Scales of Debate Tipped Against Bluefin Tuna

Efforts to save the bluefin tuna are drowning

Last week, it was announced the the bluefin tuna population had become dangerously low, with speculation over whether the species can survive the exhaustive over-fishing that has reduced its population by more than 72 percent in the last 50 years.

Discussion about the numbers of the bluefin tuna aren’t new. For years, the over-fishing of the highly sought-after fish has lead conservationists to predict extinction. Yet the tone set by The Internal Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), an inter-governmental body responsible for the conservation of tuna and related species, might as well be described as the death knell of the highly-prized poisson.

Though the ICCAT voted on Nov. 15 to slash the allowable quota of catches by a third, most environmentalists are skeptical to believe the reduction alone will save the species from extinction estimating that the fish faces only a 50 percent chance of survival, even with the reduced quota.

The belief that a reduced quota isn’t enough to save the species from extinction will be a source of discussion by the Conference of the Parties (COP), an international organization dedicated to conservation efforts, when they met in Qatar in March. The COP will also consider a proposal to classify the bluefin tuna as endangered. It’s a move that would ultimately ban international trade of the fish, and the only viable option for its environmental recovery.

Yet the bluefin tuna faces a formidable foe in the fight for its survival: the economy.

Bluefin tuna has become something of a delicacy, especially in the Mediterranean, where the demand for sashimi has begun to outstrip the legal supply. The collapse of the bluefin tuna can largely be blamed on aquatic poaching, with thousands of tons illegally addressing the shortfall resulting from the legal protection of the fish.

In the United States, where commercial fishing operations have operated at legitimately lower levels of catches than is required, the harvest of bluefin tuna is critical to economic success. An end to international trade, especially to Japan, where the demand for bluefin tuna is the highest, would result in a flooding of the much-smaller domestic market. The lower demand and over-saturated supply would result in lower prices being paid to those catching bluefin tuna, which currently fetch between $6 and $9 per pound.

And the fishing industry has been among the hardest hit by the recession’s lagging recovery. In Massachusetts, which at 1,600 boasts the highest number of commercial tuna permits in the country, the economic impact is troubling. With a 5.9 percent unemployment rate, individuals who have carved careers out of trawling the sea have limited options for careers on land, increasing the competition for what little jobs are available. With the fishing industry that is so vital to the coast being threatened, what little economic recovery that has begun may cease completely.

Such industry people have every right to hope that scientists are wrong. Especially given that the bluefin tuna has been the subject of such scientific fear-mongering before, and ICCAT is seen by some as having to share in the responsibility for the bluefin tuna’s current status.

Sergei Tudela, head of fisheries at WWF Mediterranean, criticized ICCAT’s current management as “total failure…inadequate to guarantee the recovery of this iconic species.” ITudela went on to further demand a complete end to the fishing over bluefin tuna in order for the stock to climb.

The idea of ending fishing internationally has been about as popular as one would expect. While Europe has traditionally had a leg to stand on in criticizing America’s track record with environmental issues (insert witty Kyoto punch line here), the debate over the protection of the bluefin tuna may result in the loss of European credibility. Just two months ago, members of the European Union lead by Italy, Spain and France voted against provisions that would protect the fish with only temporary bans, sending a strong message that the economic and social benefit outweighed the potential environmental impact. While Germany, Britain and even France have since come out in favor of protecting the bluefin tuna, a substantial bloc of the European Union remains convinced that a fishing ban will mean irreparable economic repercussions, including the end of their fishing economies.

However, it stands to reason that if an entire industry would come to a screeching halt with the introduction of a brief moratorium on a given product, the complete eradication of that product would have equally, if not greater, disastrous consequences. If the Mediterranean bloc believes that the temporary ban of bluefin tuna fishing will lead to a sizable economic impact, what kind of outcome will the species extinction cause?

It’s a question we shouldn’t have to be asking. Almost two decades ago, the northern cod, faced with falling stocks (a precursor to extinction) Canada issued a moratorium. As a result, 22,000 fishers and plant workers became unemployed, with most eventually finding employment outside the fishing industry. Yet the collapse of the northern cod has left a lingering economic impact on Newfoundland.

But the economic climate of 1992 Canada differs greatly from present America, where the dialogue of the bluefin tuna’s longevity has been intermixed with voiced concerns about the survival of American coastal fishing. Last month, in what was largely seen as a the first environmental misstep by the current administration, the U.S received criticism for failing to co-sponsor Monaco’s proposal expanding protection for the bluefin tuna. It’s since insisted illustrated support for the proposal, insisting it would take higher action if the ICCAT failed to set “responsible, science-based quotas,” which it overwhelmingly failed to do.

Asking the traditionally contrarian U.S. to deliver a hardline environmental policy by ushering the bluefin tuna to the endangered species sector would have been a laughable effort beneath the regime of George W. Bush, but Obama would do well to play hardball for the sake of his constituents. Grassroots activism played a critical role in saving the bald eagle and barred tiger salamander from extinction, once political officials took notice and lobbied for their protection. Bluefin tuna is the first animal under Obama’s leadership to be facing true peril, and his decision will set the precedent for the other species currently being threatened.

However, most that are currently at the brink aren’t as heavily involved with the economic survival of concentrated population(s) of people. The real struggle of striking a compromise protecting bluefin tuna while being mindful of the fragile fishing economy is leading most to tread troubled waters, unable to universally support a move in one direction or the other. It’s a distressing reminder that regardless of which side “wins” the bluefin tuna battle, both are ultimately the loser.

Share this: