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

A crucial vote on whether Europe will back a trade ban on the critically-endangered bluefin tuna is expected to be taken on Tuesday.

In advance of the event, the makers of the film The End of the Line, which focuses on the over-fishing of the bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean, have sent an appeal to all 27 European Commissoners asking for them to watch the film and reflect carefully before making their decision. Continue reading ‘The End of the Line used in appeal to European Commission as crucial vote nears’

The movie that changed the way people think about what’s on their dinner plate makes its TV debut tonight – Tuesday October 20.

The End of the Line film was being screened by More4 at 10.00pm and is the latest stage of its incredible journey.

Among its many other milestones is an unprecedented four week run in London’s West End, a screening at the Sundance Festival and dozens of special screenings at subsequent festivals.

There have also been special screenings for European royalty including Prince Albert of Monaco and the Queen of Spain.

It was on screen as the UK’s first online seafood restaurant guide www.fish2fork.com was launched this week with the backing of some VIP supporters.

Sarah Brown, the Prime Minister’s wife, said on Twitter: “The End of the Line, the brilliant, watchable film on fish is on More4 at 10.00pm tonight and sustainable fish restaurant guide www.fish2fork.com”.

There was a similar message from author, actor and green activist Stephen Fry, who urged his 870,000-strong army of followers to watch the film and to visit the website.

Fish2fork.com aims to rate restaurants not just on the usual criteria of how good their seafood is but perhaps, more importantly, on what impact its capture has on our oceans and marine life.

The online guide has been set up by the same team which turned Charles Clover’s book The End of the Line on over fishing into a hugely powerful film.

Visitors to the site will find information about seafood restaurants across the UK and will be encouraged to ask questions about the fish they are offered when they dine out.

They can then easily upload their own view of the restaurant’s commitment to sustainability onto the website and help give it a simple rating score - blue fish for good and red fish for bad – on a sliding scale.

For its launch the website has reviewed and rated more than 100 restaurants across the UK but is relying on diners to provide their own reviews and help the website grow into an authoritative reference guide.

Within hours of its launch the website was being contacted by fish lovers eager to get involved by nominating restaurants they want to see in the guide.

Fish restaurants were also quick to see the marketing possibilities of being featured on the site and had filled in the www.fish2fork.com questionnaire.

• This article originally appeared on Crikey.com.au

A last-ditch campaign to save the bluefin tuna is fast gathering support in Britain and will soon become a political and environmental issue in Australia where the species is being fished with indiscriminate abandon for super profits.

London’s celebrity chefs are taking the endangered fish off their menus and Waitrose supermarket has banned its sale. Fishmongers and restaurateurs throughout the country are being assailed - or so we read - by customers asking, “Do you source your fish sustainably?”

Bluefin tuna is on the brink of extinction through overfishing, and the issue is now so critical that both Britain and France are supporting a resolution by Monaco to ban fishing of the species when the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites) meets in Doha in October.

Japan, where a single fish can command more than $120,000, is expected to oppose the move. Let’s see what that gallant protector of the whale, Peter Garrett, decides to do.

The issue of overfishing has come to the fore in the past month thanks to the release of the critically acclaimed documentary The End of the Line, based on the award-winning book by London Daily Telegraph journalist Charles Clover. “Everybody knows there’s no fish left in the sea,” says Clover. “They probably caught them while we were filming it.”

Mature spawners are fished out in UK waters, and are fast disappearing in the Mediterranean, where bluefin are still being landed at a rate of at least 60,000 tonnes a year - three times the legal limit, with organised crime with Mafia links said to be involved.

Public concern has led to a significant shift in policy in Britain and France. Although France has Europe’s biggest bluefin fishing fleet, President Nicholas Sarkozy last month spoke out for the need to protect fishing stocks. “Ours is the last generation with the ability to take action before it’s too late,” he said.

British fisheries minister Huw Irranca-Davies followed suit, saying he will lobby the United States and other countries to support the ban on sales of bluefin.

The End of the Line, which premiered to critical acclaim at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, documents not only the bluefin issue but such cases of overfishing as the catastrophe of Newfoundland, home to the world’s most abundant supply of cod, which has been decimated since the early 1990s.

The film also shows how African coastal people, long dependent on fish, are losing their food supply to big commercial fisheries. And it demonstrates that fish farming, with its need for massive supplies of fish food, is no solution to the problem.

Scientists interviewed in the documentary predict that if fishing continues unchecked, the population of the oceans will be wiped out by 2048.

The End of the Line is an independent film made with the support of organisations including WWF, the Marine Conservation Society, Channel 4’s Britdoc Foundation and charitable foundations, and backed nationally by Waitrose.

It initiated a citizens’ campaign to change fish sales practices through consumer action. Jamie Oliver didn’t take tuna off his menus until clients started raising the issue. Japanese chain Nobu attracted spirited protests when it refused to stop serving tuna sushi in its London outlets.

The film-makers themselves are leading the campaign. Producer Claire Lewis, who says working on the project changed her life, doesn’t eat anywhere without first asking: “Can you tell me where your fish comes from?”

Author Charles Clover has been campaigning on the issue for five years now. “We must stop thinking of our oceans as a food factory,” he says, “and realise that they thrive as a huge and complex marine environment.

“We must act now to protect the sea from rampant overfishing so that there will be fish in the sea for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.”

This documentary, which has the hard-hitting quality of Michael Moore’s movies, deserves to be released in Australia but no distributor has yet stepped forward.

In the past week Los Angeles blog Curbed LA has been pondering the question we set about our set of images taken on the streets of LA. Adrian Glick Kudler wanted to know what the connection between them was. You can find out here.

About.com ran an extensive preview of The End of the Line by Jennifer Merin. She writes that the documentary is “a beautifully shot film that alerts audiences to the devastating impact overfishing has on our oceans.”

Tiny Choices, a blog about the little decisions that people have to make everyday, gave away tickets for the beach screening of the film on Governors Island in New York.

The Star Tribune, Minnesota, reviewed the film. Colin Covert writes:  “Some marine populations ‘are no longer renewable because of what we have done to them,’ cautions London Daily Telegraph correspondent Charles Clover, whose work inspired this fact-packed film. With commendable clarity, it lays out the data.”

More on the song Coma by Kevin Heard and Thinbuckle. It turns out that none other than Lou Reed played guitar and sang backing vocals on the track. You can find further details on the Brooklyn Vegan blog.

Nicholas Lander, in a feature for the Financial Times, looked into the supply of fish to restaurants. He sent a menu from Oliveto restaurant in Oakland, California, to Charles Clover for comment, who said that “it was ‘a menu from the future, information-wise; [but it's a] shame about the halibut and swordfish’.”

MPR News in Minnesota, also reviews the film. Euan Kerr says: “The End of the Line, Rupert Murray’s troubling documentary about the impact of overfishing, explores the subject at great length . . . . It’s a thought-provoking film.”

Minnesota entertainment site City Pages draws together a brief summary of local coverage for The End of the Line, mentioning the 76% positive rating from Rotten Tomatoes.

Finally this week, the LA Times says it has had enough of ‘The world is horrible’ docs.

“Don’t get us wrong, we love that movies like the dolphin-slaying expose “The Cove” and the alarming over-fishing tale “The End of the Line” are being made - they’re a vital social service. But we’re overwhelmed. Keep making the films; but for now can we just change our behavior without seeing them? We’ll catch up with all these films later, but we’re sad enough already.”

Missing the point a little?

As per the great British tradition, there was something fishy in yesterday’s news: an interesting little snippet in PR Weekly, announcing that a new PR firm has been hired to work for Seafish.

Seafish, in case you didn’t know, are the industry body responsible for promoting (and, in many cases, defending) the fishing industry in the UK. They are paid for by us, both as a levy on the fish we buy, and in government funding.

The news here is that they are looking to communicate how the UK fishing industry is 100 per cent behind ’sustainability’, which is of course fantastic.

Not least because UK seas, like many others in Europe, have seen the most rapacious excesses of overfishing in decades and centuries gone by.

They also say that one of the issues they want to communicate is “the sale of bluefin tuna”.

Now, Seafish are rather late to that particular party for a number of reasons. Our own fisheries minister has already announced that the UK will back a ban on the trading of bluefin (as have Monaco, France and the Netherlands).

And of course Greenpeace, The End of The Line, WWF, Oceana, and many other organisations have been campaigning to change the perilous situation of bluefin for years.

But, of course, we welcome Seafish, belatedly, to the bandwagon. So what does this mean?

Will Seafish be supporting the ban on the trade of bluefin?

Will they be calling for a ban on the sale of endangered species like bluefin by restaurants like Nobu, as our fisheries minister has now done?

Just what will Seafish be doing to make sure bluefin tuna is rescued from the brink of extinction?

I’m certainly keen to find out.

Of course, some in the fishing industry have criticised The End Of The Line for focusing on bluefin, saying it’s not relevant to the UK. But that is where they are very, very wrong.

Not only is bluefin a species on the brink of extinction, something that should concern us all, but it is found in UK waters. That’s why the UK government’s announcement is meaningful.

Not only is the UK a ‘range state‘ for bluefin tuna, but we used to have our own bluefin tuna fishery in the North Sea. Up until the middle of last century, sports fishermen were catching bluefin off resorts like Scarborough and Whitby.

So if Seafish and the UK government are serious about the sustainability of our seas and our fish stocks, presumably they want to manage our seas for recovery, so that species that are no longer common can recover and thrive again in places like the North Sea.

That means designating large areas off-limits to fishing as marine reserves, both for the overall resilience of the seas, and for protecting specific areas of importance (such as the area around the Balearic Islands in the Mediterranean, which is a breeding ground for bluefin tuna).

Rather than see bluefin tuna as an irrelevance or a convenient media hook, I’m looking forward to seeing Seafish do something meaningful to ensure their continued existence.

• Willie MacKenzie is part of Greenpeace’s Ocean Campaign. This blog post originally appeared on the Greenpeace UK website.

News of The End of the Line is spreading far and wide.

Dutchmen Jos Wassink and Koos Termorshuizen are currently on a three-month cycling tour around the North Sea.

They stopped off in Dedham, Essex, to see Charles Clover on their way through England and wrote about it on their website Northseacycling. You can read their interview - Inconvenient Truth of fisheries - on the site.

All of this week’s coverage of The End of the Line comes from the United States and Canada - apart from one mention in The London Standard.

Charles Clover is interviewed about the film by Katherine Monk in Canada’s National Post. He tells her: “You people in Canada have already seen what happens to communities and the ecosystem when you fish out a given species.

“The reality of overfishing became obvious with the collapse of the northern cod stocks in Newfoundland. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans screwed up.

“They thought their job was taking care of the fishery, and not the fish. You have to take care of the fish first, because without the fish to catch, there is nothing for the people - and this was a bit of a revelation.” Continue reading ‘Canadian media dominates this week’s coverage of The End of the Line’

Despite the old adage, it seems that crime does pay… at least if you are the Stevenson family of Newlyn.

As reported by the BBC, the family, who operate fishing trawlers in Cornwall, were prosecuted for routinely landing illegal fish.

Not only were they landing species they had no quotas for, but they were doing so by passing them off as other species, so it was all pre-meditated and well-orchestrated.

They also conveniently ran the auctions where the fish are sold, and falsified the records of what fish had been sold to match what the skippers said they landed.

And it was also profitable - it’s estimated that £4m worth of fish were landed illegally. All the more galling that the firm is run by Elizabeth Stevenson, who was the former president of the National Federation of Fisheries Organisations.

But we can take solace in the fact that they were caught and prosecuted. They were found guilty of a total of 45 charges. And they have been fined accordingly… or so the judge seems to think.

On top of paying legal costs (£66,000) and being ordered to pay back £710,000, they have just been fined for the offences. But the total fine of the actual fine was £45. Yes, £45, I didn’t misplace the decimal point or under-report anything. One measly pound for every charge for which they were found guilty.

Just to set that in context: they profited by over £4 million… and are being punished by getting to keep over £3.2 million.

Whilst some may shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, it’s all Europe’s fault,” they knew what they were doing, and they were trying to get around the system - the system that is of course there because of concerns over dwindling fish stocks and over-fishing.

Had they been trying to use their (clearly) considerable influence to make a point about a problem with discards, I would applaud them. Had they been making a point about destructive fishing methods like beam-trawling being unacceptable (and they would know all about beam-trawlers), then I would have sympathy.

But the truth is, it was all about making money, and to hell with the environmental considerations. These are the real pirates of Penzance but there is nothing romantic about it.

This makes me very angry, and you should be too. They are over-fishing stocks that belong to all of us. This is your money. These are your fish.

There is also a huge amount of irony in Elizabeth Stevenson’s response that, “It’s not going to be easy to find this sum of money. It’s huge.”

• Willie MacKenzie is part of Greenpeace’s Ocean Campaign. This blog post originally appeared on the Greenpeace UK website.

The End of the Line has still been receiving plenty of coverage following its UK release and in the run up to its US launch. Here we bring together the latest news and a few older pieces that slipped through the net.

The Guardian covers the film and the issue of fish stocks again. In the Environment section, Felicity Lawrence, writes: ”The supermarkets have increased their targets for sustainable fish, and The End of the Line’s film release has prompted a flurry of announcements – most notably from M&S and Pret a Manger – to move even faster . . . .

“There is reason to hope that fish stocks can still recover, but we need to keep asking for sustainable catches. Keep the pressure up.” Continue reading ‘The End of the Line coverage following the film’s UK release’

The breeding population of bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean has collapsed, in what may come to be seen as one of the world’s most spectacular ecological disasters, according to an independent report.

• The 2008 bluefin tuna dossier - Advanced Tuna Ranching Technologies [pdf of the full report by Roberto Mielgo]

The destruction of stocks of one of the world’s most expensive fish, already recognised as being as endangered as the giant panda, effectively took place in 2007, more than twice the legal catch was taken by Mediterranean fishermen under the eyes of EU and UN-recognised officials, according to the report.

If the analysis of the size and weight of tuna now passing through the Japanese market is representative of what remains in the sea, according to the report, the EU and other Atlantic nations have presided over disaster comparable to that of the collapse of the blue whale or the Northern cod.

Environmentalists blame the final destruction of what was the largest population of a fish which is known to have been hunted for 7,000 years on a catastrophic failure of governance by the EU and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).

Rampant illegal fishing with spotter aircraft, fast power-boats and the full modern hi-tech arsenal of fishing technology has hastened the decline.

A-list diners, including Charlize Theron, Sting and Elle Macpherson signed a letter of protest last week to Nobu Matsuhisa, the world-famous fushion chef, threatening to boycott his restaurants unless he takes the endangered bluefin tuna off the menu.

According to the latest report, released to coincide with World Oceans Day by the independent consultant Roberto Mielgo, 70 per cent of the bluefin tuna in the Japanese market between July 1 last year and May 1 this year were below 90 kilos in weight.

Some 33 per cent of the tunas on the Japanese market were below the legal size of 30 kg when caught – a major indictment of the inspection regime run by Mediterranean countries under the supervision of ICCAT.

Mr Mielgo said: “If this analysis of what is on the Japanese auction markets corresponds to what is left in the sea, we are in deep trouble. It means the adult bluefins are no longer there. If that is what is at sea, the stock will not recoup.

“My view is that the stock collapsed in 2007 as a result of the 2007 fishing season in which 61,000 tons of bluefin were caught. The fishery should have been closed in 2007.”

The 61,000 tons recorded in official catch figures in 2007 was twice the legal quota agreed by EU nations and ICCAT, four times what scientists advised was responsible and six times what ICCAT’s own scientists said was needed for the recovery of the stock.

Ten years ago, the majority of bluefin tuna in the Japanese market were medium-sized mature adults of 120 kgs or more and the stock structure wholly different to what it is now. Now a third of it is below the minimum landing size and causing concern even among Japanese tuna traders who dislike selling small fish.

Mr Mielgo’s report concludes: “The massive presence in the Japanese market of juvenile bluefin tunas having been illegally caught and farmed points to the failure of current control schemes, including the credibility of observers filling in caging declarations.”

Mr Mielgo is a tuna farmer turned whistle-blower. The report by his consultancy, Advanced Tuna Ranching Technologies, goes even further than trends presented earlier this year by WWF using official figures which showed that the population of breeding tuna in 2007 was only a quarter of that 50 years ago.

According to WWF’s analysis, the bluefin breeding population will disappear by 2012 under the current fishing regime. It called for the immediate closure of the fishery.

Mr Mielgo’s report says the age-profile of tunas on the Japanese market “is consistent with the hypothesis of an on-going collapse of the breeding population of this stock.”

He added: “It’s not that I am a pessimist. There is no way this population is going to pick up. Again, I hope I am wrong. The fish are not there.”

Dr Sergi Tudela, head of fisheries for the Mediterranean, said: “Our position in April, based on ICCAT data, is that the spawning stock will have been wiped out by 2012.

“This new data is a further indication of what we said then, which is that the spawners are disappearing. The reproducing stock is in serious trouble. This shows the bluefin is in dire straits.”

Mr Mielgo is featured in the film, The End of the Line, which has its national public premiere in 50 British cinemas tomorrow.