Brussels, 19/03/2010 (Agence Europe) - Whatever environmentalists may think, bluefin tuna will remain on the shelves for some time yet, as a result of differing views among countries on how to protect this overfished species. In Doha, Qatar, on Thursday 18 March, a large majority (68 to 20, with 30 abstentions, including the EU) of states party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) rejected the proposal from Monaco to ban international trade in bluefin tuna. With its successful lobbying, Japan, the largest consumer of thunnus thynnus, persuaded several developing countries not to hit the lucrative sushi market. The ball has, then, been put back into the court of ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas), which, in November of this year, will meet in Paris probably to decide on tougher measures for the management of bluefin tuna stocks and to limit fishing activity for this species. No ban, however, is in prospect.
The European Commission immediately condemned CITES' refusal to suspend exports of Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna. “We are disappointed with the outcome of the CITES meting as regards the EU proposal for a listing in Appendix I of bluefin tuna,” said European Commissioners Janez Potoènik (Environment) and Maria Damanaki (Fisheries) in a joint press release. “We regret that other parties were not convinced with the merits” of a ban on international trade, but the EU remains determined to safeguard bluefin tuna and looks to ICCAT to assume its responsibility in ensuring that stocks are managed sustainably, the two commissioners add. “If action is not taken, there is a very serious danger that the bluefin tuna will no longer exist,” they warn.
The scenario is somewhat similar to that of the climate talks in Copenhagen and demonstrates the extent of the EU's failure to predict the outcome of international negotiations - unless the whole thing was merely a charade to allow economic interests to ultimately win the day over other considerations. The EU very recently, and with great difficulty, agreed a firm stance in favour of inclusion of bluefin tuna on CITES Appendix I (which equates to an end to international trade) with certain provisos - deferred implementation, retention of the small-scale fishery, aid measures for fishermen affected, etc. This position was roundly defeated in CITES (72 against, 43 for).
When the Monaco proposal was put to the vote, the EU, curiously, abstained. Apparently, it tried in vain to get an addition to the Monaco proposal that would have deferred implementation until new scientific advice was received.
The EU, like Monaco, the United States and Norway, wanted a working group to be set up to assess possible amendments to the proposal. Libya and Sudan, however, short-circuited proceedings, calling for the vote to be carried out immediately. “I regret that the a full debate could not take place and that I was not given the opportunity to respond to a number of untruths,” said Patrick an Klaveren, head of the Monaco delegation. “Most countries decided to leave it up to ICCAT,” he said, before calling on ICCAT to show that it was up to resolving the problem. “Otherwise, it isn't CITES that will have ruined fishermen, but Nature that will deliver sanction against which there can be no appeal,” he concluded.
Masanori Miyahara of Japan expressed his “satisfaction” and, immediately wearing his two hats, as chief adviser for Japanese fisheries and his country's representative to ICCAT, he added: “But we have lots of homework to do”. From his arrival in Doha, Miyahara argued that CITES was not the right instrument for managing tuna stocks. “Let's do the work with ICCAT, not CITES,” he repeated on Thursday, stating that otherwise it would be “almost impossible” afterwards to lift the trade ban. Even Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, on Friday 19 March, welcomed CITES' refusal to ban the bluefin tuna trade, a decision that will mean that there will be no price rises for this fish.
Van Klaveren pointed out to delegates that, in 1992, a similar proposal from Sweden had been rejected and management of bluefin tuna stocks given to ICCAT. “The result was that the stock's reproductive capacity went from 200,000 tonnes to 60,000 tonnes in under 20 years, tuna halved in size … and illegal fishing increased threefold,” he stated.
Japan, which consumes 80% of the bluefin tuna caught, stands accused of frenetic lobbying, succeeding in bring on board many developing countries (Tunisia, Indonesia, Venezuela, Chile, Korea and Morocco) which supported ICCAT's having the main role.
France wants EU to continue fight. France will propose that the EU continue to work towards the inclusion of bluefin tuna in CITES Appendix II, a joint press release from the French Ecology, Agriculture and Fisheries Ministries said on Thursday. Appendix I bans international trade. Appendix II imposes strict control on trade, for which an export licence is necessary. At the start of February, France came out in favour of a ban on the international trade in bluefin tuna, with an 18-month delay before implementation.
The United States criticised the CITES outcome, saying that it was a reversal for the protection of the species.
Vote of shame. The Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament is talking about a “vote of shame”, according to a press release. “Such an error cannot be allowed to happen again: the EU - largely in favour of listing bluefin tuna - must act as a single bloc at the forthcoming ICCAT meeting in November,” the group says. “This was a vote against the survival of the species - it's a bad day for fishermen and for the planet,” it added. (L.C./transl.rt)