Tuesday, 16th March 2010 - 16:35CET
Malta denies trying to reopen EU tuna debate
The Ministry of Resources and Rural Affairs this evening denied that Malta was trying to reopen the EU debate on the proposed ban on the international trade of tuna during the CITES talks in Doha, but said it had requested legal advice on the interpretation of the EU position.
Malta last week was the only member state to vote against the EU decision to back the proposal to ban the tuna trade.
The French environment ambassador in the Doha talks, Laurent Stefanini, this afternoon was quoted as having criticised Malta and Portugal for trying to reopen the EU debate.
The Resources Ministry said the EU position was based on certain conditions, including stock assessments that would be carried out in October by the Scientific Committee of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).
“Malta asked for a clarification from the EU Council Legal Services of how the EU’s mandate should be interpreted in case the conditions agreed upon by the EU Member States are not taken on board in the final vote on bluefin tuna,” the ministry said. The legal position is still being awaited.
Halting cross-border trade in bluefin tuna caught in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean is at the top of the agenda of the Doha meeting.
Japan, which consumes three-quarters of the global catch of this dwindling species, is campaigning fiercely against the proposal.
But signs of cracks emerged today within the European Union (EU) which, with the United States, is the motion's biggest backer.
"Malta and Portugal wanted to reopen discussions on what had been agreed as the European stance," said Stefanini. "The outcome (of the CITES talks) is probably going to make some member states unhappy."
At a meeting in Brussels last week, EU nations overruled opposition from Malta to say they accepted evidence stocks of tuna in the two fisheries had crashed over the past 30 years, bringing the species to the verge of extinction.
The idea is to include fish from the Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic under CITES' Appendix 1, although catches in the Pacific and elsewhere will still be allowed.
The EU has also asked for implementation to be postponed until a November meeting of International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the inter-governmental fishery group that manages tuna stocks in the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas.
In Tokyo, meanwhile, Japanese Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Hirotaka Akamatsu said Japan now had China's support to oppose the ban.
"China has not announced its stance officially, but is actively lobbying other countries to oppose" the ban, Akamatsu told reporters. "There also are countries which are neutral or wavering."
CITES has 175 nations, around 150 of which are attending the conference in the Qatari capital.
Under its rulebook, a two-thirds majority of those voting is needed to approve a proposal, although Japan has already said it will ignore any ban.
Tokyo argues that bluefin is not facing extinction, although it acknowledges that the current size of catch is probably unsustainable. The solution, it insists, is stricter management of fisheries.
Bluefin is used especially in sushi and sashimi and can fetch more than 100,000 dollars per fish on the Tokyo market.
Malta is considered to have the largest tuna ranching facilities in the Mediterranean and Maltese fisherman also have become dependent on tuna exports to Japan to sustain their living.
According to the Federation of Aquaculture Producers, tuna exports have become the third most exported Maltese product, amounting to about €100 million in value last year.
RSS
Comments
At present there is no captive breeding of Tuna, were this possible the problems the wild stock is encountering could be rectified reasonably quickly.
The pens that you are probably referring to are where entire shoals are placed for fattening prior to culling and release to the market.
The method of capture is extremely efficient, involving spotter planes, and seine netting vessels. It is this efficiency which creates the problem: an entire shoal is captured and ergo the breeding potential of that shoal of Tuna is removed by 100%.
The traditional Maltese methods for fishing Tuna were sustainable, and should be preserved and encouraged, the same being true for sustainable fishing worldwide, however industrial fishing without the possibility of a captive breeding program spells disaster for the Blue-fin Tuna.
Il-Kummissarju Malti accetta li fl-UE jinzerghu organizmi genetikament modifikati meta l-massa tan-nies kontrihom, izda Barroso riedhom. Naraw jispiccax fuq xi bord ta' Siemens jew Monsanto meta jispicca barroso kif gara ghan-Nord Stream
Ser niehdu fama tajba
alfred
IF this is not possible, the European Union should guarantee the same revenue from the tuna exports which is around €100 million to Malta annually towards the re-generation of the Blue Fin Tuna to replace the revenue lost from the exports.
The fishermen that have become dependent on tuna exports to Japan should be trained by the European Union to cultivate and re-generate the Blue Fin Tuna and in turn will be able to sustain their living this way instead of exporting Tuna to Japan.
If the European Union issues bans but doesn't counter react the ban with a productive policy then I am afraid that the Euro Zone will be in peril, later or sooner then any one might even imagine, if not in peril already especially if one mentions the case of Greece and the possible pending bailouts!
Why should we lose this industry when the Pacific is still open for fishing? Either a ban everywhere or nowhere.
I strongly believe that this statement is misleading to say the least. Maltese fishermen (not fisherman) do not own and manage the tune pens in Malta, but it is a handful of speculators who do. Thus they are the fat pigs who are worried about Malta losing the €100 million. It is true that through this activity of tuna penning, the Maltese fishermen are effected as they sell their fish catch as food to these tuna pens and thus the price of fish in malta has increased and so did the fishermen's profit.
Can we have an official statement which tells us how much of the €100 million goes and remains in Maltese pockets and/or Malta Treasury? How many foreign and Maltese persons are directly employed fulltime and part-time in this industry?
I hope we have an official answer, as I have been asking these same questions for the last two years, without any answers given.