Deal to limit Atlantic bluefin tuna catches not good enough, say environmentalists

BRUSSELS – Environmentalists on Monday said an international deal to reduce catches of Atlantic bluefin tuna didn't go far enough to protect the species from extinction.

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas decided at a meeting Sunday in Brazil to limit 2010 catch quotas to 13,500 tons to prevent overfishing of the much sought-after tuna, the European Union said.

The commission sets annual fishing limits in an effort to save the fish stock from extinction.

Signatory countries had previously agreed to cut catches from 28,500 tons to 22,000 this year, but scientists and environmental groups argued a total ban was needed to salvage a viable tuna stock.

"Only a zero catch limit could have maximized the chances that Atlantic bluefin tuna could recover to the point where the fishery could exist in the future," said Susan Lieberman, from the Pew Environment Group.

Raul Romeva, who sits on the European Parliament's fisheries committee, said European delegates to the Brazil meeting "deserve to be condemned" for agreeing to continue fishing the sushi favorite.

The European Union's fisheries commissioner, Joe Borg, said the cuts would "mark decisive progress in managing and conserving" the bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean and Atlantic.

"Our goal is to ensure the return to a healthy bluefin tuna stock and a viable and sustainable fishery for our fleet," he said in a statement.

EU nations have been divided on how to protect dwindling tuna stocks off their coasts.

Mediterranean members Greece, Cyprus, Malta, Italy, France and Spain blocked an attempt by the European Commission in September to impose a temporary ban on catching tuna.

Stocks of the bluefin species have been in steady decline for years with Japan taking some 80% of bluefin exports to satisfy demands for the finest raw fish ingredient.

The tuna's uncertain status has driven up prices and prompted fishermen to sidestep stringent quotas to fish illegally for big profits.

— Associated Press

Photo: Captive bluefin tuna inside a transport cage.  Credit: Gavin Newman / European Pressphoto Agency

Comments

[Mark Scott]

We do need to take better care of our oceans. The price of seafood is lower than it should be in comparison to land-based meat because the fishermen/women, the fish processors, marketers, etc. pay none of the costs associated with restocking and breeding their "product" that land-based meat providers have to. If land-based farmers only killed and sold free range meat, they would be out of business within weeks. Instead, they must bear the costs of breeding and raising their product, passing that cost onto the conusmer. The fishing industry needs to take an active hand in re-stocking the oceans and pay the price for that so that the price of fish is closer to the true cost (that cost including the depleation of the oceans or the cost of making replenishing the fish stocks they fish from). The idea that humans can just take as many fish out of the ocean as we want and that there will always be more has to come to end. If it doesn't, we'll find ourselves very soon with no fish to eat at all.