Bridges • Volume 14 • Number 2 • May 2010

Conservation Loses to Trade Interests at CITES Meeting

Defying predictions for a drawn-out battle, parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species rejected a bid to ban cross-border trade in Atlantic bluefin tuna, the Rolls Royce of the species, early at their meeting in Doha during the last two weeks of March.

Discuss this articleShare your views with other visitors, and read what they have to say

Monaco had proposed to list Atlantic bluefin in CITES Appendix I, which covers flora and fauna on the brink of extinction. International trade in Appendix I species is prohibited, but can be resumed at a later stage if member governments agree that populations have recovered to the point where trade no longer represents a threat. The stakes were high for bluefin tuna, estimated to be a seven-billion-dollars-a-year industry.

Eaten out of Existence

According to scientists, bluefin populations have declined by 72 percent in the western Atlantic and 82 percent in eastern waters over the last 40 years. Sixty percent of the decline has taken place in the last decade, largely due to industrial-scale harvesting with longline nets that vacuum up the huge fish. France, Italy and Spain account for half of the global fishing effort.

More than three-quarters of the global bluefin catch ends up in Japan, where most of the fish is sold to top-end sushi restaurants. Although only a small part of the overall tuna market, bluefin trade is extremely lucrative: a single fish may fetch more than US$100,000 at a Tokyo auction, or between two and three hundred dollars a kilo.

Powerful Backers and Determined Opponents

Despite the major economic implications, an Appendix I listing for bluefin tuna was thought to have a real chance to carry the day. It had the support of the United States, the European Union and parliament, as well as the CITES secretariat.

The proponents’ positions were not identical, however. Bowing to pressure from its tuna-fishing nations, the European Union wanted to delay the ban’s implementation by a year. It also sought to secure a provision whereby a less drastic Appendix II listing would be considered if the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) were to take stronger measures to prevent over-fishing of the dwindling species next year.

In contrast, the US supported an immediate ban with no conditions. Tom Strickland, who headed the US Doha delegation, said his government continued to have “serious concerns about the long-term viability of either the fish or the fishery.” This position was warmly welcomed by environmental and marine conservation groups.

Japan led the opposition. Mirroring its stance in WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies, Tokyo argues that the depletion of bluefin populations should be handled by the regional fisheries organisation responsible for managing bluefin stocks, ICCAT. Ahead of the CITES meeting, Japan had announced that it would not comply with an Appendix I listing for bluefin.

Supporters of the ban maintain that ICCAT has repeatedly ignored recommendations of its own scientific experts and set far too high catch quotas. In addition, illegal and under-reported fishing is rife in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, the area covered by ICCAT, whose 46 members include countries with large tuna industries. In 2007, for instance, Japan alone imported more bluefin than the entire ICCAT catch quota of 29,500 tonnes. According to some estimates, real catches in 2007 may have amounted to 61,000 tonnes.

How Did It Happen?

CITES requires a two-thirds majority for the adoption of proposals, and Japan, aided by China and South Korea, lobbied hard to prevent it. The opponents focused in particular on winning over tuna-fishing Arab countries, as well as other African states. The strategy paid off: debate had barely started when Libya called a surprise vote on the weaker European version, which was defeated by 72 to 43. Delegates then tackled Monaco’s original proposal, but EU member states had to abstain as they lacked their governments’ authority to vote on it. The final score was 68 to 20 against, with 30 abstentions. Canada and Iceland reportedly joined the Japanese camp, while Norway, Kenya, Australia and Peru voted in favour of a ban.

Japan’s Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama welcomed the outcome, saying it meant “the import of bluefin tuna will continue … the price will not rise further.” US envoy Tom Strickland was disappointed, invoking “compelling science and dramatic statistics,” as well as the species’ “spectacular decline”. The EU’s environment and fisheries commissioners vowed to work with ICCAT to obtain more efficient protections. Ironically, however, the bloc’s tuna-fishing states are among those pushing the hardest for generous bluefin quotas at ICCAT meetings.

“This was a case of just plain ignoring the science for short-term economic gain,” said Susan Lieberman of the Pew Environment Group, adding that the market for bluefin tuna was “just too lucrative and the pressure from fishing interests too great” for enough governments to put the sustainability of the species first. Greenpeace’s Oliver Knowles called the ban’s defeat an ‘own goal’ by Japan: “By pushing for a few more years of this luxury product it has put the future of bluefin, and the future of its own supply, at serious risk. The abject failure of governments here to protect Atlantic bluefin tuna … sets the species on a pathway to extinction.”

No Trade Controls on Sharks, Corals, Polar Bears

A bid to list several shark species widely consumed in Asia in CITES Appendix II also failed. Appendix II allows cross-border trade if the management authority of the country of origin issues an export permit certifying that the specimen was legally obtained and that its export will not be detrimental to the survival of the species. Proposals to protect polar bears and corals did not make it either. Thursday the 18th of March 2010 was “not a very good day for conservation,” CITES spokesperson Juan Carlos Vasquez acknowledged. It was clear, he said, that governments were not ready to ban trade in species that are commercially important.