Well, now they've gone and done it. I suppose it should come as no surprise, but the world body chickened out of doing something consequential to head off the insanity of overfishing that is driving the bluefin tuna to extinction.
As reported in the New York Times, the delegates to the UN Cites (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) conference in Qatar rejected United States effort to take actions to protect the endangered bluefin tuna and arctic polar bears. While this represents defeats for US policy, I think it's fair to say the tuna and the bears will take the biggest hits.
I love sushi as much as the next person, maybe more, but I was willing to bite the bullet to save the bluefin. The USA wanted a ban on all exports of bluefin. In this case, money (and Japanese tastes) talked. Japanese consume about 80% of the prized fish, and most of it is caught and sold to Japan by E.U. fishing fleets.
Japan argued against the application to CITES, maintaining that as it related to commercial fishing of tuna, the matter should be regulated exclusively by ICCAT, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. ICCAT, of course, has done a miserable job of managing the bluefin stock, which has declined by 80% or more, over the last 40 years. ICCAT, which can set quotas, lacks any enforcement mechanism. Moreover, the ICCAT quotas are clearly unsustainable. Thus, environmentalists sought to have CITES intervene to protect the future of the species at a critical juncture -- before the species goes into total collapse, unable to maintain the genetic diversity needed for long-term survival. The bluefin export ban proposal was defeated by a vote of 68 to 20, with 30 abstentions.
With respect to polar bears, the US gov't has already declared the population to be threatened by its disappearing habitat. The US endorsed a proposal to prevent trade in polar bears, as well. Canada and Greenland led the charge to defeat the proposal, maintaining
"the bear population was healthy and that it could sustain limited hunting and trade in pelts and body parts." (quote is from NYTimes reportage, not actual gov't statements)
The polar bears proved a bit more popular than the tuna, losing by a vote of 62 to 48, with 11 abstentions.
Next up for the CITES delegates: Sharks and elephants.
The US doesn't want a ban on trade in sharks, but does want to list shark species in Appendix 2, which would require governments to monitor their numbers. According to the NY Times article:
"with Japan leading the opposition to any United Nations involvement in the regulation of marine species, and China, the largest consumer of shark fins, strongly opposed, the prospects of a deal appear remote."
The elephant story is a bit different. CITES banned ivory trade years ago to protect the elephants. That has been seen as a remarkable success story, both for CITES and for elephants. Now, however, Tanzania and Zambia would like to resume ivory trade. They've proposed "One-off" sales of stockpiled ivory, and would like to down-list the species, which might allow for hunting in the future. Other governments fear this will lead to a new wave of elephant poaching.