COMMERCE
Subscriber Services
Classified Ads
Subscribe
Advertise
NEWS
This Month
Editorial
Letters
F/V Safety
Past Issues
ABOUT US
Contact Us
Latest Issue
Subscribe
History
MORE CONTENT
CFN Archives
Links
Each month exclusively in the PRINT edition of CFN
Along the Coast
Ask the Lobster Doc
Bearin’s
Classifieds
Coming Events
Editorial
Enforcement Report
FISH SAFE
Fleet Additions
Letters
Lobster Market Report
New Boats
News Catch
Quahog Market Report
|
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 37 Number 8
April 2010
CITES rejects bluefin, dogfish trade limits
DOHA, QATAR – In an uplifting victory for the US industry, a well-financed, relentless campaign by several powerful environmental groups to ban the international trade of bluefin tuna was defeated in a decisive and surprisingly quick vote.
Delegates to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) took up the proposal, which was sponsored by the Principality of Monaco, for an Appendix I listing to prohibit country-to-country sale on March 18.
Observers had anticipated the proposal would be sent to a working group for further discussion and that a vote would be called later during the March 13-25 meeting.
However, debate began at once. The European Union, which had agreed to conditionally support the proposal, immediately introduced an amendment to delay the trade ban until May 2011.
Then, according to the CITES press office, Japan, Canada, and several Arab League nations took the floor to deliver vigorous opposition to an Appendix I listing, arguing that ICCAT, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, was the appropriate body to manage Atlantic bluefin.
They added that an Appendix I listing would not stop fishing on bluefin. Indeed, Japan, the word’s largest importer of bluefin, had made it clear prior to the meeting that it would exercise its right to opt out of any trade ban.
After what was described as a “passionate and relatively short debate,” the representative of Libya ended the discussion by calling for a vote. Iceland requested a secret ballot.
And when the voting was done, the tally was 20 for, 68 against, and 30 abstentions.
CITES not the way
US industry people were elated and a little amazed at the outcome.
“I’ve never been in a fight where I had more going against me,” said Steve Weiner, an Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Association (ABTA) Executive Committee member. “The only thing going for us is that we were right, and sometimes that’s not enough.”
Anticipating a delay in consideration of the proposal, Rich Ruais, ABTA executive director, wasn’t yet in Qatar when the decision was made and was pleasantly caught off guard by the outcome.
“The vote was a resounding defeat for the environmental groups such as the Pew Environment Group that poured millions of dollars into the effort to ban trade,” he said.
The US industry groups, along with Japan, Canada, and many other countries that opposed the Appendix I listing, emphasized that it was inappropriate to use a CITES listing as a tool to deal with conservation concerns for marine species.
“This was precedent setting,” Ruais said. “You can’t have an important commercial fish like bluefin tuna under a CITES listing.”
There is such uncertainty about actual population sizes and such differing opinions about what constitutes a fully rebuilt stock that any fish or shark would have been vulnerable to trade restrictions had the proposal passed, he explained.
“Three-quarters of species would be susceptible or meet CITES criteria under some scenarios,” Ruais said. “CITES should not be involved in fish management.”
Snowe’s support
Despite intensive lobbying by industry and intervention by a number of members of Congress, most notably US Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), the formal position of the US government going into the CITES meeting was to support the Appendix I listing.
Tom Strickland, assistant secretary of the Interior Department, headed up the US CITES delegation. He called the vote against the listing “a set-back” for the Atlantic bluefin tuna but said that the US would continue to work for sustainable management.
“The responsibility is now on ICCAT to manage the fishery in a sustainable manner,” he said following the vote. “The world is watching.”
However, even after Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service announced the formal US position, Snowe fought hard to tamp down enthusiasm for pushing the listing during several meetings with Interior Sec. Salazar.
She praised the CITES vote.
“From the outset I have opposed this misguided policy, and I applaud today’s decision,” Snowe said in a March 18 statement. “Approval of this listing would have had crippling effects on the US bluefin tuna industry and institutionalized a perverse incentive by effectively punishing countries like the US that attempt to impose responsible domestic fishery management.”
Fight’s not over
But US fishermen had barely a moment to savor their victory. Dismayed and angered by the outcome, environmental groups lost no time in gearing up to hit back.
In addition to urging ICCAT to set much lower fishing quotas and scrap purse seiners in the Mediterranean, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) asked consumers to stop purchasing bluefin tuna.
“WWF is continuing to encourage the global seafood market – traders, retailers, restaurants, and chefs, as well as consumers –- to take matters into their own hands by stopping buying, selling, cooking, serving, and eating this endangered fish,” the fund said. “This action will help give Atlantic bluefin tuna a breather and will also send a strong message to decision-makers that business as usual is simply no longer acceptable.”
While ABTA Executive Committee member Ralph Pratt said he was obviously happy about the CITES decision, the move to target consumers represented another immediate and serious threat.
“Our markets are being attacked by the environmental groups, so this battle isn’t over,” he said
Added Ruais, “We’ve got to be prepared to counter the onslaught of attacks on our markets.”
He pointed out that environmentalists used a similar strategy through the “Give Swordfish a Break” campaign. And even though ICCAT management led to a rapid and full recovery of the North Atlantic swordfish stocks, the negative effect of the campaign reverberates to this day.
“Swordfish has never recovered,” Ruais said. “We can’t let that happen to bluefin.”
In another reaction to the CITES defeat, Pew hosted a web-based press conference on March 25, just as Commercial Fisheries News was going to press, to detail a new campaign to prohibit surface longlining in the Gulf of Mexico.
Dogfish spared
In other developments, CITES delegates voted down proposed listings for all shark species, including an Appendix II listing proposal for spiny dogfish that would have crippled the US export market to Europe.
According to Ruais, country after country offered four main reasons for defeating the listing proposals: fisheries should be managed by regional fishery management entities, not CITES; it’s difficult to properly identify many shark species; CITES listings would have negative impacts on coastal economies, particularly in developing nations; and ICCAT is becoming more effective at seeing through stock rebuilding plans.
An Appendix II listing for porbeagles was initially approved but later retracted.
Lorelei Stevens
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
