sustainable ……but….. á la carte

published February 20, 2010 under the title :

“Sustainable ….. but … a way.”


When the CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) Conference of the Parties meets in Doha next March it will consider a proposal that will mean that international trading of bluefin tuna will be banned.

The European Parliament, on February 10, approved a motion for a resolution, which, among other matters, urged the EU Commission and member states to support the ban on international trade in bluefin tuna in view of the depletion of natural stocks of this species.

A total of 320 MEPs voted in favour; 271 voted against. Four of the Maltese MEPs voted against the ban and the fifth, David Casa, was absent when voting took place.

The ban is being proposed as bluefin tuna is on the verge of extinction. It is being fished at a rate far above its natural regeneration. The Principality of Monaco stressed, when presenting its submissions justifying the ban back in July 2009, that coordinated intervention is long overdue.

The Principality of Monaco has argued that bluefin tuna stock in the Mediterranean has declined by more than 74 per cent between 1957 and 2007, the bulk of it in the last decade. Meanwhile, tuna stock in the west Atlantic has plunged by 83 per cent between 1970 and 2007.

The ban will affect industrial fishing and tuna ranching. It will not affect fishing for bluefin tuna for local consumption. It will, undoubtedly, affect large-scale fishing, including those operations based in Maltese waters. Lobbying on behalf of these operators and their Japanese partners has been very evident. The political positions taken by a number of Mediterranean countries, including Malta, is also clearly the result of lobbying by the industry, which has wide interests straddling opposite shores of the Mediterranean.

The Principality of Monaco in the draft resolution submitted to the CITES Secretariat for discussion during the Doha Conference of the Parties stated that, notwithstanding recommendations by the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) that tuna catches should not exceed 15,000t per annum, quotas far in excess of this recommendation were approved: 22,000t for 2009, 19,950t for 2010 and 18,500t for 2011.

The Principality of Monaco also emphasised that it is known that the international fishing fleet capacity is, at least, double that needed to catch the current legal quota, which fact leads to serious doubts on quota enforcement and the under-reporting of catches.

The average size of the bluefin tuna has been reduced substantially over the years from 220kg to 145kg as overfishing is not permitting tuna to develop to its mature size.

Japan, a major consumer, consumes 43,000t of bluefin tuna annually. Half of this is acquired from the Pacific Ocean, the rest from other parts of the world.

It is a known fact that quotas are widely ignored and only a ban on international trade will allow stocks to recover. This will take time to be achieved.

The international environmental NGO WWF, through its Mediterranean Programme, has since 2008 embarked on a programme aimed at saving the Mediterranean bluefin tuna from extinction. It has adopted a three-pronged approach, namely addressing fishing methods, consumer awareness and through lobbying national governments in order that they observe the agreed quotas. The programme is ongoing and it aims to improve the management measures recommended by scientists.

Opposition to the ban is short-sighted politics. It is myopic as it focuses on short-term economic gains and ignores the long-term social, economic and ecological impacts of the collapse of tuna stocks. The social impacts on families dependent on international trade in bluefin tuna have to be addressed through adequate social programmes as their livelihood is in peril due to its depending on an unsustainable activity. Opposition to the ban will not, however, do them any good as it will just postpone facing the music by not more than five years.

Malta has been one of the states resisting the international demand for an international trade ban on bluefin tuna. The Maltese government has opposed the call for such a ban in all fora. Even the opposition Labour Party has supported the PN-led government in defending the unsustainable fishing of bluefin tuna. Maltese MEPs have obliged by taking a stand against the ban.

Yet, both the PN and the PL in Malta speak in favour of sustainable development. Most probably they mean sustainable… but… á la carte, that is, speaking profusely about it but simultaneously proceeding with business as usual.

The Greens in Malta have been the only political voice in favour of sustainable fishing, in favour of protecting marine biodiversity as well as defending traditional fishing methods in opposition to the havoc generated by industrial fishing.

It is too late in the day to expect the government to be consistent. The Labour opposition is no better.

2 comments on “sustainable ……but….. á la carte

  1. I would not normally vote in favour of anything, which in any way harmed the local economy of Malta and Gozo, but unfortunately in this case there is just no option. What’s the use of continuing to fight a ban when a ban is inevitable?

    Unfortunately once again a small country like Malta is paying the price for two countries in particular, Japan and China. Practically every endangered Species in the world can be traced back to these idiots and their weird eating and medicine habits. Perfect examples are the tiger and white rhinoceros, which are approaching extinction because these nations believe certain parts, can be used as an aphrodisiac.

    They also see nothing wrong with catching thousands of tons of shark cutting off their dorsal fin and throwing them back into the sea to die. I’ve had a policy for a long time now that I don’t buy anything produced in China. If I find a shop which stocks a large amount of Chinese made produce then I stop using that shop. Perhaps if others followed my example these countries would get the message.

  2. Whilst countries like China and Japan are fuelling the demand resulting in the endangerment of a number of environmental assets, Malta is happy to enrich a few local individuals – we can call them the fish-barons – by supplying the tuna. I do not know what the specific motivations of Gonzi-PN and the Labour Party are, but I can suspect what one could be: could it be party funding? Malta has over the years acquired a very bad reputation, particularly with the ever-increasing number of individuals living overseas who do not focus on the use value of the environment but rather its intrisic value. Furthermore more and more people are of the view that the environment has an inter-temporal value and in particular we should also value it because future generations should not be deprived of it. Do Prime Minister Gonzi and his cabinet care?? The blue fin tuna saga indicates or rather proves that they do not

    It is indeed time for Maltese voters to realise that the Nationalist and Labour parties have no real interest in the protection of the environment; as the passage of time has proved, the interests of the said two parties are solely to protect themselves, their cronies and their financial interests. As I said in an earlier contribution to your blog, I would be extremely surprised if Parliament were to amend the electoral laws to enable parties like the Green Party to be justly represented in Parliament. I remember the three last Presidents of the Republic -the emeriti Ugo, Guido and Eddie- when they were in the party in opposition. Do you like me remember how much they used to pontificate about the lack of democracy when Dom Mintoff was in power and PN had a minority of seats but a majority of votes in terms of a Constitution which all three had voted for? At the time, Gonzi and Muscat were still wearing their nappies, at least in political terms, but they should realise that democracy extends also to give small political parties their fair representation in Parliament. It is only then that the environment can have a proper voice in the place where it matters most.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s