There's still lots to uncover in the Tuna panel report. Here's something on PPMs:
7.369 Finally, Mexico contends that the US measures unilaterally exert pressure on the Mexican fleet to change fishing areas and/or fishing methods, which Mexico argues is evidence of the de factodiscriminatory effect of the measures. For Mexico, the fact that the US measures are aimed at encouraging foreign fishing fleets such as those of Mexico to change either their fishing areas or their methods is further evidence of the link between the US measures and the WTO-inconsistent discrimination. In its view, such an attempt at extraterritorial regulation by the United States is inconsistent with the national treatment and most-favoured nation obligations and the obligations in the WTO Agreements must not be interpreted so as to allow a WTO Member to condition access to its domestic market based on compliance with that Member's unilateral policy relating to actions outside its territory, including unincorporated processes and production methods (PPMs).
...
7.371 In considering Mexico's arguments on this point, we recall the Appellate Body's observation, in US – Shrimp, that:
"It is not necessary to assume that requiring from exporting countries compliance with, or adoption of, certain policies (although covered in principle by one or another of the exceptions) prescribed by the importing country, renders a measure a priori incapable of justification under Article XX. Such an interpretation renders most, if not all, of the specific exceptions of Article XX inutile, a result abhorrent to the principles of interpretation we are bound to apply."
Although this statement was made in the context of an analysis under Article XX, it implies that the fact that the measures at issue reflect a certain choice of policy or standard is not in itself a reason to assume that a measure is WTO-inconsistent. The same considerations are pertinent, in our view, in the context of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement.
7.372 We also note that the US dolphin-safe labelling provisions do not require the importing Member to comply with any particular fishing method (these measures do not state, for example, that no tuna may be imported if it originates in a country where tuna is caught by setting on dolphins). Rather, it is the products themselves that need to comply with the requirements of the labelling scheme, if they wish to benefit from the label and make dolphin-safe claims on the US market.
