Page 15 - DiNatale2010

properly analyse if the current situation of this species fits the CITES criteria. When we take into account the
situation at sea and many other issues discussed in this paper, there is a good evidence of this statement.

Listing the Atlantic bluefin tuna in CITES Appendix 1 would result in practice in a complete ban of the fishery
in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean at least for the first two years and in very serious and conflicting
management issues in the following years, because the domestic CITES authorities are different from the
domestic fishery authorities, and national CITES Scientific Commissions usually do not include any fishery
scientist in several countries.

CITES has an incredible amount of bureaucracy, possibly necessary to ensure a full control of the system for
very threatened species, but impossible to be followed by any fishermen and difficult to be followed also by any
fishery authority. The time required by the CITES bureaucracy does not fit any fishery need, because this
Convention was established for other purposes.

Contrary to the statements by some NGOs10, listing a species in CITES under Appendix 1 implies that all the
removals are limited only to scientific needs and according to precise and detailed scientific plans. Trade and
harvesting from nature is fully prohibited, with very few exceptions11. Listing Atlantic bluefin tuna under CITES
Appendix 1 would possibly imply the immediate extinction of the most historical traditional fishing activities in
the EU and in some North African countries, like the tuna traps and the harpoon fishery, with a serious cultural
and socio-economical problem. Both these activities have no responsibility in the current problems of Atlantic
bluefin tuna and they must be protected anyway.

RFMOs and CITES have clearly different management roles and different responsibilities (Di Natale, 2003,
2004a; Kell et al., 2000).

The Atlantic bluefin tuna has a serious management problem and even more serious data and assessment
problems and these need to be faced by the responsible management body, the ICCAT, with the fundamental
support of all Contracting Parties and under the external overview of important NGOs. This is a clear
responsibility issue, but again it is still not a conservation problem. The ICCAT bluefin tuna recovery plan must
be immediately and strictly enforced, with no derogations or exemptions.

If the management of Atlantic bluefin tuna will pass from the ICCAT, one of the most reputed RFMOs, to the
CITES, than the credibility of ICCAT will be lost forever and this will cause unpredictable problems for many
species and for the RFMOs system in general.

If the Atlantic bluefin tuna is listed in CITES Appendix 1 having many millions of individuals dispersed in the
oceans, then the inclusion of many other halieutic species12 will necessarily follow the same track in a short time,
creating a serious problem in terms of management roles and responsibility.

10 All the recent press releases by WWF (namely the WWF Bluefin Tuna Bulletin) report that listing the bluefin tuna in CITES under the
Appendix 1 will only exclude international trade, still permitting the national fisheries and domestic consumption. Maybe the author of these
relaxing texts forget that bluefin tuna, being a marine species, are usually caught at sea; it means that fishing this species, even for domestic
(personal???) consumption, will imply the introduction of these catches in the national territory of each CP. These unrealistic statements are
possibly deliberately made to slow down the opposition due to socio-economical issues. Following herewith is the original text provided by
Art. III (5) of the CITES (as signed in Washington on 3 March 1973 and as amended in Bonn on 22 June 1979):

Art. III. Point 5: The introduction from the sea of any specimen of a species included in Appendix I shall require the prior grant of a
certificate from a Management Authority of the State of introduction. A certificate shall only be granted when the following
conditions have been met:
(a) a Scientific Authority of the State of introduction advises that the introduction will not be detrimental to the survival of the
species involved;
(b) a Management Authority of the State of introduction is satisfied that the proposed recipient of a living specimen is suitably
equipped to house and care for it; and
(c) a Management Authority of the State of introduction is satisfied that the specimen is not to be used for primarily commercial
purposes.

11 One of the few exceptions is the whale hunting permitted to the Inuit population for subsistence.
12 Many stocks of fish, crustaceans and cephalopods have more problems than the bluefin tuna one.

1018