After years of disgraceful decision-making by ICCAT and its members, the northern bluefin tuna is in real trouble. Unfortunately it is delicious, and a single fish can sell for thousands, so politicians can’t bring themselves to allow a significant reduction in catch. No matter what quota is agreed, fishers catch it illegally anyway, so the species is taking a hammering. So with fisheries management consistently failing to protect bluefin, the Principality of Monaco is leading calls to block international trade in it under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). It’s a dramatic move in what is a desperate situation, but will it actually help?
Bluefin tuna are enormous and powerful, and are blessed (or not) with a with a deep red, fat-marbled belly loin. They make the best sushi, toro, and as such there is a massive market demand for their meat. Bluefin is traditionally eaten fresh in the Mediterranean, but the bulk of the global catch is frozen and shipped off to be eaten in Japan.
The northern bluefin population, which straddles the northern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, is now, thanks to all of this fishing, thought to be at just 15-20% of its historic abundance, although this exact fisgure has been disputed by some. Whatever the true percentage, the species needs a reprive from current fishing pressure to allow it to recover, with a full temporary suspension of fishing being the Holy Grail (but that is unlikely). In response to ICCAT’s inability to manage the stock responsibly, the idea is to list the bluefin under CITES Appendix I, meaning that all international commercial trade will cease.
In Europe (in theory), this would mean fewer boats bringing in fewer bluefin to meet the relatively low consumer demand. It should be noted that bluefin is not only caught for immediate dispatch on board, but also caught and towed in colossal nets to inshore farms where it is fattened up for a few months before market. These farms will be most severly affected by a trade ban than the straightforward catch-to-kill fishermen as they are much more geared towards international export. The situation would be similar across the Americas too (although there is less farming there).
Although this wouldn’t stop fishing of bluefin, the incentive to catch quite so many will have been removed because the catch couldn’t be traded, giving the stock some breathing room. While the producing nations and fishing communities would take a hit to their economy (and livelihoods, which politicians are so keen to avoid), those countries which rely heavily on imported tuna, such as Japan where demand completely outstrips national supply, the consumer would suffer without bluefin being flow in and sold in frosty auction rooms.
But this is where things become unsettled. There are ways around an international trade ban, the obvious option being the black market. Banning trade will not automatically cut down demand, and may instead push the trade underground. With the ‘classic’ endangered species like rhinos and tigers, illegal trade is attacked at both ends; by anti-poaching patrols at the source, and customs officers at the destination. Bluefin, which are fished in international waters, will have nobody fighting the fishermen off at sea (unless Sea Shepherd step in, although I’d rather they didn’t), and so countries like Japan would have to work jolly hard to crack down on the tuna black market. Despite this, and recognising that bluefin is served quite visibly in high street sushi restaurants, the current trade is bound to downsize somewhat. Greenpeace will no doubt be creeping around Tokyo with pipettes and DNA testing kits.
But there is another loophole which I find more worrying, as it requires no criminal activity by anyone. European and US vessels which are geared up to fish for bluefin tuna are registered to their national flag, but it is worryingly easy to re-flag to another country – Japan for example. If you fly the Japanese flag (with the necessary paperwork), your vessel is to all extents and purposes Japanese, even if you’re not. Trade is suddenly no longer international, and so the CITES ban wouldn’t apply.
Of course, there are pros and cons of re-flagging to the defecting fisherman, and full scale re-flagging is not a foregone conclusion, only a worry. Re-flagged vessels couldn’t land their catch directly in Europe or the States, or even supply live fish to the tuna-fattening farms (which are normally sat within national waters so the transfer of fish would count as international trade), so instead they would have to transfer thier catch to waiting transport ships in the Atlantic or the Medwhich would then steam off to deliver the frozen cargo in Japan. This does narrow the trade route quite substantially, but it remains that where there is demand, there is inevitably a supply, and some vessels will choose to exploit this loophole. Just how many remains to be seen.
I guess that in conclusion, a CITES listing for bluefin doesn’t necessarily guarantee its recovery. It might reduce the flow of trade, but a profitable black market will just make it a lot harder for conservation scientists to see is actually what’s going on, and loopholes will allow some fishing to continue. The listing does not tackle the root of the problem, which requires education amongst other things, and once again; where there is demand, fishermen will continue to catch fish. The alternative is to stick with the existing ICCAT management, which although currently inexcusable, may offer some potential if politicians listen to the advice of their scientists.
