When the meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) convened yesterday, Malta was the single EU member state still arguing against the inclusion of Atlantic bluefin tuna in the CITES Appendix I listing, which essentially means that the international trade of bluefin tuna will be banned.

The proposal to list bluefin tuna on CITES Appendix I was submitted by the Principality of Monaco in October. Atlantic bluefin tuna is at serious risk of commercial extinction because of decades of unsustainable and illegal fishing in the Mediterranean Sea, driven by demand from Japan’s luxury seafood markets.

The EU, like the USA and a growing list of other countries, is supporting the listing, but Japanese tuna brokers staged a protest on Thursday, ahead of the CITES meeting in Doha, which started yesterday and runs till 25 March.

The government has been insisting that the management of bluefin tuna should continue to rest with the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). This, as a regional fisheries management organisation, is the most effective governance model for the fishery’s regulation, not CITES, which is an international environmental agreement. The EU will be proposing that the inclusion of bluefin tuna in the CITES Appendix 1 listing should enter into force on a conditional basis, pending an ICCAT assessment of the state of the fish stocks.

Should the international trade ban on tuna be approved by CITES, it has been estimated that such a move could cost Malta one per cent of gross domestic product and the country’s export sector €100 million.

EU member states were divided on the issue relating to the conditions that should apply in the event of an international tuna fishing trade ban, particularly with regard to the continuation of artisanal fishing of bluefin tuna, as well as the compensation that would be given to fishermen and farm operators affected by the ban.

Under the proposed listing, Malta is arguing, member states would only be able to catch bluefin tuna within the waters under their jurisdiction, and because these vary in size, this will not provide equal fishing opportunities.

Malta maintains that deep socio-economic consequences would result for those involved in this industry if such a listing were to take place.

Financial assistance, added the Maltese government, should come in the form of additional funds from the EU budget, since the country cannot meet eventual compensation requirements from its current fund allocation.

The government said that while Malta agrees with the EU’s conviction that it should be a leader in environmental protection, it should be ensured that decisions take into consideration the interests of all the stakeholders.

Meanwhile, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) applauded the confirmation from the EU that it will vote for a ban on international commercial trade in bluefin tuna during a meeting of the largest wildlife trade convention.

Sergi Tudela, head of fisheries at WWF Mediterranean said: “WWF welcomes the EU announcement, which will give this devastated species the possibility to recover. Other governments must back the ban...”

“The EU is a major trade and development partner in many key regions of the world, and some countries may have been hanging back on Atlantic bluefin tuna to see what the Europeans would decide to do.

“Our only remaining concern is that we do not understand the continuing need on the part of the EU for conditions to be attached to the Appendix I listing. WWF believes this trade ban should be implemented immediately, without conditions or delay.”

The eligibility of Atlantic bluefin tuna for the CITES Appendix I listing proposal is backed by independent experts including a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation panel.

The marine conservation organisations Oceana and MarViva also acknowledged the efforts of the EU to support a ban on the international trade of bluefin tuna by listing the species in Appendix I of CITES.

However, the organisations are concerned about some conditions and implementation delays that were agreed in the proposal, which differ substantially from the immediate and direct ban proposed by Monaco and openly supported by the USA.