Control and enforcement of strict harvesting rules for bluefin tuna. How would this work in a sea without borders? And what, in fact, was Europe doing on this front? The EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is a story in itself. A largely untold story, in fact, about a painstakingly built cathedral of management policies to recover the stocks of different species that took decades of complicated negotiations between the member states and their fishing interests. This only began to pay dividends with respect to sustainable fishing from 2010 on, with remarkable results in terms of improved stocks in the common waters [137, 191]. But within European policy tuna always had been a different story with an external stage outside the common seas. It was European distant water fleets, especially those registered in Spain and France, that fished tuna in the oceans around the world. Bluefin tuna fishing had become a bit of an exception, happening for the most part in the Mediterranean. This sea was an intricate patchwork of different claims on fishing grounds with monitoring systems of extremely varying quality. The EU was the most important force in terms of industrial interest within ICCAT. But this management organisation, which was in charge, seemed to have the greatest difficulty in taking steps to protect bluefin tuna. Could it play a role when it came to enforcement of compliance?
- 137.Holden M, Garrod D (1996) The common fisheries policy. Fishing News, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 167.Mielgo Bregazzi R (2008) Lifting the lid, the 2008 bluefin tuna dossier. WWF, RomeGoogle Scholar
- 178.Oceana (2008) Italian driftnets: illegal fishing continuesGoogle Scholar
- 117.Greenpeace (2008) Game over: European Union sinks tuna agreement, November 24Google Scholar
- 260.WWF (2008) End of the line for tuna commission, time for trade measures, November 24Google Scholar
- 171.Mitsubishi Corporation (2009) Revised position statement on bluefin tuna, January 2009Google Scholar