Improve management of Pacific bluefin tuna

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:52:37 +0900
I was much surprised the outcome of CITES CoP15. Yesterday, I talked about it as a chair of panel discussion of a symposium on biodiversity, organized by Ecological Society of Japan (ESJ) in front of ca.800 audience: "I predicted that proposal for the Atlantic bluefin tuna is accepted in CITES Appendix I because the absolutely majority of related scientists agreed to the listing. The outcome (reject) means that the CITES's decision was beyond science. I am afraid that a similar outcome (conflict between developed and developing countries beyond science) will appear in CBD CoP10." And I asked panelists for any idea of inclusion of scientific scopes into CoP10. I got no catchy answer.
Anyway, ICCAT needs to improve its managemet plan for ABT. CBD must encourage improvement of fisheries management of both Pacific and Atlantic bluefin tuna. Therefore, I like to have a side event on the management of PBT and ABT at CoP10. PBT is more serious because its international management system is weaker than ICCAT, and CITES may not be interested in PBT.

I worry about CBD CoP10

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:00:00 +0900
I attended DIVERSITAS Meeting in Nagoya during March 24-25.
I am greatly concerned that CBD CoP10 is a repetetion of UNFCCC CoP15 and CITES CoP15; conflict between developing and developed countries. Many Japanese scientists often play a role of mediator who finds a solution that a variety of stakeholders might accept, and is feasible and more or less advanced in the aim of the convention. However, I think scientists in IPCC did not take into account of conflict between parties. CBD scientists like to make a similar organization of IPCC (IPBES), but it is definitely not enough.
IPCC has succeeded to make a concensus of numerical goals, at least among developed countries except USA. UNFCCC will continue although failure of COP15. In contrast, CBD has agreed no numerical and measureble goals or cap-and-trade system. CBD could play a smaller role than UNFCCC. I believe, CBD needs to establish a scientific council that fully and intimate contacts with parties. We need to make a scientific solution that are agreed by parties.
If CBD agreed to reduce per capita Ecological Footprint with a particular numerical goals by CoP11, This may take over UNFCCC. Reducing EF is much easier than reducing CO2 emission for Japan and EU. Developing countries can reduce EF/GDP. These are definitely environment friendly.
Scientists and environmental NGOs do not say these ideas because these are heavy load in developed countries. I think developing countries feel unacceptable disadvantage load, because they still like to develop.

Comments at CBD PreCoP10 Meeting

I gave comments on the 2020 Targets for Convention on Biological Diversity, the 10th Conference of Parties at CoP10 Pre-Conference, Nagoya, March 22, 2010.

"Thank you for giving a chance to comments on CBD CoP10's 2020 Target.
I am concerned that if all the parties (stakeholders) are not included in the process, we cannot achieve efficient control. The process of DIVERSITAS seems not to include reflection of stakeholders. This is my great concern.
"Target 11. By 2020, at least 15% of land, freshwater and sea areas, including the areas of particular importance for biodiversity, have been protected through representative networks of effectively managed protected areas and other means, and integrated into the wider land- and seascape.
Technical rationale: Well managed protected areas are a proven method for safeguarding both habitats and populations of species and for delivering important ecosystem services , , , . Currently, some 13% of terrestrial areas and 5% of coastal areas are protected, while very little of the open oceans [including deep-water coral reefs and seamounts] is protected. The current target of 10% protection for each ecological region has been achieved in approximately 55% of all terrestrial eco-regions, and it is proposed that this target be retained for the remaining eco-regions. Reaching the proposed target implies a modest increase in terrestrial protected areas globally, with an increased focus on representivity and management effectiveness, together with major efforts to expand marine protected areas. Particular emphasis is needed to protect critical ecosystems such as [rivers, tropical forests,] coral reefs, [coastal wetlands, peatlands, lakes,] sea-grass beds, seamounts [and mountains].
[#reason: The order of these ecosystems should be revised by priority. Freshwater is less concrete than others, it should be rivers and lakes. I think that river is most important, heavily damaged and a key system between terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Some other categories are too specific in the target sentence. At least in Japan, mountain ecosystems are now threatened by overabundant deer. Mountain is fragile and involves many inheritable components]

"Indicator and baseline information: Relevant indicators to measure progress towards this target are the coverage of protected areas and the connectivity/fragmentation of ecosystems. Other possible indicators include the trends in extent of selected biomes, ecosystems, and habitats, [contribution to ecological footprint], the overlay of protected areas with ecoregions, the management effectiveness of protected areas, trends in the extent of selected biomes, ecosystems and habitats, water quality in aquatic ecosystems, and connectivity/fragmentation of ecosystems. Strong baseline information, from sources such as the World Database of Protected Areas and IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas, already exists for many of these indicators.
[#reason: Marine trophic index is difficult to be used for numerical goals. Japan MTI is high and did not show long-term decline. I recommend a substantial reduction of tuna catch and catch and eat lower trophic level fish, which will decrease MTI. I recommend for fisheries to decrease MTI (Eating down). Eating lower trophic level fish definitely contributes to reduction of ecological footprint.]

•By 2012, in the marine area, a global network of comprehensive, representative and effectively managed national, regional [and community-based] protected area system is established;
[#reason: The definition of MPA is broad, including both legal and autonomous MPAs. Protected areas are not the goal but measures to conserve biodiversity and sustainability.]

"Target 12. The extinction of known threatened species has been prevented....
Implementation: Numerous types of actions can be taken to implement this target. Sites already identified through the Alliance for Zero Extinction could be protected, supplemented by additional work to identify, locate and protect threatened species. Additional actions which directly focus on species include the implementation of species recovery and conservation programmes, ex-situ conservation measures as well as the re-introduction of species to habitats from which they have been extirpated. Actions taken under CITES to ensure that international trade [of threatened species should be controlled regulated for benefit of conservation and sustainability. CBD also encourages conservation and restoration plans for bioresources that are threatened by internal trade]. This target is relevant to most of the Convention’s programme of work on Protected Areas and is in line with the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation as well as with the Global Taxonomy Initiative.
[#reason: CITES has two options, trade-ban and trade control, whichever is more effective for conservation and sustainable use. Trade ban is sometimes ineffective by incentive of smuggling. Trade control sometimes encourages making sustainable management. In addition, CBD should encourage action plans to conserve species threatened by internal consumption. One example is Pacific bluefin tuna. Nobody takes care of this species but everyone talks about Atlantic. I would like to make a management plan of PBT before this becomes really threatened.]

"Target 14. By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, and contribute to local livelihoods, are identified and safeguarded or are being restored, and adequate and equitable access to essential ecosystem services is guaranteed for all, especially indigenous and local communities and the poor and vulnerable.
Technical rationale: All terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems provide multiple ecosystem services. Some ecosystems however are particularly important in that they provide services that are important in providing services essential for the lives and livelihoods of indigenous and local communities, including poor people. [Yield of agriculture, forestry and fisheries is a part of the total ecosystem services. We take into account of wise use of the total ecosystem service, rather than of maximum sustainable yield.] Accordingly, priority should be given to safeguarding, or restoring such ecosystems, and to ensuring that people, especially indigenous and local communities and the poor and vulnerable, have adequate and equitable access to these services.
[#reason: Even UNCLOS uses the term MSY in article 61 and elsewhere. CoP10 is a good chance to use of the term “ecosystem services” instead of MSY. I would like not to use maximum sustainable yield. The (fisheries) yield is a part of the total ecosystem services. However, in target 6, the term MSY is still used. In addition, the following target is not physically achievable. Some of heavily degradated species needs a much much longer time for recovering even without any exploitation. A typical example is blue whale. Recovery of bluefin tunas by 2015 is also physically impossible.]

A solution for global food supply is to reassign foods from developed countries to developing countries. I have an idea of ambitious target: "Ecological footprint of developed countries decreases to 1 fold of sustainable level (now EF in USA is about 4, EFs in EU and Japan is about 2)"

(End of comments)

My opinion on CITES CoP15

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:23:38 +0900
My goal is to realize sustainable fisheries. Listing marine resources in CITES Appendix is one of measures.
The stock trend of Atlantic bluefin tuna may satisfy the border of Appendix I criterion (definitely satisfies Appendix II criterion). It has been notified since a decade ago, ICCAT did not make a useful restoration plan nor stop of overfishing. Southern bluefin tuna has also a similar (worse) problem, overfishing, underreport and short of transparency in tuna farming. I am worried about listing SBT in the next CITES Cop16.
Pacific bluefin tuna stock also has a similar problem. I think that nobody will propose a lising PBT in the CITES Appendix. Therefore, Japan should make a stock management plan of PBT.
[] Now I like to make a management plan of PBT in CoP10. Listing tunas in CITES is not a big subject even in Japan.

Few Japanese companies will be damaged from listing ABT in CITES Appendix I, except tuna farmers in Mediterranean.
My opinion is similar to the FAO Ad Hoc Expert Panel.
The FAO Panel concluded that the available evidence does not support the proposal to include Spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias, in CITES Appendix II.
"The historical extent of decline in population abundance does not meet the Appendix II decline criterion for the following regions defined in the proposal: northwest Atlantic (USA and Canada), northeast Pacific (Alaska, Hecate Strait, Puget Sound, Georgia Strait) and the Black Sea."
"International trade of Squalus acanthias is the key driver of exploitation in most areas, except the northeast Atlantic where most of the catch is traded internally within EU markets. "
Therefore, declined northeast Atlantic dogfish will be traded within EU, while healthier populations will be prohibited.
I hope trade ban of dogfish within EU. This is necessary to protect this stock. If it will be done, listing a whole populations in Appendix II is not needed.
Anyway, I recommend sharks should be traded as a whole body (or with DNA certification) to identify to identify the species.
"The Panel noted that the EU has adopted a Shark Action Plan and looks forward to its implementation." []

Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:50:40 +0900
[] CITES is one of measures for sustainability and conservation. And its criteria (especially the number of reduction rate) are not the law, the goal of CITES is to enhance benefit of sustainability and conservation. The criteria are flexible, as is written in the criteria.
Today I was interviewed [] about Atlantic bluefin tunas. I answered, ICCAT was less affected by CITES. But this time, ICCAT was affected by CITES in bluefin tuna. It is too late.
I used an analogy of a succer game. A player repeated fouls. A referee has two options, yellow card (Appendix II) or red card (Appendix I). I expect the player may stop playing fouls after yellow card. Because ICCAT has first been affected by CITES, I have expected reformation of ICCAT.
However, it is too late. I said the judgment of red card is reasonable. If ABT is once listed in Appendix I, it will not be downlisted within several decades.
There are two types of ecologists. One encourage to make a bad person better. The other plays as a policemman to arrest bad people. I like to be the former. This is my education policy.
I gave a comment [], this is probably a turning point for fisheries management sectors to involve environmental groups and consumers for decision making. If they exclude these groups, public consensus is more difficult. This is too late.
[] few campanies will have a big damage even if it is listed in Appendix I. []
I suspect CITES will not handle PBT (probably SBT will be listed within a decade). A more important issue is to manage PBT. This is a matter of Japanese fisheries. Therefore, I think the management of PBT is one of the most important issues in CoP10 in Japan.
[]
Sharks: As I mentioned, CITES is one of measure for sustainability and conservation. It does not work in EU community. The management is based on population-level, not the whole species. If the EU has closed its dogfish fishery [], listing CITES Appendix II is not necessary for north Atlantic dogfish, it is unnecessary for southern hemisphere stock.
Anyway, if possible, Pacific Bluefin Tuna is more important issue in CoP10.

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:52:37 +0900
I was much surprised the outcome of CITES CoP15. Yesterday, I talked about it as a chair of panel discussion of a symposium on biodiversity, organized by Ecological Society of Japan (ESJ) in front of ca.800 audience: "I predicted that proposal for the Atlantic bluefin tuna is accepted in CITES Appendix I because the absolutely majority of related scientists agreed to the listing. The outcome (reject) means that the CITES's decision was beyond science. I am afraid that a similar outcome (conflict between developed and developing countries beyond science) will appear in CBD CoP10." And I asked panelists for any idea of inclusion of scientific scopes into CoP10. I got no catchy answer.
Anyway, ICCAT needs to improve its managemet plan for ABT. CBD must encourage improvement of fisheries management of both Pacific and Atlantic bluefin tuna. Therefore, I like to have a side event on the management of PBT and ABT at CoP10. PBT is more serious because its international management system is weaker than ICCAT, and CITES may not be interestec in PBT.
ESJ also encourages eating local and seasonally catchy food idems in sustainable manner.
My goal is for [fishers and fisheries companies] to practice a better behavior for sustainability and conservation. Ban-on-exploitation itself gives no experience of sustainable use.