turtles which spend a part of their life cycle in shallow coastal waters inhabit areas with sandy or rocky cum sandy bottoms. However, there may be marginal overlapping of shrimping and turtle foraging and breeding areas. However, because of short tow duration and small mouth opening of the trawl net, turtle entrapments in shrimp trawl operations are very rare. Even if some turtles get entrapped, they do not die because of short tow duration. Since turtles are considered sacred animals in Pakistan, they are released immediately. No nesting ground is located in shrimping areas along Pakistan's coast. Statistically there is significant difference in incidental catches of sea turtle in shrimping nets in various parts of the world.⁴⁸⁴ However, since no incidental mortality of sea turtles is reported from Pakistan, a comparison with other fisheries cannot be made.

5.365. Sea turtle populations of all species are not affected by shrimp trawling in Pakistan. Even if it is presumed that mortality of turtles occurs due to shrimp trawl operations, then there should be stranded carcasses of sea turtles on the beaches, especially during peak shrimping period, i.e., August and October. In such instances, strandings should occur on the beaches east of Karachi, especially Clifton, Bundal Island and islands on Indus creeks, since shrimp trawling operations during this period are carried out in the nearshore areas off Karachi and Indus delta. However, no stranding of dead turtles was observed in the area.

4. Comments by Thailand

5.366. Review of the experts' responses to the Panel's questions reveals that the factual issues before the Panel are highly complex and that much of the available data is subject to varying interpretations. However, in general the responses contradict many of the "facts" that the United States has asserted to support its position that the measures are justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994. Based on the responses, the Panel should determine that the US shrimp embargo is inconsistent with the GATT 1994 and should recommend that the United States dismantle the embargo in conformity with its obligations under the GATT 1994.⁴⁸⁵

5.367. In support of its claim that the conservation measures at issue are "necessary" and therefore justified by Article XX(b), the United States has asserted that: (i) accidental drowning in shrimp trawl nets is the greatest single cause of human-induced sea turtle mortality and (ii) other measures to protect sea turtles are not sufficient to allow sea turtles to recover from the brink of extinction. To support its contention that the measures "relate to" the conservation of an exhaustible natural resources as required by Article XX(g), the United States has asserted that shrimp trawl nets have caused the greatest number of human-induced sea turtle deaths, accounting for more sea turtle deaths than all other human activities combined, and (ii) TEDs are highly effective in preventing such mortality.

5.368. In addition, in response to arguments raised by Thailand, the United States asserted that the measures were "made effective in conjunction with" domestic legislation as required by Article XX(g) because TEDs technology was readily available by the mid-1990's so that, by the time that Section 609 became applicable to the complainants, they were able to reap the benefits of the research and development that the United States had been undertaking on TEDs technology for many years and therefore received even-handed treatment irrespective of the fact that they were not give the same phase-in period provided to US shrimpers. Finally, and again in response to arguments raised by Thailand, the United States argued that the measures complied with the Preamble of Article XX since at the time the TEDs requirement applied to initially affected nations, TEDs technology was neither as well-developed nor as readily available, especially for developing countries; by the time Section 609 became applicable to shrimp harvested in the complainants' countries, extraordinarily effective TEDs were both inexpensive and easily available, making the adoption of TEDs programmes considerably more feasible.

5.369. A review of the responses provided by the experts demonstrates that the above assertions are incorrect. In general, the information provided indicates that a majority of the experts disagree with these factual assertions. On the whole, the experts' responses demonstrate that the United States has not, and cannot, meet its burden of establishing that the measures at issue are justified by Article XX.

5.370. The United States has alleged that "the greatest human-related cause of sea turtle mortality is drowning in shrimp trawl nets" and has relied upon this assertion to demonstrate that its conservation measures are "necessary" within the meaning of Article XX(b). However, a majority of the experts consulted by the Panel recognize that different sea turtle species and even different populations or stocks of the same species are subject to different threats in different locations. Additionally, the responses demonstrate that even when the same threat is present in multiple locations, the significance of that threat may vary in each location. Consistent with these general observations, the experts have identified multiple sources of mortality for sea turtles in Thailand; while it is generally stated that the overall impact of each source cannot be quantified, it is clear from the responses that within Thailand, the significance varies by species and location. Thus, while shrimp trawling is the greatest human-induced threat to sea turtles in US waters, the responses demonstrate that this is not categorically true elsewhere, and it is not true in Thailand.

To Continue With Chapter 5.371

⁴⁷⁰ Referred to by Frazier, para. 5.196.

⁴⁷¹ Guinea para. 5.198.

⁴⁷² Eckert para. 5.74.

⁴⁷³ Liew paras. 5.138-139 and Poiner para. 5.140.

⁴⁷⁴ Guinea paras. 5.14-18.

⁴⁷⁵ Butler, E.A., (1877), Astola, a summer cruise in the Gulf of Oman, Stray Feathers, Calcutta, 5:293-304; Firdous, F., (1986), Marine turtle, Proceedings of International Conference on Marine Science of the Arabian sea, Institute of Marine Sciences, University of Karachi; Ghalib, S.A., and S.S.H. Zaidi, (1976), Observations on the survey and breeding of marine turtles of Karachi coast, Agric. Pak 27(1):87-96; Groombridge, B., (1982), The IUCN Amphibia-Reputilia Red Data Book, Part I, Testudines, Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland; Groombridge, B., (1983), A preliminary environmental profile of the India-Pakistan Bodelands in the Sind-Kutch region, IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre, Report for the World Bank; Groombridge, B., (1987a), A preliminary marine turtle survey on the Makran coast, Baluchistan, Pakistan with notes on birds and mammals, Unpublished report, IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge; Groombridge, B., (1987b), Makran coast: a newly explored habitat for marine turtle, WWF-Pakistan Newsletter 6(2):1-5; Groombridge, B., (1989), Marine turtles in Baluchistan: report of an aerial survey, 9-11 September 1988, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, U.K; Groombridge, B., A.M. Kabraji and A.K. Rao, (1988), Marine turtle in Baluchistan (Pakistan), Marine Turtle Newsletter 42:1-3; Kabraji, A.M., and F. Firdous, (1984), Conservation of turtle, Hawkesbay and Sandspits, Pakistan, World Wildlife Fund Project 1451, Unpublished report, WWF International ad Sind Wildlife management board, 52 p.; Khan, M.S. and M.R. Mirza, (1976), An annotated chcklist and key to the reptiles of Pakistan, Part I, Chelonia and Crocodilia, Biologia, Lahore, 22(2):211-219; Minton, S.A., (1962), An annotated key to the amphibians and reptiles of Sind and Las Bela, West Pakistan, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. hist. 134; Minton, S.A., (1966), A contribution to the herpetology of West Pakistan, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. hist. 142(2); Pernetta, J.C., (ed.), (1993), Marine Protected Area Needs in the South Asian Seas Region, Volume 4, Pakistan, A marine conservation and Development Report, IUCN, Grland, Switzerland, 42 p.; Shockley, C.H., (1949), Herpetological notes from Ras Jiunri, Baluchistan Herpetologogica 5:121.

⁴⁷⁶ Kabraji, A.M., and F. Firdous, (1984), Conservation of turtle, Hawkesbay and Sandspits, Pakistan, World Wildlife Fund Project 1451, Unpublished report, WWF International ad Sind Wildlife management board, 52 p. 

⁴⁷⁷ Groombridge, B., (1987a), A preliminary marine turtle survey on the Makran coast, Baluchistan, Pakistan with notes on birds and mammals, Unpublished report, IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge; Groombridge, B., (1987b), Makran coast: a newly explored habitat for marine turtle, WWF-Pakistan Newsletter 6(2):1-5; Groombridge, B., A.M. Kabraji and A.K. Rao, (1988), Marine turtle in Baluchistan (Pakistan), Marine Turtle Newsletter 42:1-3.

⁴⁷⁸ Chaloupka, M.Y. and Musick, J.A., (1997), Age, growth and population dynamics, p. 233-276, in: The Biology of Sea Turtle, Eds. P.K. Lutz and J.A. Musick, CRC Press, Boca raton, USA; Crouse, D.T., L.B. Crowder and N. Casewell, (1987), A stage based population model for loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation, Ecology 68:1412-1423; Crowder, L.B., D.T. Crouse, S.S. Heppell and T.H. Martin, (1994), Predicting the impact of turtle excluder devices on loggerhead sea turtle populations, Ecological Implications 4:437-445.

⁴⁷⁹ Zupanovic, S., (1973), The Pakistan Shrimp resources, FAO TA-3218, FAO, Rome, 76 p.

⁴⁸⁰ FAO, (1995), Report to the Government of Pakistan on mechanisation of West Pakistan fishing boats, UNDP/FAO, TA; Jaleel, S.A., (1978), Fish resources of Pakistan, UNESCO/IOC Advanced Regional Traning Course in Biological Oceanography, karachi, Pakistan (4-30 November 1978), 21p.; Qureshi, M.R., (1961), Pakistan's Fisheries, Central Fisheries Department, Karachi, Pakistan, Government of Pakistan Press, Karachi.

⁴⁸¹ Khan, M.Y., (1994), Fishing techniques in coastal waters of Pakistan, in: Proceedings of national Seminar of Fisheries Policy and Planning, Marine Fisheries Department, Government of Pakistan, Karachi 345-364; Van Zalinge, M. Khaliluddin and W. Khan, Pakistan's Shrimp Fishery, in: Proceedings of national Seminar on Fisheries Policy and Planning, Marine Fisheries Department, Government of Pakistan, Karachi 130-177.

⁴⁸² Limpus, C., (1997), Marine turtle population of South east Asia and Western Pacific Region: Distribution and Status, p. 37-72, Proceedings of Workshop on Marine Turtle Research and Management in Indonesia.

⁴⁸³ Somers, I., (1994), Modelling loggerhead turtle populations, in: Proceedings of the Marine Turtle Conservation Workshop, p. 142-153, (Comp. R. James), Australian National Park and Wildlife Service, Canberra, Australia.

⁴⁸⁴ Pointer, I.R. and A.N.M. Harris, (1996), Incidental capture, direct mortality and delayed mortality of sea turtles in Australia's Northern Prawn Fishery, Mar. Biol. 125:813-825.

⁴⁸⁵ In presenting these arguments, Thailand does not concede any of its legal arguments concerning whether the Article XX exceptions invoked are applicable to the measures at issue.