Proposed bluefin tuna trade ban rejected
The UN body overseeing commerce in endangered wildlife today rejected a proposal to outlaw international trade in eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna, a sushi mainstay in Japan.
The controversial proposal for so-called Appendix I status was quashed with 68 votes against, 20 in favour and 30 abstentions at a meeting in Doha of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
The measure would have needed the support of two-thirds of the nations present to pass.
The EU had been backing the proposed ban, having over-ruled opposition from Malta, the biggest exporter of tuna in Europe.
Bluefin tuna stocks in the Atlantic and Mediterranean have crashed, with populations declining by up to 80 percent from only three or four decades ago.
Japan, which buys three-quarters of the global catch of bluefin tuna, lobbied successfully in Doha and elsewhere to block the proposal, put forward by Monaco and backed by the United States and the European Union.
An EU proposal that would have delayed the Appendix I listing by 18 months was likewise rejected by an even wider margin: 72 "no" votes, 43 "yes" and 24 abstentions.
Anticipating a possible defeat, Monaco was set to table amendments to its proposal, while Europe -- backed by Norway -- was poised to call for the formation of a working group to hammer out a compromise.
But in a procedural move, Libya short-circuited the debate and called for an up-or-down vote on the original proposition.
"This is very disappointing and very irresponsible," said Sue Lieberman, policy director for the Pew Environment Group in Washington.
"The fate of tuna is now, once again, in the hands of ICCAT," she said, referring to International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.
ICCAT has "demonstrated over a period of decades" its inability to enforce its own quotas for tuna catches, she added.
26 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
D. Farrugia
Mar 19th 2010, 00:41
Truly a sad decision which will have dire consequences for conservation. Malta and Japan must be overjoyed with this shortsighted move. Eventually this species WILL be fished into oblivion in no time. Then the next, and the other until the entire fish stocks are depleted. Well done UN you've just earned yourself a big shiny medal for taking one of the worst decisions in the history of humankind.
Malcolm Borg
Mar 18th 2010, 21:42
Another defeat for the environment!
We can start preparing an aquarium bearing the name: 'Aquarium of what was once our third greatest export. Entrance Fee: 5 euros' while the Japanese can start prepring another one: 'Museum of what was once our biggest food delicacy.'
People can't seem to realise that resources are FINITE. FINITE: they WILL finish.
Paul Piscopo
Mar 18th 2010, 21:04
@ Ruben Caruana
Note that the tuna diet is blue fish such as the mackerel, horse mackerel, squid. Jelly fish has nothing to do with tuna.
I remind you that Maltese Authorities and small scale fishermen are aware of the situation. The point is banning was not the solution. Control should be done in every part of the world.
Antonio Anastasi
Mar 18th 2010, 22:04
@Paul Piscopo.
The banning of fishing tuna, even for a short period of 4 years, would have paid dividends to all people concerned with this industry allowing stocks to mature.
Controlling the fisheries would NOT work here as we have a very poor track record of environmental enforcement.
As things stands its all about the money TODAY, and tomorrow be damned.
Eric Gahn
Mar 18th 2010, 19:34
A great big well done to all who voted against or abstained. I now suggest you let the taste of every bite of tuna you take tittilate the taste buds well and maybe in 30 or 40 years time you could describe it to your grand children.
@ Herman Schiavone: You're so funny.
Paul piscopo
Mar 18th 2010, 19:08
The tuna ban would have been a disaster to for the small scale fishing communities. These communities would have never brought tuna stocks at the level they are today. Ban was not the solution. Control YES. We agree with more control. Malta had nothing to do with the exploitation of the stocks. Our fishermen catch only 300 tons. Our farms care for 6,000 tons. fish caught from legal licensed purseiners. These purseiners have their quota authorised by ICCAT.
Yes there are illegal vessels that exploit the stocks and have no license. Those are the the peolple you must blame.
Our fishermen acknowledge the courage of Minister Pullicino to fight until the end for his fellow citizens. Now our fishermen can continue to make their living. But you critics point your finger to the right direction and let us all collaborate to stop illegal tuna fishing.
M Cassar
Mar 18th 2010, 19:08
As one can see it does not matter if we ban the trade becuase others will profit from it they will still keep fishing for tuna and take all the profit. So what are we to gain, if we want to keep the stock safe we should make the number of fish caught more sustainable rather than a ban. One can also build some closed areas in the mediteranean where they are not fished to make sure they do not become extinct. Regarding Malta, if Eu buries its head and kkeeps the block then we should partner with Japan and China perhaps build some companies there and start fishing again.
tony abela
Mar 18th 2010, 18:45
@ Herman schiavone
Your reply confirmed what I said.
Maltese fishermen are indirectly interested with tuna penning. No matter what you say the tuna caught by Maltese fisherman in the traditional way ( which you know very well is gradually being abondend by local fishermen) would not have been affected by the proposed ban.
The owners of the tuna penning are known as you can count them on one hand. The fact that your referred to them as 'hard working entrapreneurs', implies more than enough. I bet my life that none of the owners did ever had any 'hands-on' in the upkeeping of the tuna penning or been anywhere near their pens. They fatten their pockets from their airconditioned offices.
If the Maltese fishermen are so short sighted, or do not care about the future generations of fishermen, then it is a different story. it's 'Make hay while the sun shines'.
John Inguanez
Mar 18th 2010, 18:37
Well done, Maltese government. Do these people calling for the ban know that not only the tycoon earns money from tuna fishing, but also a number of local fisherman fishing for tuna with lines. Why should they lose their work? Who would compensate them? Don' t they have families also.
Chris Finch
Mar 18th 2010, 18:20
A dark day indeed for our oceans.
The banning of the International trade in this species would have had no effect on the majority of Maltese fishermen. This ban would have only affected the couple of conglomerates where most of the profit goes abroad.
I suppose the rush is now on to sweep the oceans clean of this majestic fish before a new ban is proposed. The world leaders who objected to this ban should hang thier heads in shame.
Reuben Caruana
Mar 18th 2010, 18:11
FACT! Tuna eats Jelly Fish
Short-term: LESS TUNA; MORE JELLY FISH; MORE MONEY Money,
Long-term ONLY JELLY-FISH: hurra
Fabian Borg
Mar 18th 2010, 18:04
Hopefully I will keep on savouring pasta salad with TUNA CHUNKS !! NOt to mention Hobz bit-TONN TAZ-ZEJT !!
Hermann Schiavone
Mar 18th 2010, 17:57
@Tony Abela
I do not wish to be drawn into an argument but I have to answer your comment.
I can assure you that the fishermen were very preoccupied over the proposed ban. Had the ban gone through they would have been hit hard and the traditional tuna fishing would have received a big blow because the fishermen depend on the Japanese market to fetch a good price for their catch.
You may also wish to know that the Maltese companies operating the farms are hard working entrapreneurs who are providing the livelihood for many Maltese families including fishermen who occasionally work for them.
I stand by what I said that Minister Pullicino and the Maltese Government did the right thing by defending this industry.
Antonio Anastasi
Mar 18th 2010, 20:09
When statistics and research shows that the Tuna stocks have dropped by 80% in a short 3 or 4 decades, it is irresponsible of Government to think of the short term, and not consider that these jobs they are protecting will be threatened if not lost in the not too distant future.
A moratorium of only a few years would have helped replenish the wild stocks and protected the fishermen jobs.
It is obvious here that the saying "Money talks Bull**** walks" is more that appropriate to what motivates our governments short sighted short term enviormental policies.
tony abela
Mar 18th 2010, 17:46
@ Antonio Anastasi
It was me who asked about the money being left in the Mlatese economy. But as usual no answer was given.
The same I presume there will be no answer for the previous blog about the ownership of the tuna penning in malta and the fishermen's direct involvement.
Antonio Anastasi
Mar 18th 2010, 17:30
I wonder what our government voted. If they voted against the ban....giving its poor environmental track record, it would not be a surprise, even more so when our commissioner in the EU is trying to get the EU to allow the cultivation of GM potatoes.
In a previous letter elsewhere, someone had asked how much of the money generated by the tuna farms actually stays in Malta.
I was just wondering why we all spent so much time and energy arguing for the environment with this Government, when one gets the distinct feeling of pissing against the wind.
For All the electoral promises our governments make they actually, really do not give care than cosmetics.
tony abela
Mar 18th 2010, 17:28
@ Herman Schiavone
You should mention one fisherman who owns or is a stakeholder in one tune pen in Malta. Maltese fishermen who fish in the traditional way for tuna were not affected by the proposed ban. You should also mention the Companies who run the tuna penning in Malta. They are not fishermen, they are big fat speculators.
Do not try to mislead the public opinion.
Yes Maltese fishermen do have an interest that tuna penning industry in Malta continues but for indirect interest, such as the fetch a better price for other species of fish because they can sell their catch to feed the tuna in the pens.
Nigel Lawrence
Mar 18th 2010, 17:26
-And when all the Tuna eventually run out, who will the fishermen be blaming for their loss of livelyhood?
R Muscat
Mar 18th 2010, 17:22
We can look forward to swimming in jelly fish infested waters as Tuna are a major predator of Jelly fish. Prosit Ministru tal Ambjent ??!! sure Minisru tat Turismu is overjoyed at the prospect of another problem that will have a negative effect on our tourist industry.
Neil Sant
Mar 18th 2010, 17:07
Tragedy of the commons at its worst.
Hermann Schiavone
Mar 18th 2010, 17:02
The Maltese fishermen welcome this decision. Minister George Pullicino and the Maltese Government stood by the local fishermen all along, defended their interests exceptionally well, albeit being the only country to do so within the EU and the fishermen are grateful.
John Tabone
Mar 18th 2010, 17:32
Minister George Pullicino is SHORT SIGHTED. He only defended the interest of a local tycoon.
J Martinelli
Mar 18th 2010, 20:17
John Tabone et al
You always have the option of not buying tuna and in so doing your conscience will remain clear.
If quotas are respected, the tuna stock will not be depleted and surely it is not the Maltese fisherman who is the culprit! So, why should the Maltese fisherman be abandoned when it is other foreign and much better equipped fishermen are doing all the damage?
The usual comments come from the same people who no matter what, always are ready to criticize and government intervention such as this one without caring one iota for their brothers who earn their living on the high seas when they are comfortably at home watching endless propaganda from NCOs who seem to have too much time on their hands and not knowing what to do anything positively with it!
Mark-Anthony Falzon
Mar 18th 2010, 17:01
With Muammar Qaddafi at the helm of marine conservation, we can expect the best.
Joseph Brincat
Mar 18th 2010, 16:55
Money always win over the environment,
Seals, whales, elephant tusks, ermine fur, etc, etc, are not important any longer.
Long live the UN!!!!
Joseph Aquilina
Mar 18th 2010, 16:46
Once again our leaders fail us and money now is much more important then a future tomorrow!