Environmental groups will ask the European Commission to publish the official documents on which EU fisheries representatives based their decision to reject a proposal that would have effectively banned bluefin tuna fishing.
The groups, which include Greenpeace, want to see what kind of evidence was in hand when the decision was made.
Last week, EU fisheries representatives from France, Italy, Spain, Malta, Greece and Cyprus turned down a proposal to list the fish as endangered under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
Had it been approved, the proposal would have effectively led to a ban on fishing this species.
Greenpeace EU marine policy advisor Saskia Richartz explained that they wanted to see exactly what type of scientific assessment was used when the fisheries representatives discussed and voted against the proposal. "It could be that the research presented was based on an economic assessment and not a scientific one."
Scientific evidence presented last year to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) clearly showed that bluefin tuna was overfished and was being depleted, Ms Richartz said.
The rejected proposal was originally made by Monaco and was provisionally co-sponsored by the European Commission, which argued that the EU could offer its provisional support while waiting for more scientific evidence.
However, Ms Richartz said the evidence presented to ICCAT so far was compelling enough and fresh data from research carried out over the past year was unlikely to yield very different results.
Among other things, the scientific advisors had recommended that the quota should be 15,500 tonnes and to close fragile spawning areas, where the tuna meet to breed, in May and June.
"The risk is that the six countries (including Malta) that voted against the proposal will continue to do so because of the economic reasons," she said.
Greenpeace's tuna campaign is calling for the immediate closure of the Mediterranean bluefin fishery until stocks recover and for 40 per cent of the Mediterranean to be used as marine reserves.
In line with Malta's position, however, the industry has a different view altogether.
Charles Azzopardi, owner of one of Malta's biggest tuna ranches, denied tuna stocks were being depleted. He said the quotas introduced in the past years had helped a lot already. "It reaped big benefits and the tuna we are catching now is almost 12 per cent bigger than what we used to catch two years ago."
Mr Azzopardi said fishermen were suffering because they lacked the resources available to lobby groups such as Greenpeace.
The proposal would have doomed Malta's lucrative tuna industry, which last year alone made about €100 million. The European Commission was split with Maltese Fisheries Commissioner Joe Borg clashing with Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas who favours the ban.
Alternattiva Demokratika criticised the government for its lack of environmental commitment. The government's opposition revealed its willingness to back short-term economic profit at the expense of natural resources, AD said.
A similar concern was raised by the global conservation organisation, WWF, that called for the cooperation of Mediterranean countries to safeguard the tuna. WWF expressed disappointment that, despite the good progress represented by 21 out of 27 EU member states confirming support for the international trade ban, such majority was not enough for EU countries to sponsor a proposal to this effect.