Left to right: Margaret Spring, Chief of Staff, Dr Jane Lubcheko, NOAA; Rebecca Lent, U.S. Federal Commissioner, Director NMFS International Affairs; Ellen Peel, U.S. Recreational Fisheries Commissioner, also with the Billfish Foundation, Miami, Florida. Photo by R. Ruais

In addition, evidence was provided on fines levied against Mediterranean farms and fishermen for non-compliance by an ample army of observers and inspectors deployed by the community and several North African countries.

The premier evidence that we have entered a new era at ICCAT is the fact that two bluefin traps and two farms were forced to release fish already in captivity once it was determined that country quotas had been reached. This resonated with the farm industry that had, in some cases, towed these fish in cages for 30 days from the Gulf of Sidra, Libya to Malta, or the Balearic Islands to Cartegena, Spain. The cost to feed and maintain these fish from 6 to 9 months with daily divers and boats fetching feed was substantial. No doubt the sting of this financial loss will not soon be forgotten by the farm owners.

New Agreement
Then came the new conservation agreement in Brazil. The agreement essentially adopted everything the U.S. asked for, and certainly every major objective identified in a Senate Resolution authored by Senator Olympia Snowe, Senator John Kerry and other Senators. The U.S. asked that the agreement follow the SCRS bluefin scientific advice, although the timing of complete consistency with the advice by the East may be off by one year.

The new agreement calls for an immediate quota reduction from 22,500 mt to 13,500. With required paybacks the real 2010 quota will be closer to 12,000 mt. The SCRS urged a quota between 8,000 and 15,000 mt. The SCRS also recommended an 11 month purse seine closure. The agreement includes this with elimination of prior loophole “weather” make up days, as well as a switch of the opening only from May 15 to June 15. Finally, and most importantly, the agreement calls for implementation of a rebuilding plan next year after the new stock assessment that rebuilds the resource with a 60% probability of success by 2023. Most scientists are projecting this will require a further reduction in quota to below 8,000 mt for the 2011 fishing year.

Rounding out the good biological news for bluefin, with the scheduled reduction in western quota to 1,800 mt in 2010, the west is no longer overfishing. The SCRS projections also suggest stock rebuilding by 2017 or 2019 depending on the recruitment scenario selected. Thus, there has never been a more productive and constructive year for bluefin conservation than the progress made in 2009.

Why the Success?
So what led to the success in Brazil after the U.S. delegation struggled for nearly 20 years to get the east and Mediter- ranean under control? Many think the convergence of a world “spotlight” being shined on the continuing Mediterranean bluefin abuse, and high level U.S. government participation and involvement in the ICCAT Brazil meeting produced an irreversi--ble change of course down a conservative path for eastern bluefin.

Many have credited Dr. Rebecca Lent (Federal Commissioner), Margaret Spring (Dr. Jane Lubchecko’s, Chief of Staff), and Senator Snowe’s Senate resolution for contributing to the pressure on the east to do the right thing.

No doubt the Convention on International Trade in Endan- gered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES) threat also helped. Many are grateful to the contributing environmental groups for finally helping force the European Community to get matters under control.

Most believe the progress made in Brazil is irreversible. In the words of the Chairman of ICCAT, Dr. Fabio Hazin the “days of funny numbers are over at ICCAT.”

But Why CITES Now?
Despite the amazing breakthrough at ICCAT, it is clear that the Department of Interior’s US Fish and Wildlife Service continues to move forward with a CITES 1 listing. A CITES 1 listing will ban all international trade. The push for CITES is largely being carried out by PEW Charitable Trusts, World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and Oceana among other organizations.

But bluefin tuna is not in danger or threatened with extinction. The latest 2008 stock assessment for the East and West suggest 5.2 million fish are prospering in the Atlantic Ocean; more than a million of these of spawning age. This population constitutes reproduction potential for rebuilding the entire Atlantic as occurred with swordfish 3 years ahead of schedule.

So why are the environmental groups still pushing CITES? Some observers believe the motivation is to keep the pressure on the East to deliver on the commitment for a rebuilding plan in 2010. Others think they just want the “trophy” of getting bluefin listed after the 1992 failed attempt at CITES by Carl Safina and the Audubon Society from New York.

Downside of CITES
There are serious potential and real problems with a CITES listing, especially if the listing is supported by the U.S. Most importantly, it will undermine U.S. credibility with U.S. partners at ICCAT. After achieving major biological objectives, to then support ICCAT parties being stripped of authority or punished with a CITES trade ban for finally heeding the call to conserve is seen by some as a threat to U.S. credibility.

A CITES listing could force countries to take formal “RESERVATIONS”, freeing them from the trade ban obligation. Japan has objected 7 times to any CITES listing of any marine species. It is likely that Japanese markets will remain open to BFT if CITES 1 is obtained. Libya, Turkey, Algeria, Taiwan, Philippines, etc. may seek windfall profits to supply shortages from countries likely to abide by the CITES decision.

Some parties think a CITES listing would encourage Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing, which ICCAT has been seriously fighting and reducing for years. A CITES listing without considering “similar in appearance species” (the so called “look alike clause”) could create a an enforcement problem, and lead to an increase in pressure on bigeye and yellowfin tuna stocks.
Meanwhile, American fishermen will pay the price for abiding by the law, the science and conservation. The U.S. has been doing more, with larger minimum sizes in particular, than any other country to conserve bluefin tuna.

Although the U.S. is a net importer of bluefin. U.S. markets cannot absorb the bulk of it’s production, which occurs in five months from June through October.

There is a market stigma attached to the consumption of a species listed as threatened with extinction. The environmental groups are already having an impact forcing restaurants and retailers to avoid purchasing or placing bluefin tuna on menus. The swordfish markets, despite the resource being over the biomass producing maximum sustainable yield, still suffers from the Pew led “Give Swordfish a Break” campaign.