Tuna export ban rejected

Japan won over scores of poorer nations with a campaign that played on fears that a ban would devastate their economies. Tokyo also raised doubts that such a radical move was scientifically sound.

In another blow to conservationists, a proposal at the meeting to ban the international sale of polar bear skins failed to pass.

With stocks of Atlantic bluefin tuna down 75 percent due to the rapacious appetites of Japanese sushi lovers, the defeat of the proposal was a stunning setback for the Americans, Europeans and their conservationist allies who had hoped the 175-nation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES, would protect the fish.

"Let's take science and throw it out the door," Susan Lieberman, director of international policy with the Pew Environment Group in Washington, said sarcastically.

"It's pretty irresponsible of the governments to hear the science and ignore the science," she said. "Clearly, there was pressure from the fishing interests. The fish is too valuable for its own good."

Japan, which imports 80 percent of the tuna, had lobbied delegates hard to kill the proposal. They even held a reception Wednesday night for uncertain delegates that included plenty of bluefin sushi.

When Monaco introduced its proposal Thursday, the gallery was filled with critics who ignored a plea to save the once-abundant species that roams across vast stretches of the Atlantic Ocean and grows as big as 1,500 pounds.

There is an increasing demand for raw tuna for traditional dishes such as sushi and sashimi. The bluefin variety -- called "hon-maguro" in Japan -- is particularly prized, with a 200-kilogram (440-pound) Pacific bluefin tuna fetching a record 20.2 million yen (US$220,000) last year.

"This exploitation is no longer exploitation by traditional fishing people to meet regional needs," Monaco's Patrick Van Klaveren told delegates. "Industrial fishing of species is having a severe effect on numbers of this species and its capacity to recover. We are facing a real ecosystem collapse."

But it became clear that the proposal had little support. Only the United States, Norway and Kenya supported the proposal outright. The European Union asked that its implementation be delayed until May 2011 to give authorities time to respond to concerns about overfishing.

1|2|Next Page>>

SharePrintEmail

Write a Comment

Terms

Enter your comments - 3000 characters max

Type in image code

Submit

 Receive China Post promos
 Respond to this email