Tuna: Fin words, suspicious tail
If you've read my previous posts on the plight of the Atlantic bluefin tuna, you might assume everyone would be gambolling with delight at the news that and are supporting calls for a ban on international trade in the species.
Think again.
Although on the face of it this is a move that could save the species from commercial extinction, there are some important questions.
Can it work? Is international trade the right point of attack?
Is this another case of governments seeking easy green points on things that are painless to them? And are we once again oversimplifying a complex environmental issue down to a totemistic, tokenistic posterchild?
The new forum for the tuna war is , the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. France and the UK are joining Monaco in saying they'll lobby for international trade in the profitable bluefin to be banned when the organisation meets next March.
Conventionally, Cites isn't used for commercial fish, and indeed at the last meeting in 2007 about which was the competent body to regulate on these species.
The FAO argued that looking after food species was a job for Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) - in the case of bluefin in the Mediterranean Sea, the .
During that meeting, the EU sought to ban trade in a couple of edible shark species - a move that was rejected by a bloc of countries including those which, like Japan, traditionally adopt a "pro-sustainable use" stance and which supported the FAO in its argument with Cites.
New Zealand's delegate Pamela Mace voted against the shark trade ban, because, she said, restrictions on international trade could not solve the problem: "It actually requires effective management at the local level."
The same argument, with some justification, will be made about the bluefin.
It's generally acknowledged that Iccat has failed to manage the Mediterranean bluefin effectively, which is why some, such as conservationist that Cites may offer the only option.
But who's to blame for Iccat failures? According to a [pdf link] that Iccat was obliged to commission last year, it's the member states.
They have not backed fine words with enforcement, the report said, and at times have actively worked to help their own fishermen against Iccat regulations.
One would have rather more confidence that a country was serious about banning the bluefin trade through Cites if that country's authorities always inspected landings with missionary zeal and always prosecuted errant fishermen to the maximum.
And sometimes - as at last year's Iccat meeting - fine European words have evaporated under the heat of business-as-usual, with pro-fishing delegates taking a radically different negotiating position from the one implied by pre-meeting rhetoric.
By common consent, the biggest problem with the bluefin (as with many other fisheries) isn't inadequate regulation, but inadequate enforcement - mainly a job of national authorities.
The bluefin has become a symbol of the wider decline in marine ecosystems - in the UK it's received special attention since the release of the documentary , which you might term An Inconvenient Truth for the oceans.
Celebrities have the fashionable Nobu chain of restaurants unless it takes bluefin off the menu, and the species' plight has been admitted to the select club of topics deemed suitable for conversation at dinner parties.
One suspects that political support for a Cites ban is largely based on a perception that it would be popular in dinner party-attending circles... and with tuna a species of virtually zero commercial importance in the UK, the support comes free of pain.
If you're of a cynical bent, you might contrast the support given for continued cod fishing - against scientific advice - with opposition to continued bluefin tuna fishing - in line with scientific advice.
"Iconisation" is something that happens in all environmental fields. Heathrow's third runway becomes a symbol of climate-unfriendly development, the Brent Spar a symbol of oil companies' disregard for the natural world.
The intent of those involved is often genuinely to raise awareness of the wider issue through publicising an icon that's easy to relate to.
The problem is, solving the narrow issue can suggest that the wider job is done; and anyone who thinks that preserving the bluefin means ocean health is solved is peering through the wrong end of the telescope.
The bluefin certainly needs a saviour, and it would be great to be wrong about the capacity of a Cites motion to swim into town on its white seahorse and sort the tuna issue once and for all.
This may looks like a serious attempt to solve a pressing problem, but it carries more than a hint of window dressing.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
Comments
or to comment.