Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION
Libyan rant may have sealed bluefin tuna's fate
By: The Economist
It was a moment of some drama when delegates assembled in
Doha came to
vote on a ban in the trade in bluefin tuna on March 18. The
previous
evening, many representatives of the 175 member nations of
the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
had been
at a reception at the Japanese embassy. Prominent on the menu
was
bluefin tuna sushi.
On the agenda the next day at the CITES meeting was a proposal
to list
the bluefin tuna as sufficiently endangered it would qualify
for a
complete ban in the trade of the species. The complex proposal
called
for further discussion of the bluefin tuna's plight. Europe,
the United
States, Monaco and Norway were hoping to move to an adjournment,
which
would have allowed a proper investigation of the issues over
the weekend.
Kevern Cochrane, the representative from the UN's Food and
Agriculture
Organization, agreed. He also acknowledged the official FAO
panel had
decided the species met the scientific criteria for listing
as a
sufficiently endangered species qualifying for a trade ban
-- the
bluefin tuna population has dropped below 15 per cent of its
maximum
historical level.
At this stage, eyewitnesses report the Libyan delegation made
an unusual
intervention. According to David Allison of OCEANA, a marine
charity,
the Libyan delegate started "screaming and calling everyone
liars.
He said the science was no good and it was part of a conspiracy
of
developed countries. It was theatre. Then he stopped screaming
and
called for an immediate vote."
Another witness, Sergi Tudela, a fisheries expert with the
WWF, agreed.
"The Libyan representative accused the FAO of serving
political
interests and said there was no scientific basis for the listing."
After this the talking stopped. The call for a ban, proposed
by Monaco,
was put to an immediate vote using a procedural ploy and rejected
with
68 votes against, 20 in favour and 30 abstentions.
The Americans, in particular, are disappointed. A number of
agencies had
been working hard to prepare for the meeting, none more so
than the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The NOAA responded to the vote by committing to ensure the
organization,
which currently manages bluefin tuna (albeit woefully), would
implement
fully its commitments and would continue to try to reduce fishing
levels
in line with scientific advice.
The Japanese, however, will be delighted. The country has
been lobbying
hard against the ban for some time.
The outlook for the bluefin tuna is not good. Scientists already
agree
the population is crashing, and that quotas allocated to fishermen
remain too generous to give any reasonable degree of certainty
of a
recovery. The extent to which illegal fishing can be brought
under
control will also have a big impact on whether the population
has a
chance of recovering. It seems likely a fresh attempt to list
bluefin
tuna will have to wait until the next CITES meeting in three
years time.
That may be too late for the bluefin tuna. Libya has used
a procedural
ruse to force a vote without any substantial discussion of
the
scientific, technical or economic issues. It has sidestepped
the only
public forum that exists to discuss whether action is needed
to save a
species that is being fished, traded and eaten to extinction.
Had the discussion taken place before a vote to reject the
trade ban,
this would at least have counted as an honourable victory.
Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition March
22, 2010 A12
