It is not the first time that Ecuadorian shrimp have been investigated internationally. First it was in the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the period from 2004 to 2006 and in the courts of the United States between 2012 and 2013, and the two processes in those years “were successfully concluded for Ecuador”, recalls Xavier Valverde, expert lawyer in environmental and aquaculture law. He is optimistic that this time, of course, in the new investigation launched by the trade authorities of the United States disposal and subsidy, positive results will be achieved again and it will be possible to “ratify the recognitions that Ecuadorian shrimp already enjoy.”

What are the expectations this time?

There are procedures, instances, and in each of them Ecuador will be able to develop and ratify the recognitions already enjoyed by Ecuadorian shrimp, which have managed to stand out from the rest of the shrimp in the world… It has the highest standards, certificates and international labeling.

So there are great opportunities?

Of course. (Although) the situation has changed a lot from that time to today. Ecuador is part of international conventions, such as the Paris Convention, which means that Ecuador must apply international obligations within its regulations. It is very important to distinguish international obligations from being subsidies, subsidies or disposal.

How is what is happening now different from the other two times?

Only one thing is the same, those who are suing us are the alleged group of North American shrimp processors and they are the same economic group that condemned and sued us for disposal In 2004 and 2012, but then as shrimp hunters. Complaints are absurd.

The shrimp industry asserts that the U.S. industry claims, based on limited information, that ‘dumping’ has occurred and that subsidies have been secured

Why do you describe the complaints as ‘absurd’?

For three reasons. The first, due to the lack of legitimacy that the plaintiffs have, because they are the same sectors that deal with trawling, which violates all the regulations established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, while Ecuador deals with shrimp production. through pools and aquaculture farms. Therefore, it is not the same activity and since it is not the same activity, therefore it is not the same product, it cannot exist. disposal.

Secondly, our activity is exploitation, theirs is extractive activity, that is the difference.

And thirdly, there are no targeted subsidies from Ecuador (shrimp sector), there are international policies and obligations that are aimed at the entire Ecuadorian industry with the transition of international agreements.

So Ecuador is in line with international standards?

It works so well and it succeeded, that’s why today we export what we export to North America, to Europe, to other continents and we managed to escape a little from our dependence on Asia.

Since they are the same prosecutors and already have results in favor of Ecuador, what result are they looking for now?

What they want to ask tomorrow is to affect by imposing tariffs on all Ecuadorian shrimp or to affect only the shrimp that come from these two companies, Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila and Sociedad Nacional de Galápagos (Songa), and that is something that they will have to clarify for me within the procedure .

Has the US Department of Commerce extended the deadlines for the preliminary results of the subsidy case and the dumping investigation?

Part of the procedure is established by having a preliminary stage, in which information is gathered to verify the authenticity of the arguments of the plaintiffs, and then comes the process by which they arrive at the verification of the information presented in both by Ecuador and by the companies that are the subject investigations, which in this case are two, Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila and Songa, and these extensions are completely normal.