TL: RESPONSE TO CRITICISM, DOLPHIN / TUNA ISSUE SO: Greenpeace International (GP) DT: September 1993 Keywords: oceans fisheries tuna dolphins groups us greenpeace letters gp / PUBLIC LETTER IN RESPONSE TO EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE'S 18 AUGUST 1993 LETTER ATTACKING GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL'S RECENT TUNA REPORT Dear Friends and Colleagues, In July, 1993 Greenpeace International issued a report titled "In the Race for Tuna, Dolphins Aren't The Only Sacrifice: The Impacts of Commercial Tuna Fishing on Oceans, Marine Life and Human Communities." In August, Earth Island Institute (EII), based in the United States, circulated a response letter, attacking the tuna report and claiming it was "portrayed as an expose of the fraud and mislabelling by the tuna industry..." with regards to the "dolphin-safe" corporate marketing programs. Greenpeace International has prepared this statement to clarify the contents of its tuna report and to address the charges leveled against it by EII. If you have not had the opportunity to read the tuna report, please contact Greenpeace for a copy. THE GREENPEACE TUNA REPORT: SNAPSHOTS OF A GLOBAL CRISIS The 20-page Greenpeace report addresses the broad implications of commercial tuna fishing in all tropical oceans as "a prime example of the global crisis in fisheries." Most fishing for tuna and other offshore species takes place out of sight and are, for the most part, poorly monitored. On the high seas no processes for legally binding regulation, enforcement, compliance or dispute resolution exist, and independent, international observers are not placed onboard the majority of commercial tuna fishing vessels. The point of the tuna report is to: summarize these global problems, present a platform of principles and regulations; and increase the prospect that there will be effective ecological constraints on fisheries, that dolphins and whales will be saved, and that fish species and the marine environment will be conserved and protected. Page 2/Public Letter The EII letter takes issue with two pat market solutions and argues that Greenpeace has changed its positions on pieces of U.S. legislation and does not provide specific evidence that "dolphin-safe" shipments of tuna are mislabeled. Finally, the letter condemns Greenpeace recommendations for international regulatory programs in fisheries. The Greenpeace report illustrates that comprehensive, long lasting solutions will require more than market mechanisms. We see that some organizations have perceived the tuna report's short section on the limitations of the "dolphin safe" programs as an attack upon them. This was never the purpose of the report. Greenpeace is working for basic global reforms of regional and international fishery regulatory bodies. Voluntary dolphin safe programs, as they are now carried out worldwide, are a handy tool for corporations and the commercial fishing industry to mask wider environmental problems. With these programs in place, industry can earn more money by claiming to be environmentally responsible while, at the same time, avoiding the strictures of "command and control" regulatory programs. Greenpeace is involved in the broad debate within the global environmental movement about how to work on issues that cross borders. As a global organization with offices in Western and Eastern Europe, North and South America, North Africa and the South Pacific, Greenpeace approaches environmental issues from an international perspective. We do not assume that the only means at our disposal for solving environmental problems are U.S. laws applied unilaterally to the rest of the world. The tuna industry includes fishing, processing and consuming nations from every region of the world, each with different laws, cultures, customs and standards. Tuna-related issues involve complex realities that must be approached on a multilateral level. The EII letter denounces Greenpeace's international efforts, arguing that U.S. laws are sufficient to police the rest of the world. This argument is illustrated in a paragraph of the letter that states the industry would never attempt to have their own monitors placed on tuna vessels because "this would violate both the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act and the International Dolphin Conservation Act." But, all three of these acts are U.S. laws. These U.S. laws are not applicable in Spain where industry representatives attempted to replace international scientific observers with Spanish observers onboard boats fishing in the Eastern Pacific. Nor do U.S. laws apply in Venezuela where these vessels, financed by both Venezuelan and Spanish capital, were located. Page 3/Public Letter GREENPEACE STANDS FOR PROTECTION OF ALL OCEANS AND MARINE LIFE The letter claims that Greenpeace wholeheartedly supported the U.S. legislation titled "The International Dolphin Conservation Act of 1992." In fact, Greenpeace worked to improve the legislation while it was being negotiated and, in the end, issued a statement calling the bill a "mixed bag," hardly a strong endorsement. The Greenpeace statement regarding the U.S. bill in 1992 said in part: "By ignoring the environmental problems in the four other commercial tuna fishing grounds, it is likely this bill could create more instability in fisheries globally. An important concern is that the bill limits observer coverage provisions to just one area of the world where tuna is harvested. No provisions are set for regulation, monitoring or control of the impact on dolphins or other marine species in the other commercial fishing grounds in the South Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans. In fact, observers would only be encouraged (on U.S. tuna vessels) after it was proven that marine mammals were caught in nets, but the only way to know if nets are set around dolphins and whales is to have an observer onboard a boat." Greenpeace did not accept this compromise on observer coverage when it was proposed by U.S. tuna industry officials to negotiators of the legislation. We believed that relaxing observer coverage on tuna vessels in oceans outside of the Eastern Pacific undermined the precautionary principle. This cornerstone principle means that when there is not enough information to evaluate the impact of a type of fishing, that activity must not be considered as "healthy" or "safe" for the environment or marine life. "DOLPHIN SAFE LABELS" AND ENDORSING TUNA CORPORATIONS DOES NOT EQUAL REGULATING COMMERCIAL FISHING PRACTICES The EII letter, which defends the dolphin safe record of the tuna corporations, also said that Greenpeace "would have the tuna canners take off the dolphin-safe labels and instead devise some form of 'environmentally friendly' label -- which is neither defined, nor codified by national legislation or international standard." The "dolphin safe" labeling schemes implemented in countries around the world are not "defined" internationally. There is no "international standard" for publicly accountable programs backed by government agencies for "dolphin safe" labels and only in the United States are they "codified by national legislation" as voluntary programs. Page 4/Public Letter The Greenpeace tuna report does not, in fact, propose alternative labeling schemes but, rather, critiques the environmental consequences of the lack of regulation, monitoring, control and enforcement in commercial tuna fishing by nations internationally. Furthermore, the report calls upon governments and the international community to adopt a series of principles and mechanisms that represent significant and urgently needed reforms to bring fishing on highly migratory species, in this case tuna, under control. Greenpeace is not seeking an isolated market solution such as an "environmentally friendly" label. As the Greenpeace tuna report states: "...The main problem with "dolphin safe" promotions is no that companies may be wrongly labeling some cans of tuna, but that corporate greenwashers are attempting to convince the public of their good conduct while ignoring the broader environmental problems their industry is causing. Much work remains to be done to bring about solutions to the global crisis in tuna fishing." The EII letter implies that tuna fisheries on a global level are monitored, stating "tuna fishing is no different, and in many cases, is more closely monitored, than a vast number of other fisheries around the world." Given how poorly other fisheries are monitored, this is not much of a standard. In fact, there is only one fishery -- the Eastern Pacific -- in which the international fishing fleet is regulated by an international program that includes biologists as observers onboard every fishing trip. Recently, all countries purse seine fishing tuna in the Eastern Pacific negotiated an inter-governmental agreement which calls for the elimination of dolphin mortality. As part of this agreement all vessels purse seine fishing in the Eastern Pacific are required to carry observers, and the agreement further establishes an international panel, consisting of representatives of governments, industry and non-governmental organizations. This is the only type of program in existence in which NGOs have access to data from each fishing trip in an international fishery. This program (the IGA) has only recently been agreed and implemented, and requires further work to improve its functioning, transparency and enforcement capabilities. Greenpeace is an elected representative to the panel, and we continue to pressure governments to reduce and ultimately eliminate dolphin mortality and address other fisheries and bycatch problems associated with purse seining for tuna in the Eastern Pacific. This multilateral program represents a unique and promising step forward in international fisheries management, and could become a model for similar such programs. Page 5/Public Letter In the Atlantic, not only is there very limited information on bycatch of dolphins or any other species, but non-governmental organizations have been excluded from meetings of the regional fisheries body (International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)) that sets regulations for Atlantic tuna fisheries. Repeated requests in recent years by Greenpeace and other NGOs to attend annual meetings of ICCAT have been denied. Neither the Spanish and French tuna fleets operating in the Atlantic Ocean nor the Japanese and Taiwanese fleets operating in Indian Ocean carry observers on any regular basis. Vessels operating in the South Pacific carry observers on less than 20 percent of the fishing trips. Yet, all the vessels operating in these oceans are considered by tuna transnational corporate policies as "dolphin safe" because they are fishing outside of the Eastern Pacific. GREENPEACE INSISTS ON CITIZEN'S EYES OVER THE OCEAN The EII letter charges that Greenpeace has "flip-flopped" on positions with regards to dolphin safe marketing schemes and U.S. legislation. The letter implies that by lauding the Heinz Company's "dolphin safe" announcement, somehow Greenpeace is bound not to critique its implementation. However, as should be recognized by any activist, there is a difference between an declarations on paper and substantive action. We believe the environmental community should continually analyze and scrutinize corporations and industries that profit from exploiting the natural environment. "Dolphin safe" programs are now applied voluntarily and differently by corporations all over the world. They will not save dolphins in every region nor will they save a lot of dolphins in the Eastern Pacific region. Furthermore, they do not focus on protecting other marine life. And, "dolphin safe" programs do not even address purse seine fishing for tuna and its implications on dolphins in all oceans. At present, "dolphin safe" programs and the dockside monitoring programs operated by some environmental organizations with industry are all confidential and protect the industries' so-called proprietary information rights. Greenpeace has no interest in becoming some worldwide tuna police. Rather, the Greenpeace Oceans Campaign is pushing for policies and programs of regulation and control over the industry worldwide and is assisting in the development of environmental principles. A key component of this work is achieving improved public accountability, public participation and transparency. Page 6/Public Letter FLEET MIGRATION AND REFLAGGING, DESTRUCTIVE TRENDS IN FISHING migrate from fishery to fishery in the oceans of the world. However, commercial purse seine vessels have the capability to fish at sea for many months at a time. Purse seine vessels from the U.S. and other national fleets are not required to carry observers onboard each fishing trip in the Western Pacific. These vessels can and sometimes do transit the 8-million-square kilometer Eastern Pacific fishery bound to and from the Western Pacific, especially when they are based in U.S. or Latin American ports. One should not give these commercial vessels the benefit of the doubt that pirate fishing does not occur. Although skippers keep trip logs of a ship's passage, independent observers onboard vessels are necessary to gather the biological data on what actually occurs while at sea. In addition, the EII letter contradicts itself. First, the letter argues that without "dolphin safe" programs, the "dolphin killers" will all flood back into the Eastern Pacific and then states, some pages later, that vessels that left the Eastern Pacific for the Western Pacific would not return because they spent so much money buying new nets for Western Pacific fishing grounds. HIGH SEAS DRIFTNET FISHING AND "DOLPHIN SAFE" The EII letter asserts that "dolphin safe" programs are responsible for ending large scale driftnet fishing. The letter said: "It is hard to believe that anyone is naive enough to believe that high-seas driftnets could be stopped just a UN resolution, without company, importer, and cannery dolphin-safe policies and dolphin unsafe import prohibitions." A few facts are important here: The United States, and in particular the U.S. Congress, took an increasingly strong standagainst large-scale driftnet fishing throughout the 1980s as a result of the combined efforts of the U.S. Alaska and West Pacific Coast salmon industries and environmental organizations. Moreover, the United States, Australia and South Pacific nations among others did not ban large scale driftnets fishing within their own waters as a result of "dolphin safe" policies. Nor did Korea, Japan and Taiwan large scale driftnet fleets pull out of the South Pacific albacore fishery because of "dolphin safe" programs. Page 7/Public Letter Widespread concern over the explosive fishing power and environmental implications of high seas driftnet fishing in the South Pacific generated regional consensus and political pressure for a ban. The South Pacific nations led by New Zealand took the issue to the United Nations, with UN Resolution 44/225 adopted by consensus in 1989. This was the first of three resolutions. It called for, among other measures, an unconditional moratorium on driftnet fishing in the South Pacific by 1 July 1991. As a result of the UN resolution and continuing public and political pressure, Japan, Korea and Taiwan ceased driftnet fishing in the region. In August 1990, Japan adopted a prohibition on all high seas driftnet fishing by Japanese vessels outside of the North Pacific. This was done to bring Japanese fleets into compliance with the provisions of UN Resolution 44/225 calling for a halt to the expansion of high seas driftnet fishing. It had nothing to do with being "dolphin safe." The largest high seas driftnet fisheries in the world took place in the North Pacific. The largest and most damaging high seas driftnet fishery in the North Pacific was the combined Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese fishery for squid. It is highly unlikely that driftnet-caught squid were ever marketed as canned tuna in the United States, Western Europe or elsewhere, and therefore, subject to "dolphin safe" labeling constraints. Furthermore, the majority of the vessels fishing with driftnets on the high seas of the North Pacific were Japanese. The Japanese driftnet fisheries for salmon, squid, tuna and billfish were directed primarily, if not exclusively, for the Japanese domestic market. These fisheries were not under any pressure as a result of "dolphin safe" schemes. Japan and other nations abandoned high seas driftnet fishing as a result of intense diplomatic pressure and near universal condemnation of the practice at the United Nations and elsewhere. Corporate tuna policies may have been among the factors that contributed to the international pressure to end high seas driftnet fishing, but, they were by no means the decisive factor. HIGH SEAS DRIFTNET FISHING CONTINUES DESPITE LABELLING SCHEMES High seas driftnet fishing has ceased or has been significantly reduced in most parts of the world's oceans. However, large-scale driftnetting has not been altogether stopped either by international resolutions or by "dolphin safe" programs, as the EII letter asserts. Page 8/Public Letter Greenpeace fisheries campaigners are actively opposing an Italian driftnet fleet fishing in both territorial and international waters of the Mediterranean Sea. This fleet of approximately 720 vessels uses an average of 10 kilometers of driftnet per vessel. This fishery continues despite the UN moratorium and European Community regulations prohibiting the use of nets longer than 2.5 kilometers in length. As was stated in an article published in the second edition of "ECO" (available on ECONET under en.marine) during the United Nations Conference on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in July 1993: "Even the most conservative scientific calculations estimate that more than 8,000 cetaceans become entangled in Italian nets during each fishing season." Some of these vessels catch tuna as bycatch and presumably sell it. Yet, the Italian canners are considered "dolphin safe." Whether or not Italian tuna canners are "dolphin safe" is largely irrelevant in this case. In the Mediterranean driftnet fishery, the largest high seas driftnet fishery in the world in operation, these vessels target swordfish, primarily. "Dolphin safe" policies by tuna companies will not stop this fleet. What is needed is international systems of monitoring, regulation and enforcement to bring the fisheries crisis under control. SAVE ALL MARINE LIFE, INCLUDING DOLPHINS The Greenpeace tuna report takes a global view of the impacts of commercial tuna fishing in tropical oceans. It outlines many different types of fishing gears and practices that have consequences for dolphins, whales, sharks, tunas, other fish species and marine life. It does not exclude a role for a well implemented, equitable, market mechanisms, but recognizes that we must work for the highest standards internationally before we can begin to save dolphins in every ocean. To paraphrase the title of the Greenpeace tuna report: In the global assault on the world's oceans, dolphins aren't the only sacrifice. Greenpeace is actively campaigning on a wide range of issues related to the conservation of marine life and the protection of the world's oceans. We are working for a ban on ozone depleting substances. Increased UV-B radiation as the result of ozone depletion is known to inhibit the growth of plankton: the base of the marine food chain. We are working to reduce CO2 emissions. Global climate change will have potentially severe consequences for the health of the oceans. And, we are working for the elimination of organochlorines from industrial production processes. These compounds are among the most persistent toxics known to exist in the marine environment. Page 9/Public Letter Greenpeace has successfully campaigned against ocean incineratiof hazardous waste and is actively campaigning for a permanent ban on the disposal of radioactive waste at sea, on international restrictions on land based sources of marine pollution and against the export of hazardous waste, much of which is shipped at sea. The EII letter illustrates the need to clarify the issues, to make public the plight of marine life and ocean ecosystems in global tuna fisheries, to increase public accountability of the tuna industry worldwide and to build public understanding of the real dynamics of an industry worth billions where the impact is much greater than they would have the public believe. The letter and attachment from EII, unfortunately and unnecessarily, detracts from common interests of our and many other organizations which share a commitment to protecting and conserving marine species and ocean ecosystems. Clearly, different organizations choose different styles or modes of work and issue emphasis, among other traits that have and will continue to distinguish one group from another. Greenpeace does not pretend to have all the answers for solving the tuna-dolphin issue, or any other complex environmental issue. We are, however, addressing as comprehensively as possible, tuna fishing-related issues. We will continue to do so, and we look forward to working cooperatively in this regard with EII and many other groups. Greenpeace urges anyone who was sent the 18 August 1993 EII letter to obtain a copy of the tuna report from Greenpeace. Other Greenpeace reports which may be of interest include "Whales in a Changing Ocean" and "It Can't Go On Forever: The Implications of the Global Grab for Declining Fish Stocks." To obtain copies of these reports contact Greenpeace International, Keizersgracht 176, 1016 DW Amsterdam, Netherlands or the Greenpeace office nearest you. Sincerely, Isabel McCrea Coordinator Greenpeace International Oceans Campaign