Commissioner dismayed at resistance over bluefin tuna
European Environment Commissioner Janez Potocnik, the Minister for Resources and Rural Affairs, George Pullicino and Robert Vassallo Agius at the Malta Centre for Fisheries Sciences, Fort San Luċjan Malta, in July 2009.
In a rare statement of criticism, EU Environment Commissioner Janez Potocnik made it clear he was very disappointed with the attitude of Malta and other Mediterranean member states over bluefin tuna quotas for 2011.
He branded “insufficient” the recent decision by the Inter-national Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) to reduce the EU’s total bluefin tuna catches next year by 600 tons.
He said the position against further cuts taken by Malta, France, Italy, Cyprus, Spain, Greece and Portugal restricted the Commission’s room for manoeuvre to obtain better results.
“ICCAT’s decision is not what I hoped for and I regret the fact that EU member states did not support the Commission’s position,” he charged.
Malta was vehemently opposed to a Commission pro-posal to bring the 2011 quota down to about 6,000 from the 13,500 tons allowed this year. Forming a front with other Mediterranean member states, the island managed to restrict the Commission’s negotiating position to insignificant cuts.
Following ICCAT’s nego-tiations in Paris, Malta’s quota remains practically untouched at 161 tons as the overall catch was tweaked down to 12,900 tons.
Mr Potocnik said ICCAT’s conclusions were “worrying” with regard to the future sustainability of bluefin tuna stocks. “The probability of bluefin tuna recovery following the ICCAT decision is far too low to be sufficient,” he said.
In its 2009 report, the ICCAT Scientific Committee stressed that, unless fishing mortality rates were substantially reduced in the near future, a likely reduction in spawning stock risked fisheries and stock collapse. For the Commission, these conclusions were cause for concern.
“Although ICCAT insists the agreed quota of 12,900 tonnes follows scientific advice, many are arguing the same scientific advice clearly indicates this quota is much too high to allow stocks to recover with a reasonable and acceptable level of probability,” Mr Potocnik said. “I think it is important we follow scientific advice but it is also clear to me there are serious knowledge gaps which would need to be addressed urgently.”
In recent years, Malta has become one of the most important players in the international bluefin tuna trade, so much so its ranching facilities are considered to be the biggest in the Mediterranean. According to Maltese ranchers, in 2008, Malta exported about €80 million worth of tuna to Japan.
Greenpeace, which was also dismayed at the new quota, says about 2,800 tons of bluefin tuna caught last year are still being held in Maltese fish farms because ranchers were unable to sell them to Japan. It cites this, along with the 10,000 tons still held in EU ranches, as evidence that there is no need for more fishing next year.
6 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Charles Sammut
Dec 3rd 2010, 12:13
Dear Commissioner Janez Potocnik, if you want to learn the real reason why "Malta was vehemently opposed to a Commission proposal to bring the 2011 quota down to about 6,000 from the 13,500 tons allowed this year", all you have to do is find out who bankrolled certain MEP's election campaign to the tune of hundreds of thousands of Euros. Which is illegal by the way, but in spite of 2 judicial protests in this respect, no action was taken.
Christian Sciberras
Dec 3rd 2010, 10:19
Their fight is futile. Maltese citizens barely look beyond their noses, let alone next year's stock situation.
DVella
Dec 3rd 2010, 09:36
What on earth were you expecting Mister Potocnik??? That Malta would politely withdraw from it all and act the good ecologically responsible party and lose a fortune . . . whilst everybody else (like that Japanese, the Africans etc etc) went on with the bloodbath and got rich because of ineffective action and totally hopeless enforcement and record keeping?(!)
T Camilleri
Dec 3rd 2010, 09:33
Well he knows where he can shove his disappointment. Why don't they go for the big companies and other fishermen from Spain, France and other EU countries who are the real culprits? Why don't they pressure Japanese and other non-EU countries to stop their destructive fishing methods which are really what is leading to the destruction of tuna and other fish stocks? So stop bullying Malta and go after the big fish not the tiny Maltese fishermen?
Raphael Vassallo
Dec 3rd 2010, 14:07
For your information, Malta is BY FAR the largest tuna ranching nation in Europe. France, Spain, Italy, etc. all sell their catch to Maltese ranchers, who in turn sell to Japanese traders. You will find all the relevant info on ICCAT's website. Before is a list of Malta;s farming facilities, and you can compare to all the other countries on the same site.
"Tiny Maltese fishermen", indeed.
http://www.iccat.int/en/ffbres.asp?selectCountry=015&cajaFFBName=checkbox&cajaOwna=checkbox&cajaOwad=checkbox&cajaReg=checkbox&cajaOpna=checkbox&cajaOpad=checkbox&selectOrder=1&selectOrder2=6&selectInterval=10&Submit=Search
lgalea
Dec 3rd 2010, 21:24
Raphael Vassallo Yes, tiny Maltese fishermen. It is the Spanish, Tunisian, Libyan etc fishermen who are the biggest culprits. Maltese fishermen only use fishing lines but the others use purse seiners with miles long nets. For your information, the Japanese together with Taiwan were specifically mentioned as the biggest destroyers of the tuna fisheries. Go and download the Tarawa declaration. This is apart from another declaration which presently I don't recall its name where again Japanese fishermen were again mentioned by name as the worst destroyers.