Bluefin bout

Abstract

Sometimes, there are “food fights” of real consequence. On March 18, at a meeting in Doha, Qatar, a controversial fishing ban on the Eastern Atlantic/Mediterranean population of bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) – which has declined in numbers by about 80% since 1970 – was rejected by member nations of the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), by a vote of 20 in favor and 68 against, with 30 abstaining. What's the big deal, I thought; isn't tuna abundant and inexpensive? The answer is a little complicated. Not relied on for the canned offerings that line supermarket shelves for use in sandwiches and casseroles, Atlantic bluefin – which are big critters, growing to over 600 kilos – are highly valued for use in the better grades of sushi and sashimi, an integral part of Japan's seafood-eating culture. A single large bluefin can sell for more than US$150 000, obviously big business for Japanese dealers and their Mediterranean counterparts. It isn't that Japanese consumers would have gone without tuna supplies in the country's ubiquitous sushi bars; the Pacific bluefin, bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tuna fisheries would have been unaffected. To make matters more complex, despite US support for the CITES ban, the US fishing industry also targets the Atlantic bluefin, albeit less ambitiously than do some other countries. Domestic fishing for this particular species is only permitted in the highly regulated Exclusive Economic Zone off the US Eastern seaboard. Nevertheless, US fishermen – while having to toe the line regarding Western bluefin harvests and with their eyes on market prices, no doubt – are angered by the non-compliant practices of fishermen from other countries, who harvest the Eastern Atlantic/Mediterranean stock. Sometimes referred to as the “Washington Convention”, CITES is one of the largest worldwide trade agreements – drafted as a result of a resolution adopted in 1973, at a meeting of members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Through CITES, some 5000 and 28 000 species of animals and plants, respectively, are currently protected to varying degrees. Specifically, protected species, subspecies, or populations are included in one of three Appendices, depending on how threatened they are by overexploita-tion through international trade; incidentally, T thynnus is a candidate for CITES Appendix I listing, which encompasses those species most threatened with extinction. In order to ensure that economic concerns are satisfied and that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) isn't violated, the Secretariat of GATT oversees CITES. Any resolution adopted by CITES is then left up to the signatory states to adopt, as part of their national statutes and regulations and their obligations under GATT. As of 2009, 175 countries have signed on to the CITES treaty. However, CITES has no provisions for arbitration of disputes in cases of non-compliance; violators are subject only to indirect pressure and sanctions. Another weakness, as with other treaties, is that the Convention itself does not contain enforcement measures, except in some cases through GATT. But it is not all that easy; at times, CITES is incompatible with GATT, which can tip the balance of trade regulation and threatened species protection. While CITES explicitly permits the use of “stricter domestic measures” regarding protection of listed species under GATT, enforcing domestic laws – such as the US Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Wild Bird Conservation Act, or the Endangered Species Act – to enhance species protection can be seen as unnecessarily trade restrictive and a breach of GATT agreements. So the Atlantic bluefin tuna has been caught in the middle of two heavyweights, with CITES on one side and ICCAT and GATT on the other. At the Doha CITES meeting, round one went against the bluefin.