Since I attended the recent ICCAT meeting and have closely followed the work of the Scientific Committee for Research I wish to make some comments about the report Scientists Agree On Tuna Ban (October 30).
A similar report was put on the BBC website the previous day after being submitted by the NGOs who were present at the meeting. I immediately e-mailed the BBC to put matters in a more balanced perspective.
It is unfortunate that The Times' reporter did not bother to check all the facts. I can assure him that the scientists never agreed on anything of that kind.
It is unfortunate, though predictable, that the representatives of the environmental groups have chosen to highlight only certain aspects related to the discussions that took place and which were not presented in the article. The undeniable truth is that there is such a high level of uncertainty in the scientific analyses carried out, that the results are highly susceptible to manipulations to suit one's pre-conceived objectives. To cite one example, the estimates of Eastern virgin (no fishing) spawning stock biomass ranged from 825,000 to 2,810,000,000 metric tonnes! Even when the most plausible scenarios were selected, estimated virgin spawning stock biomass ranged from 1,000,000 to 11,700,000 metric tonnes!
On the other hand, maximum historical population size estimated from the 2008 stock assessment was about 300,000 metric tonnes!
Any interpretation of probabilities of population decrease is very highly dependent on which of the above is chosen, and not as suggested in the article.
In addition, the article also fails to point out that the scientific analyses carried out in these meetings indicated that there would be a high probability of an increase in spawning stock biomass if certain levels of catch are adhered to.
Nor does it mention the positive fisheries indicators seen in the stock since the recent drastic changes implemented by ICCAT and which leaves no room for abuse. The stakeholders realise the need for such strict measures and are strictly adhering to them in search of a sustainable way forward.
All considered, the biased and excessively emotional approach taken by these parties is certainly not the way forward and if Mr Camilleri is based in Brussels from where he can exert considerable influence, he should take a truly balanced approach.
The following is an e-mail circulated by ICCAT in Madrid which proves my point: "ICCAT Scientists met in Madrid on October 21-23, 2009 to develop scientific advice for the ICCAT Commissioners on the condition of Atlantic bluefin tuna with respect to the biological criteria applied for listing commercially-exploited aquatic species under CITES Appendices.
"It has come to our attention that several organisations are disseminating partial interpretations of the report of the scientific meeting. We highly recommend that persons interested in a complete understanding of the scientific advice developed during the meeting view the entire report."