![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldA proposal to ban the fishing of tuna globally has recently been defeated, with Japan apparently playing a central role.
Canada supported the Japanese motion; the fisheries minister was quite happy with the failure of this ban.
Notwithstanding bad fisheries practices elsewhere, the whole point of a global ban on a widely dispersed fish is to ensure that the population remains intact, and that arbitrary territorial divisions that separate the--after all--highly mobile fish will not hinder the recovery. Besides, the tuna is a large, slow-growing fish; can 300 people really fish it without harming the species' viability? I am not surprised that Prince Edward Island's representatives are pleased with this: besides the neo-traditionalism of the province, the Island played a central role in the emergence of the transnational sushi culture that is so badly hurting the tuna.
On Monday, we reported that the United States and the European Union were spearheading an effort to ban the international trade of bluefin tuna at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Now that the week is ending, so are the hopes for the proposal that could have protected the vanishing fish. It failed by a wide margin, thanks largely to the diplomatic efforts of Japan.
Japan consumes around three-quarters of the globe’s bluefin tuna catch, with almost all of it served raw as sushi and sashimi, of which it is the most sought-after variety [Christian Science Monitor]. It can be an expensive delicacy there. In addition, the transformation of sushi from a luxury dish to a cheap food available at the corner store seems to be one of the factors that has led to quickly diminishing tuna stocks. The Japanese government, while acknowledging that the species is in danger, pledged to defeat the proposal or else opt out of complying with it.
Canada supported the Japanese motion; the fisheries minister was quite happy with the failure of this ban.
Federal Fisheries Minister Gail Shea is applauding Thursday's United Nations wildlife meeting vote rejecting a U.S.-backed proposal to ban bluefin tuna exports.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species made the right decision, said Shea. She added that responsible management practices of Canada's bluefin fishery helped swing the vote.
Japan and scores of developing nations opposed the ban, which was proposed Feb. 5 by the panel that oversees the convention. It believed the export of Atlantic bluefin tuna — popular in sushi restaurants — has resulted in a drop of more than 80 per cent in stocks since the 19th century.
"We're very encouraged by the preliminary results because Canada's position all along has been that that this species should be managed through a regional fish management program, which we have in ICCAT [International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas]," said Shea. "The challenge will be to strengthen ICCAT to ensure that conservation measures are adhered to."
Canada's management plan is one of the best in the world, said Shea.
Notwithstanding bad fisheries practices elsewhere, the whole point of a global ban on a widely dispersed fish is to ensure that the population remains intact, and that arbitrary territorial divisions that separate the--after all--highly mobile fish will not hinder the recovery. Besides, the tuna is a large, slow-growing fish; can 300 people really fish it without harming the species' viability? I am not surprised that Prince Edward Island's representatives are pleased with this: besides the neo-traditionalism of the province, the Island played a central role in the emergence of the transnational sushi culture that is so badly hurting the tuna.
