What Does the Recent Washington Convention Voting Mean?

Osaka – Saturday, March 20, 2010

Nikkei, Japanese newspaper specialized in business/economy, reported on March 19, 2010, that Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) regulating the international trade in wildlife and animals disapproved trade of bluefin tuna from the Pacific Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea in the meeting held on March 18 in Doha, capital of Katar. This was because developing countries opposed to the proposal of strengthening regulation of international trade, initiated by western developed countries, and therefore the proposal could not win more than 2/3 votes. If the voting result isl officially be approved in the general meeting to be held on March 24 and 25, Japan will be able to continue fishery and import bluefin tuna, a primary fish used in sushi and sashimi, one of the main cuisine that symbolize Japanese food.

1. What was discussed by the Washington Convention Committee members?

Revision of CITES appendix that lists wildlife and animals being banned/regulated in international trade was discussed. Monaco, that proposed immediate banning of export/import of bluefin tuna, emphasized that “with decrease of over 80% of reserves, bluefin tuna is in the crisis of certain destruction”. EU officially submitted the proposal with moratorium, to which other developing countries such as the U.S. supported.

On the other hand, Japan opposed to proposal, advocating “it is important to recover resources while continuing fishery”, to which countries such as Canada, Chile, Korea, Indonesia, Tunisia, Senegal supported. Libya also expressed that it disagrees with the proposal then requested voting.

2. What was the result of the vote?

Both proposals of EU and Monaco were disapproved because they could not win more than 2/3 votes as below.

EU proposal: 42 in favour and 72 opposed
Monaco proposal: 20 in favour and 68 opposed

3. What are the upcoming steps?

Usually voting result of the committee is approved at the general assembly. However, it is possible to repeat the discussion if more than 1/3 participants supports it, and the result of the original vote can be changed if over 2/3 vote as in favour to the revote.

Upcoming Steps of Washington Convention Assenbly
(Source: Nikkei, edited and translated by the author)

General Assembly
↓　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　↓
1/3+ Support >> Discussion Restart Proposal Disapproval Officially
　　　　　　　　↓
Voting at the General Assembly
　　　　　　　　↓　　　　　　　　　　　　　　↓
1/3+ Against 2/3+ In Favour
　　　　　　　　↓　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　↓
Trade Banning Proposal Disapproved Trade Banning Proposal Approved


4. What is the background of the voting result?

There are mainly 2 points.

1) The proposal did not meet needs of fishery countries of Asia and North Africa etc.

The proposal simply did not meet needs of countries of Asia and North Africa etc. whose fishery plays an important role in their economy and/or food culture. For this reason, such countries disagreed to the proposal; to them the proposal was excessive environmental preservation.

2) Conservation protection measure of ICCAT was evaluated.

ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Tunas) has already proposed resource conservation measure by limiting amount of fishery, and it was highly evaluated. With this measure, majority of the voters believed that banning of bluefish tuna international trade is not necessary and therefore disagreed to the proposal.

5. What is the possible impact if the proposal had won over 2/3 votes and approved?

Approval of the proposal of banning bluefin tuna international trade would have negative effect on fishery and food culture of Japan and others. Bluefin tuna is the main fish used in sushi and sashimi (raw fish dish), both of which symbolize Japanese traditional cuisine. For this reason, banning of the international trade would have such a big effect on both fishery and food culture of Japan. Also, it would have negative effect on countries exporting bluefin tuna and relying on bluefin tuna business; there had been TV programme in which how countries (business owners) make their living by fishery and export of bluefin tuna and how the banning of the international trade would negatively impact on their business and economy were introduced. Banning of the international trade would also have negative effect on countries that now (started to) enjoy bluefin tuna including China.

In addition, the possible effect of approval of the proposal is unlikely to be limited to banning of bluefin tuna international trade. Japan was extremely worried that if the proposal was approved, the items listed in CITES appendix would increase, expanding to such items as cod fish and herring as well, all of which are major cuisine with tradition in Japan. For example, herring is used in a Kyoto traditional cuisine called “nishin-soba”, and its egg i.e. herring roe and is vital in Japanese New Year Cuisine called “osechi” in Japanese, because it symbolizes a wish to be gifted with children, and is enjoyed along with other Japanese traditional food that symbolizes variety of wish.

6. What are the upcoming challenges and issues of Japan?

Although the proposal was disapproved, Japan still cannot be easy; it needs to be responsible for resource management while preserving its food culture. For this reason, Japanese government intends to be proactive in resource management (planning, execution and PR to the international community) and evade from the similar proposal to be submitted to Washington Convention again.

7. What does this incident tell us? What is the lesson from this incident?

The author strongly feels that some lessons are learned from this incident.

1) This incident is a diversity issue, and we all need to respect one another.

To the author, the essence of this is philosophy of diversity. Countries should not inflict their value to others, disregarding standpoint, situation (economic, social etc.) and manners and customers of their counterpart. They also should take into account what may influence the decision/proposal of the issue. Proposal was made by countries that do not eat bluefin tuna and/or are not involved in bluefin tuna fishery and trade, when ICCAT had already started to take measures for its conservation. The author wonder how would they react if similar proposal was submitted to Washington Convention for items such as beef, pork, mutton and turkey that has taken root in their industry/economy, food culture, and manners and customs, especially when countermeasure has already been/about to be taken.

We all need to respect others and their standpoint, manners and customers and so forth. There is no right or wrong, what is superior or inferior. They are just different.

2) International community need to collaborate for co-prosperity.

Although it is a difficult to balance two or more different issues such as global resource conservation/environmental preservation and prosperity (economy, society, food culture etc.), we all need to challenge it, for our sustainability and co-prosperity. This requires collaboration of the international community based on diversity philosophy and pursing an optimum solution including compromising. International collaboration is inevitable because all countries are globally connected and almost every aspect of each countries/regions is interrelated.