Atuna.com received the following reaction from Michael Crispino, Vice President, Communications & Outreach of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) on the blogpost of Greenpeace that atuna.com published on March 7th under the title: Greenpeace: ISSF Should Take Science Seriously.
Here below the full text:
I wanted to draw to your attention to the many inaccuracies in the blog atuna.com repurposed from Greenpeace campaigner Sari Tolvanen.
To begin with, ISSF is not an umbrella group of companies, as Tolvanen inaccurately asserts in her opening paragraphs. ISSF is a tax exempt charity, a coalition of scientists, processors and WWF. Our Board composition reflects this make-up (http://iss-foundation.org/
ISSF stands behind its calls for a complete seasonal closure of the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) purse seine fishery. ISSF has not specified the length of time necessary for that closure to have the necessary impact since some important scientific analysis has yet to be completed. Tolvanen’s claim that ISSF is advocating for a specific time period is false (http://iss-foundation.org/
Tolvanen claims that “Bigeye and yellowfin tuna are being fished at unsustainable rates in all of the world’s oceans.†Only the stock of bigeye in the WCPO is being fished at a rate that does not support a catch at the MSY level. The remaining seven stocks are currently fished at a rate at or below the level of fishing mortality that would support catching at the MSY level (http://iss-foundation.org/
The Greenpeace campaigner is also wrong about the state of skipjack in the WCPO. The best current estimate of skipjack MSY in the WCPO is 1.8 million tons, in line with current catches, based upon recruitment levels of the past decade (http://iss-foundation.org/wp-content/downloads/reports/2010_SOWFFT/2010_SOWFFT_WCPO_Update.pdf). The Chair of the ISSF Scientific Advisory Committee detailed skipjack, the species’ biology and its sustainability (http://iss-foundation.org/
There is nothing simplistic about the problems our tuna fisheries face or the solutions required to overcome them.
Greenpeace Demand: 40% of the world’s oceans made marine reserves
Our Position: ISSF supports marine protected areas.
We agree on the concept that sometimes it is necessary to close off an area of ocean to fishing in order to protect the environment (http://iss-foundation.org/2011/01/15/resolution-11-02-wcpfc-purse-seine-tuna-catches/). However, ISSF does not endorse an arbitrary percentage as it’s related to tuna fisheries.
First, closures must have clear objectives and supported by scientific reasoning. Closed areas can help preserve biodiversity, avoid overfishing and prevent conflicts among different users but they cannot achieve all of these equally, all the time. Secondly, it must also be considered that marine protected areas or closures, even those based on scientific advice, may have limited impact on tuna stocks. Tuna are highly migratory and do not remain in the same area for long. That means, depending on the area closed, it is likely vessels will simply continue to catch fish outside of the closed area. This idea has been proven in the western and central Pacific Ocean where closures of certain areas did not lead to a reduction in catch, merely a shift in where tuna was caught. Sometimes, stopping all fishing during a period of time can have a more substantive impact on conservation, and is more easily enforced, than a permanent reserve.
Greenpeace Demand: Source pole and line caught tuna
Our Position: ISSF supports pole and line fishing for tuna
Pole and line fishing can be a sustainable source for tuna. One of the most attractive features of these fisheries is that they do not land many non-tuna species. However, they do require large amounts of “baitfish†(different species of small pelagic fishes) that are used to attract the tuna schools next to the fishing boat. Thus, it is misleading to think that pole-and-line fishing is free of by-catch concerns. The amount of baitfish populations available to pole and line fishing is limited and baitfisheries need to be properly managed as well as the tuna stocks. There’s serious doubt as to whether baitfisheries could handle even more pressure (http://iss-foundation.org/science/reports/bait-fish/).
It should also be kept in mind that if the demand for pole and line caught tuna increases, more vessels would be needed to catch the fish (assuming that there will be sufficient baitfish resources available, which is questionable). With near universal consensus that there is already excess capacity in tuna fisheries – meaning more vessels than the resource can support – any growth in pole and line fleets must be met with a reduction in the capacity to catch of other fisheries. Without that, any growth in pole and line fishing would not be sustainable.
The bottom line is that tuna fishing will not be sustainable based upon a shift to one method. Sustainable fishing will likely be comprised of several methods done responsibly.
Greenpeace Demand: End use of fish aggregating devices (FADs)
Our Position: ISSF is working to reduce the environmental impact of purse seine fishing for tuna with FADs
There are many methods used for catching tunas and they all have their pros and their cons. Tunas are attracted to floating objects and humans have taken advantage of this for centuries. Today, many modern vessels use sophisticated FADs that transmit to the vessel information about the amount of fish available under the object and the object’s position. This makes this fishing method very efficient, with a relatively small amount of fuel and other resources used to catch the tuna. But with efficiency comes a trade off – FADs also attract small tuna that is not being targeted, as well as other fish and some species of sharks. Not all by-catch is killed; some of it is released alive at sea.
We agree that there is a higher rate of by-catch in purse seine FAD fisheries than there is in purse seine fisheries that do not use the floating objects. We also agree that the environmental impact must be reduced. But eliminating the use of FADs could lead to new, unknown practices that may have more serious implications for the marine environment. (And, it should be kept in mind that all fishing methods have some impact. Bycatch rates on longline fisheries, for example, are much higher than they are in FAD purse seining; pole-and-line fisheries require baitfishes; gillnet fisheries, especially coastal ones, have very by-catch rates of sensitive species like sea turtles.)
So instead of calling for a complete ban, we’re working to fix what’s wrong with FAD fishing while keeping what works (http://iss-foundation.org/science/projects/bycatch-reduction/). ISSF is facilitating a globally coordinated at-sea project to identify best practices, new techniques and enhanced technologies that will allow fishers to minimize the amount of non-targeted fish and other marine life captured as a result of fishing for tuna. This research is being shared with vessel crewmembers through workshops hosted in communities around the world, fostering a direct dialogue that can have an immediate impact on the practices of fishers who supply the world’s processors with tuna.