
Bluefin No Vote
March 18th, 2010This week, international negotiations are raging over a group of species that conservationists say are being pushed towards extinction. The cause of the problem: uncontrolled trade.
Votes are already coming in and the first big result is a NO VOTE on a potential ban trade in Bluefin Tuna. The trade will go on. Japan must be thrilled.

Inside a net with a shoal of doomed bluefin tuna. Photo by Marco Carè Marine Photobank
The plan – proposed by Monaco – had been to add the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna to appendix I of CITES – the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora.
Every two years, CITES members meet to decide which species should be added, removed, or upgraded on their lists that offer endangered animals and plants protection from international trade. Appendix I means a global trade ban. Appendix II means global regulation, aimed to keep the trade well within sustainable limits.
If the tuna vote had been Yes, it would have put a halt – for now – on legal trade in Bluefins from the Atlantic. Who knows what the consequences might have been: the black market might have carried on supplying anyone who wanted sushi. A new breed of sushi tourism might have opened up in Mediterranean countries that catch Bluefins (this was going to be a ban on international trade, not on catching them).
But Japan, Canada and a number of poorer nations voted against the proposal. And so the trade will continue, and we’ve missed a chance to help make sure there will still be Bluefins cruising the Atlantic in years to come.

Bluefin in a cage. Photo by Marco Carè Marine Photobank
And this is all despite overwhelming evidence that there are now few enough of these fish left in the oceans to meet CITES’ stringent rules for a global trade ban.
Many claim that the tuna is being watched over by ICCAT – the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, so CITES isn’t needed. But perhaps a more appropriate acronym could be the International Conspiracy to Catch All Tunas.
ICCAT set annual catch limits based on scientific data. These are not low enough and are often exceeded.
If you want a balanced and thorough overview of the Bluefin situation, I urge you to have a read of IUCN and TRAFFIC’s review of the CITES proposal to ban the trade. They have crunched a huge volume of data and offer a neat summary of the whole deal.
There’s a small chance the Bluefin No vote will be overturned at the end of the meeting. But it doesn’t seem likely.
We’ll have to wait and see if the Bluefins turn up again in the next round of CITES discussions in 2 years time.
Meanwhile, there are other threatened marine species under the CITES spotlight this week. A group of shark species have been proposed for trade regulation – not ban – under CITES. They include Oceanic Whitetips and Hammerhead sharks, both heavily exploited for their fins.

Oceanic Whitetip Shark. Photo by Michael Aston
I’ll be watching especially closely, since I was involved in writing reviews of the CITES shark trade proposals.
I can only hope these opportunities to help protect ocean biodiversity won’t also be thrown away.
The Economist reports that it was the Libyan delegate at the CITES meeting who put on a melodramatic performance before forcing an early vote on the Bluefin tuna ban – this meant there were no discussions on the issues before the vote. No wonder it was a No.
http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15745509&source=features_box_main
This is not what is supposed to happen at these meetings. Absolutely unacceptable.
So much for all the hard work the scientists and conservation groups put in to gathering and assessing the scientific basis for the ban.
[...] Ocean Blue Helen Scales on the diversity, fragility & beauty of the oceans « Bluefin No Vote What next for ocean trade? March 29th, [...]