The hottest topic in corridors, during lunches, and behind-the-scenes at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) meeting taking place in Doha, Qatar, was the blue-fin tuna. But one week into the meeting, which brings together 175 countries, the conservationists have suffered a stunning defeat.
The US and the EU had formed a coalition asking to list the blue-fin tuna in appendix I (which totally bans trading in the species) or appendix II (giving strict quotas for a regulated ban). However, Japan, which controls 80 percent of the blue-fin market, strongly refused these new regulations.
Japan created its own coalition of fishing countries that oppose the ban. This quickly grew to include Tunisia, UAE, Canada, Indonesia, and several other poorer countries. Finally, a Libyan diplomat called for a vote which saw a crashing defeat for the proponents of a ban on fishing of blue-fin tuna.
The problem is the increasing politicizing of CITES means this decision largely ignores science. A similar series of events took place only a few months ago during the climate change summit in Copenhagen, another COP meeting. Nations in the biggest gathering ever of state leaders failed to come to an agreement on climate change, in spite of overwhelming evidence of the severity of the danger it poses to life on earth.
There is overwhelming science that shows the blue-fin tuna is indeed endangered and could possibly be over-harvested into extinction soon. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) recently produced a report arguing that blue-fin tuna levels were at 15 percent of their value before commercial fishing started.
This was enough to make the blue-fin tuna eligible for listing in appendix I.
Like the climate change summit, this latest development at CITES shows a disregard for the science in these large international meetings, where political alliances dominate first place.
The climate change COP15 meeting was the first wake-up call, and now CITES is an exact repeat. How should these international meetings be handled? How can science and scientists be given their due place, rather than have them decided by internal, short-sighted interests?