Rome, Italy. June 9

Based on the announcement today that the European Union’s industrial fishermen have already reached their share of this year’s Atlantic bluefin tuna catch and must return to port at midnight tonight, WWF points out that this indicates the huge overcapacity of fleets - and is urging fishing countries to scrap their industrial vessels as soon as possible.

High-tech purse seine fishing boats - whose vast sack-like nets encircle shoals of bluefin tunas as they gather to spawn - set off for the high seas on May 15, but bad weather prevented them from catching any fish for the first ten days. The season was due to close a month later, on June 15.

“This early closure of the EU’s Atlantic bluefin tuna purse seine fishery does not point to recovery of the fish - it points to the gross overcapacity of fleets,” said Dr Sergi Tudela, Head of Fisheries at WWF Mediterranean.

“That EU purse seine fleets have in the space of a week caught their whole annual quota of bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean is further proof that these boats are simply not appropriate for this fishery and that the whole operation is entirely unsustainable - not to mention economically unviable.”

France’s purse seiners, for example, had already caught 1,456 tonnes by June 8 - some 86 per cent of their quota for the year - while Spain’s had caught 728 tonnes, over 90 per cent of their quota.

“Purse seiners are so hyper-efficient they leave no chance to the tunas they target in the peak spawning period when the fish are at their most fragile,” said Dr Tudela.

“The fact that these high-tech vessels are kept idle in port for more than 50 weeks a year is a total absurdity and shows the boats’ non-compatibility with a fish stock that is heavily depleted and in urgent need of recovery. The only reason the boat owners can afford to go out on the water at all is that they were largely built thanks to extensive EU subsidies in the first place.”

“WWF is calling for an immediate phase-out of purse seining in this fishery - and will use every lever at its disposal to push members of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) when they meet in November in Paris to set the scrapping process in motion at once.”

A Greenpeace activist had to be airlifted to hospital after having a boat hook slice through his leg during violent clashes at sea with fishermen.

French fishing crews sank two Greenpeace inflatables and badly damaged another as the conservationists tried to prevent them catching Atlantic bluefin tuna.

Frank Hewetson, an activist on one of seven inflatables deployed by Greenpeace for the operation, was badly hurt when a gaffe hook pierced his leg.

He was then hauled the length of an inflatable as a fisherman pulled on the gaffe hook to bring the vessel closer. Greenpeace remains uncertain whether the injury was deliberate or an unintended consequence of wielding dangerous equipment in a close-quarters encounter.

In turn, Jean-Marie Avallone, the owner of French fishing boats, claimed a fisherman had been hurt when the Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise rammed a trawler during a further clash yesterday.
Members of the conservation group questioned the claim and said they were unaware of any collision.

Mr Hewetson, who remains in hospital in Malta, was injured on Friday as activists attempted to free endangered bluefin tuna from a seine purse net and were met with a robust and armed response from the fishing crews.

Willie Mackenzie, an activist on board, wrote: “The fishermen reacted with a shocking level of violence and complete disregard for anyone’s safety. They attacked our inflatable boats.”
Olly Knowles, another activist trying to disrupt the tuna fishing fleets in the Mediterranean, said today: “Frank got a boat hook all the way through his leg. It made quite a hole. “A lot of the fishermen were very seriously armed with knives, clubs, and harpoons. There was a real intention to defend the net.”

The second confrontation took place yesterday as a cage full of bluefin tuna was towed towards the Tunisian coast to be added to a tuna ranch - where the live fish are fattened up for sale.
Greenpeace tried to cut away some of the ropes holding the net in place but they were again met by a robust response from the crews: “We were met with a less violent but still vigorous defence.”
It is the first time that Greenpeace has tried to free bluefin tuna from nets or cages and it marks a change in tactics for the group which has been frustrated by the continued failure of the European Union to stop issuing tuna quotas.

Atlantic bluefin tuna numbers are estimated to have slumped by at least 80 per cent since the Industrial Revolution and they have been especially hard hit by purse seine fishing. Research suggests fisheries are close to collapse and there are fears the fish may never be able to recover if severe limits on catching it are not introduced soon.

Fishing crews have been issued with month-long licences to catch bluefin tuna, which can fetch up to £100,000 each, until June 15 as the fish move into the Mediterranean from the Atlantic to spawn.
A spokesman for the Federation of Malta Aquaculture said: “The fishermen were acting within their rights and were doing nothing to provoke attention by these activists except for the fact that they were carrying exercising their trade.

“Greenpeace cannot pretend that such actions are measured and or peaceful. They are pure and simply designed to cause economic loss with violence against innocent operators.”

Atlantic bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus, can swim at speeds of more than 40mph, reach more than 13 feet in length, and weigh more than 550lbs, but numbers are dwindling.

Watch a video clip here

By Lewis Smith

We are often asked what people can do to tackle overfishing and create more protected areas for the oceans’ wildlife. Well, the 70 environmental organisations that make up the Oceans 2012 campaign www.ocean2012.eu/petition have decided to make next week, starting June 6, European Fish Week and to petition the Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria Damanaki, to make environmental sustainability a prerequisite for a reformed Common Fisheries Policy when it comes into force in 2012.
The link to the petition is here www.ocean2012.eu/petition. Make your voice heard!

Charles Clover

To the Glasgow fishing exhibition, Trawler Central. A huge hall full of big diesels and nets. I felt I owed the fishermen a visit as I have just occasionally had a pop at the Scottish fishing industry. The Fishing 2010 press release said I was brave to go. We screened a 52-minute version of The End of the Line in a theatre that was part of the fishing exhibition. On the panel: Bertie Armstrong from the Scottish Fishermens’ Federation, Philip MacMullen from Seafish, Louize Hill from WWF and Callum Roberts from York University.

Let’s deal with the routine stuff first: Scottish fishermen have turned the corner and are doing their best to bring about the recovery of the cod. Absolutely, said I, credit where it is due. There is no evidence that marine reserves work for migratory species. Nonsense, said Callum and I, the only place in the world they say that is Aberdeen and they’ve no evidence for it. Why not set one up and do a proper experiment? Why don’t fishermen get any credit for doing good things when they do? Well, how often am I supposed to praise the Scotttish conservation credits scheme? I was the first journalist to praise Scottish fishermen for going to Brussels and arguing that they should be given more quota if they fished more selectively. I said a couple of years ago that the British fishing industry seemed to have turned the corner after the disgraceful situation of a decade or more ago with up to 50 per cent of the cod taken from the North Sea illegally. How many times do you want me to say it?

Two things that were said stood out for me that day. One was said by a West Coast trawlerman and scallop dredger. “You’re the one who’s obsequious to the public,” he said. I confess I got very annoyed by that. After all, hadn’t I spent years writing about what I considered to be the scandal of overfishing long before anyone else seemed to know about it or a publisher would publish it? Hadn’t I spent two years with a number of others turning a not-for-profit film that turned that book into a film? I’m not sure which bit was being obsequious to the public. As far as I was concerned, I was attempting to report the truth and the public were decent enough to take up the message of the film because they believed our case that overfishing was a much more serious problem than we recognised before.

Several Scottish fishermen seemed to hear an RP accent and assume one has made a fortune out of the film when most of us had actually made sacrifices to tell the truth. The other thing that surprised me was when Louize Hill of WWF said that Scotland was “not that bad,” or words to that effect, when it came to fisheries. This may have been a slip of the tongue. What she probably meant was that the cod in the North Sea may have turned the corner. But I would not like WWF to think that Scotland did not have fisheries disasters as bad as any in the world. You have only to look at the Firth of Clyde, just a few miles downriver from Glasgow. The cod, haddock and whiting are now gone, collapsed to a state where the US government would have long ago closed the fishery to any kind of mobile gear, ie trawls.

Langoustines are now the staple for both the creel and trawl fisheries. Yet Marine Science Scotland reported this year that even the langoustine is being exploited unsustainably in the Clyde – and in many other parts of Scotland. The discard rate of whitefish is colossal. When you have fished out all the fish and then the shellfish, what will you have left but jellyfish and plankton? The Scottish Government continues to be in denial about the disaster that is Scotland’s West Coast.

If it were to recognise what its own scientists are saying it might have to do something about fishing effort, which would play poorly with its core constituency. It would be disconcerting to think that any environmental groups nourished any of the same delusions.

Charles Clover

Italy has banned its high-technology fishing fleet from fishing for bluefin tuna this year. The decision, announced before the month-long fishing season began last weekend, means that 49 large purse-seine vessels capable of rounding up whole shoals of endangered bluefin will remain in port. The Italian catch quota is being given to “artisanal” vessels, fishing with long-lines.

Fishermen from the purse-seiners, who have tended to fish using spotter planes so they can catch the maximum amount of tuna, will be paid unemployment benefit.

A large number of skippers will receive nearly £5 million in compensation for decommissioning their vessels, with 30 out of the 49 being decommissioned by the end of this year.

Rumour has it that fishermen were content to stop fishing not only because they were paid handsomely to do so but because the local sub-stock of bluefin has disappeared from the fishing grounds.

EU eyes have been pointed on the Italian fleet, with a much smaller bluefin quota this year and the authorities are understood to have been wary of provoking legal action by getting into illegal fishing scandals like those which dogged the industry in 2007 and 2008.
The environmental group WWF, formerly the World Wildlife Fund, said Italy’s decision in tackling the bluefin’s decline should be seen as a good example which other countries should follow.

Dr Sergi Tudela of WWF Mediterranean said: “Italy’s decision to keep its purse seiners ashore is to be applauded and upheld as an example to follow.”

“Atlantic bluefin tuna stocks cannot resist for much longer – by all accounts the species is endangered, with current populations dwindling at less than 15 per cent of what they once were. Nevertheless this year fleets are sanctioned to catch another 13,500 tonnes of fish, even when the rules are still widely violated.”

“WWF calls on ICCAT – the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, the regional management organization in charge of the Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery – and its members to respect their commitments to sustainable fisheries management.”

“A sound recovery plan for the exhausted species must finally be imposed when ICCAT meets in Paris in November – including above all a dramatic cut in catches to well below 8,000 tonnes.”

The latest advice from renowned international scientists shows that an annual catch of 8,000 tonnes would give the Atlantic bluefin tuna at best a 50 per cent chance of recovery.

Charles Clover

London, 1.4.10.

A marine reserve that will double the amount of the world’s oceans under protection was announced today by David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary.

The protected area will extend 200 miles around the British Indian
Ocean Territory, a dependant territory in the middle of the Indian
Ocean, and will include a “no-take” marine reserve where commercial
fishing will be banned.

The 55 tiny islands of the Chagos Archipelago, as the islands are also
known, sit in some of world’s cleanest seas, surrounded by nearly 50
per cent of the remaining undamaged coral reefs in the Indian Ocean.

The marine protected area announced by Mr Miliband will be a quarter of a million square miles in size, some 70,000 square miles larger than the one around the North Hawaiian Islands declared by George W. Bush just before he left office.

Until the very last minute concerns about opposition from Mauritius,
which has a long-standing claim to the islands, had threatened to
derail the announcement of the reserve or at least postpone it beyond the next general election, expected to be called next week, as had the unresolved court case against Britain by Chagossians evicted in the creation of a military base on one of the islands, Diego Garcia.

Announcing the creation of the reserve, Mr Miliband said “I am today instructing the Commissioner of the British Indian Ocean Territory to declare a Marine Protected Area.

“Its creation is a major step forward for protecting the oceans, not
just around BIOT itself, but also throughout the world. This measure
is a further demonstration of how the UK takes its international
environmental responsibilities seriously.

“I have taken the decision to create this marine reserve following a
full consultation, and careful consideration of the many issues and
interests involved. The response to the consultation was impressive
both in terms of quality and quantity. We intend to continue to work
closely with all interested stakeholders, both in the UK and
internationally, in implementing the MPA.

“I would like to emphasise that the creation of the MPA will not
change the UK’s commitment to cede the Territory to Mauritius when it is no longer needed for defence purposes and it is, of course, without prejudice to the outcome of the current, pending proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights.”

Well over 90% of those who responded to the consultation made clear that they supported greater marine protection.

Scientists also advised that BIOT was likely to be key, both in
research and geographical terms, to the repopulation of coral systems along the East Coast of Africa and hence to the recovery in marine food supply in sub-Saharan Africa.

BIOT waters would continue to be patrolled by the territory’s patrol
vessel, which will enforce the reserve’s conditions. Alistair Gammell of the Pew Environment Group, a founding member of the coalition of environmental organizations known as the Chagos
Environment Network (CEN), which campaigned for the reserve, said: “We are thrilled by the U.K. government’s decision to declare the Chagos in its entirety as a no-take protected area.”

“The oceans desperately need better protection. In 2010, the
International Year of Biodiversity, the U.K. has secured a
conservation legacy which is unrivalled in scale and significance,
demonstrating to the world that it is a leader in conserving the
world’s marine resources for the benefit of future generations.”

Greenpeace biodiversity campaigner Willie Mackenzie said: “These
coral seas are a biodiversity hotspot in the Indian Ocean, and
unquestionably worthy of protection from destructive activities like
fishing. And this marine reserve will provide a safe refuge for many
globally endangered species such as sharks and turtles.

“The creation of this marine reserve is a first step towards securing
a better and sustainable future for the Chagos Islands. But this
future must include securing justice for the Chagossian people and the closure and removal of the Diego Garcia military base.”

By Charles Clover

Pew calls conference on global trade in endangered species a major disappointment

Doha, Qatar - 26 March, 2010 -The 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) concluded without providing any trade protections whatsoever for severely depleted Atlantic bluefin tuna and four vulnerable species of sharks – scalloped hammerhead, oceanic white tip, porbeagle and spiny dogfish.

“We cannot continue to empty our oceans without consequence,” said Susan Lieberman, director of international policy for the Pew Environment Group. “The CITES treaty has historically protected species. At this meeting, governments abandoned conservation and chose to protect trade instead. The imperative to safeguard the larger iconic species increases with every catch.”

CITES has listed marine species previously - including seahorses, queen conch, sturgeon and humphead wrasse - although it has traditionally focused more on land-based species including elephants and tigers. This year, however, there were more commercial marine species proposed for protection than at any meeting in the Convention’s 35 years.

The shark fin trade - responsible for the killing up to 73 million sharks annually - and global demand for shark meat continue to threaten scalloped hammerhead, oceanic white tip, porbeagle and spiny dogfish sharks. A CITES Appendix II listing would have required countries exporting shark products to ensure that international trade is legal and would not threaten the survival of those species. While the porbeagle proposal was approved in committee by a single-vote margin, CITES delegates rejected all four proposals by the end of the final plenary session.

“Despite fast declining populations of the ocean’s apex predators, CITES government delegates turned a blind eye to science,” said Matt Rand, director of global shark conservation for the Pew Environment Group. “Four threatened species of sharks were refused protections even though the evidence of international trade’s harmful effects was plentiful. Inaction can and will set these sharks on a course toward total population collapse.”

CITES delegates had the opportunity to prohibit all international trade in bluefin tuna, but they rejected the Appendix I proposal.
Overfishing, illegal fishing and the growing demand for high-end raw bluefin as sushi and sashimi has fueled increased catches, further depleting this shrinking population. CITES received reports that the science is undeniable that the Atlantic bluefin tuna qualifies for the highest level of protection, but the governments voted against the bluefin proposal.

In the wake of last week’s failed attempt at CITES to prohibit international trade in bluefin tuna, the Pew Environment Group today will launch a new campaign to protect breeding populations of bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico - the fish’s only known spawning ground in the western Atlantic Ocean.

The Pew Environment Group is the conservation arm of The Pew Charitable Trusts, a non-governmental organization that applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improve public policy, inform the public and stimulate civic life.

Delegates overturned the protection of the porbeagle shark, agreed earlier this week, and rejected protection measures for other shark species in the closing hours of the global summit on trade in endangered species in Doha.

A proposal that would have regulated trade in the scalloped, smooth and great hammerhead sharks, along with dusky and sandbar sharks, was reconsidered, after being defeated earlier this week, but did not achieve the two thirds majority out of 175 countries it needed for approval.

Porbeagle shark won 84 votes for, 46 against and 10 abstentions. The hammerhead shark proposal won 76 votes for, 53 against with 14 abstentions.

Similar proposals to regulate trade in oceanic whitetip sharks, spiny dogfish and red coral have all been rejected this week.

The decisions made in the last hours of the Doha meeting made it a clean sweep by Japan, which had mounted an orchestrated campaign to vote down all 13 marine species proposed for listing under the Convention for the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) over the past two weeks.

Sue Lieberman of the Pew Environment Trust said: “It is a truly sad day for conservation. CITES used to be a treaty that restricted trade for the sake of conservation. Today, it has become a treaty that restricts conservation for the sake of trade.”

Heike Zidowitz, president of Europe’s leading association of shark scientists, the Shark Alliance, said: “These failures leave some of the oceans’ most vulnerable and heavily traded species at great risk from unregulated, international trade.”

The proposals to list porbeagle and spiny dogfish under CITES Appendix II were developed by the European Union while the United States proposed similar action for hammerheads and oceanic whitetip sharks. The Pacific island nation of Palau co-sponsored all four proposals.

The high demand for shark fins by Asian countries, which use them in soup, is thought to be the major threat to hammerhead and oceanic whitetip sharks while porbeagles and spiny dogfish are sought primarily to satisfy European demand for their meat.

According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), all the shark species proposed for CITES listing were classified as Globally Threatened under the IUCN Red List and meet the criteria for listing under CITES Appendix II, which regulates trade.

Appendix II listings require countries to issue export permits after deciding whether trade in a species is legal and not detrimental to the species’ survival.

In the debate on hammerhead sharks, Jane Lyder, the US Interior Department’s deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, told fellow delegates, “The only data available show that the species is in decline.”

But a delegate from Japan questioned those statistics, and suggested small island states would suffer economically if they were forced to regulate the shark trade. “For developing coastal states, trade would be hampered and enforcement would be a nightmare.”

Conservationists say the irony is that the country hosting the meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity this year is the country that did the most at this meeting to undermine the protection of marine biodiversity, Japan.

Charles Clover

We have a great news clip from Al Jazeera discussing the outcome of CITES with a big focus on bluefin tuna. Our very own Charles Clover joins the debate discussing the disappointing outcome from this year’s meeting and suggests what the future may hold for this amazing fish.

Have a little look here

Sergi Tudela, head of fisheries at WWF Mediterranean said: “After overwhelming scientific justification and growing political support in past months – with backing from the majority of catch quota holders on both sides of the Atlantic – it is scandalous that governments did not even get the chance to engage in meaningful debate about the international trade ban proposal for Atlantic bluefin tuna.

“The regional fisheries management organization in charge of this fishery - ICCAT - has repeatedly failed to sustainable manage this fishery. ICCAT has so far failed miserably in this duty so every pressure at the highest level must come to bear to ensure it does what it should.”

WWF said it would call on restaurants, retailers, chefs and consumers around the world to stop selling, serving, buying and eating bluefin.

“It is now more important than ever for people to do what the politicians failed to do – stop consuming bluefin tuna,” Dr Tudela said.

Charles Clover

It was an ambush. Fishing nations, led by Libya, ruthlessly voted down proposals to ban international trade in Atlantic bluefin tuna at the meeting of 115 parties to the Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species this afternoon.

Delegates from Monaco, the EU and the United States had hoped to keep the proposals being discussed into next week in the hope that compromises could be found. In the event, the debate was short and not at all sweet. Monaco’s proposal for an unqualified trade ban was rejected by 68 votes to 20, with 30 abstentions. Before that, the EU’s highly qualified version of the same proposal was crushed by 72 votes to 43.

The debate began with Monaco’s ambassador, Patrick Van Klaveren, speaking out in favour the proposal to place the Atlantic bluefin on Cites Appendix 1, on the grounds that the tuna had declined to less than 15 per cent of its original stock and UN scientists from two official bodies accepted that the criteria for it to be listed on Appendix 1 had been met.

This was followed by a lacklustre presentation, by the Spanish presidency, in favour of the conditions the EU wanted to place on the proposal. Then, instead of the torrent of support conservationists had hoped for there was a cascade of fishing nations, starting with Canada, speaking out against the proposed ban and in favour of leaving the management of the bluefin with the Atlantic tuna commission, ICCAT, which until recently has failed to set scientifically based quotas or to crack down on illegal fishing.

Speeches in favour of ICCAT continuing to manage the species, which can fetch up to $100,000 for a single specimen on the Japanese market, rolled on – Indonesia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Chile, Japan, Grenada, Korea, Senegal, Morocco.

Tunisia talked of social problems that would be caused if there was a ban, Morocco spoke of 2000 families in an area of no other employment who would have no income. Morocco said the bluefin was a flagship species it was in the interests of all to preserve, but said it was premature to regulate it under Cites.

Only Kenya, Norway and the United States spoke up in favour of a ban, despite advice from both the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation and ICCAT’s own scientific committee that the bluefin deserved a respite from international trade.

By the time the eccentric Libyan delegate got the floor, it was clear where the majority lay. All it took was for Libya to propose a vote on Monaco’s proposal, and the chairman of the meeting, John Donaldson, had to put the proposal to close the debate to the meeting.

It was quite clear from there what would happen. Once the vote to hold a vote had been passed, the votes on the EU’s and Monaco’s vote were both lost.

Patrick Van Klaveren, for Monaco, said magnanimously: “It is not a defeat it is the manifestation of confidence put in ICCAT to solve the problem.” He threatened to come back in 2013 with another proposal to list the bluefin under Appendix 1 if ICCAT failed to take up the challenge to manage the bluefin for recovery.

At the press conference he shook hands with the leader of the Japanese delegation, Mitsunori Miyahara, who had taken part in the defeat of an attempt to place the bluefin on Cites in 1992.

Mr Miyahara, chief counsellor to the Japanese Fisheries Agency, said: “We agree that the bluefin is not in good shape. We have to take any measure for recovery. We have to work harder from now on.”

He said that at last November’s meeting of ICCAT, “finally the system started to work.”
“We are going to wipe out illegal fish from our markets.”

Sue Lieberman of the Pew Environment Trust branded the decision “irresponsible.”
“This meeting has said let’s take science and throw it out the door. There was clearly pressure from fishing industry. This fish is too valuable for its own good.
“Statements made about ICCAT blatantly were false. It’s time to hold ICCAT’s feet to the fire. We will be there every step of the way.”

Charles Clover

Doha. 17.3.10. The Japanese delegation in Doha said it was totally opposed to a ban on international trade in bluefin tuna but it would back a halt to fishing if scientists warned stocks were in danger. “Our position is quite simple, we would like to take conservation measures in the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, not under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species,” said Masanori Miyahara, head of the Japanese delegation.

“We are concerned about the bluefin tuna. We were willing to have the suspension of Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery at ICCAT [last November] but it was the EU that opposed it.” Mr Miyahara, who is chief counsellor to the Japanese Fisheries Agency, said there would be a new stock assessment undertaken by ICCAT this autumn. “As a result we will take necessary measures and if necessary suspension [of fishing for bluefin].”

Mr Miyahara said that Japan has worked hard in the past four years to crack down on illegally caught fish. It had forced tuna penners in North African waters to release 840 tonnes of bluefin that were of questionable origin.

It has also impounded 2300 tons of Maltese and Spanish frozen tuna because it does not have completed documents of origin. Mr Miyahara said Japan had a five-stage inspection system, using video to check the amount of fish in tuna cages. “It is not us, but the exporters and fishers who have to demonstrate compliance,” he said. “We are very serious about bluefin conservation and we are ready to take very serious measures,” he said.

He said that the proposal to list bluefin on Cites Appendix 1 was “unfair” because it would allow the EU to catch 3,000 tons, more than any country currently has under ICCAT, and the United States would be allowed to go on fishing for its own domestic market.

Mr Miyahara said it would be a mistake to think that Japan could not do without bluefin, however. Bluefin represented only 3 per cent of imports. It imports annually 400,000 tonnes of high quality including yellowfin, southern bluefin tuna and bigeye.

Some delegations are picking up feelers that despite Japan’s outright opposition to bluefin being included under the Cites treaty, it might be prepared to compromise on some form of Appendix II listing, which means regulated trade. Mr Miyahara is a veteran of the Japanese delegation which successfully saw off an attempt by Sweden to list the bluefin tuna on Cites Appendix 2 in 1992.

A member of the Swedish delegation who asked to remain anonymous said last night: “Sweden withdrew the proposal in 1992 because ICCAT promised to shape up, which they did not do. This has been demonstrated by Monaco in its 47-page proposal to list bluefin under Cites Appendix 1.”

Charles Clover

Opposition to the listing of sharks on Cites Appendix II and bluefin on Appendix I received a boost in Doha yesterday when it became clear that the Arab League countries would be opposing all marine proposals, including the listing of red coral.

Sources close to the convention said that the League was concerned by the “socio-economic problems” that stopping trade with Japan would cause for fishermen along the North African coast.
Tunisia, in particular, has expressed strong opposition to a Cites Appendix 1 listing of bluefin.

Ghamen Abdulla Mohamed, director of wildlife conservation at Qatar’s Ministry for Environment, refused to comment and said the host nation would make its views known “after discussions.”

Patrick Van Klaveren, the ambassador to Monaco, which has proposed the Appendix 1 listing, said there could be ways of compensating the fishermen, possibly even through the richer members of the Arab League or some environmental fund.

One thing is clear; there is no mechanism for compensating fishermen under ICCAT which is the management regime Japan wants to stick with.

Charles Clover in Doha

March 16, Doha.

I predicted yesterday that Japan would be trying to get the Cites meeting to back an Appendix II listing for the bluefin tuna, which means regulated trade. The Pew Environment Group put out a very clear statement earlier today which shows why Appendix II would mean business as usual for the tuna, ie more gutless management by ICCAT.

Pew’s statement said: “We wanted to let you know that we’re hearing that some nations are thinking about proposing an Appendix II listing for Atlantic bluefin tuna. Please note that this would not change the status quo, and is just an effort to block what is really needed—Appendix I and a trade suspension. The CITES treaty is written so that if the trade of a species listed in Appendix II is governed by another treaty that predates CITES, than all trade management in that species defers to the initial treaty, not CITES.”

“In the case of Atlantic bluefin, whose trade is governed by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), an Appendix II listing keeps the species management in the hands of the treaty organization that has failed to set sustainable catch levels and has no enforcement authority.”

I hope that is clear. Only an Appendix 1 listing will do.

Take note Australia, which thinks perversely that management of the bluefin should be left with ICCAT, an organisation with few of the controls that now govern the fishing of the southern bluefin tuna.
Why side with lower standards than you set yourselves? I think Australia is missing something here.

Charles Clover

Greetings from Doha, Qatar, where some 120 countries, so far, are meeting to discuss the protection of the world’s endangered species.

This is the beginning of discussions which will decide the fate of 42 proposals over the next two weeks to restrict trade in species ranging from the polar bear to Mexican plants used in lipstick and, via the ever controversial big cats and ivory, to this year’s most controversial species, those caught in commercial fisheries, including several species of shark and the Atlantic bluefin tuna.

As expected, the bluefin is causing the most excitement, particularly in Japan, where some 80 per cent of the journalists booked to be here are from. Japan has a delegation of more than 50.
They have been busy. They have been placing stories saying that the attempt to ban international trade in the bluefin is an attack on the Japanese custom of eating fish. Well, it isn’t, it about the failure of soft management for a species that goes for a lot of hard currency.
They have been placing stories to worry the West Africans, saying that the Spanish and French purse seine fleets which fish in the Mediterranean will come to their waters if trade is banned, ignoring the fact that these are not long-distance, ocean-going vessels and it is up to the West Africans who they allow to fish in their waters, anyway. It looks as if Japan is panicking.

There have been indications that the secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species is increasingly getting fed up with the allegations from fishing countries that CITES is no place to regulate commercial fish species(CITES already regulates trade in 24,000 plant species and 4,000 animals and has done since 1975.)

Willem Wijnstekers, its secretary general, told the opening plenary that he found comments that CITES should not get involved in regulating bluefin “really worrying” and he totally disagreed with that comment. The Secretariat is increasingly calling the tune. It has commissioned a review of whether the EU’s complicated and Machiavellian proposal endorsing an Appendix 1 listing of bluefin - but placing lots of conditions on it - is legal. That is expected in the next couple of days.

Meanwhile, we can expect Japan to become shriller still in defense of the disgracefully-managed trade in its favorite sushi.

Charles Clover