The text below is the response received from Mr. Mike Crispino, ISSF Vice President of Communications & Research, regarding the article published on atuna.com on June 17th titled “Greenpeace Criticizes ISSF Intentionsâ€:
In ‘politely’ and publically declining our invitation to join or simply attend the ISSF Environmental Stakeholder Committee, Greenpeace has again made misstatements about our organization and positions. One reason we’ve made, and will continue to make, every attempt to include Greenpeace in our Environmental Stakeholder Committee meetings is to make the facts more clear to them.
Your article states that Greenpeace claims that ISSF has adopted “1,7%†as the bycatch rate for purse seine FAD fisheries. We haven’t. ISSF has consistently maintained that the overall average bycatch rate in purse seine FAD fisheries is 5%, a number calculated through the best science available and recognized by the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization. It’s lower in the Pacific, higher in the Atlantic. And that number does not include other tunas. All but one ocean region has mandatory 100% retention of tunas on the books and those tunas caught are factored into tuna stock assessments and utilized on land. Our Scientific Advisory Committee has helped us to best define bycatch, and to use that definition consistently, as many different groups use different definitions. Sometimes the same group uses different definitions.
In your article, Greenpeace also comments on what the writer deems ‘lack of active support’ from ISSF on transforming the Pacific Commons into marine reserves. ‘Active’ is the obvious qualifier here. We have clearly stated that we support fishing closures as long as the objective is based in scientific reasoning. But we think there are bigger issues for us to actively spend our time working on. Little tuna is fished from the Commons. And as a recent analysis has shown, a closure of the high-seas pockets in the Pacific didn’t lead to a reduction in catch – it simply shifted the location where vessels caught the tuna. ISSF has advocated that a time-based closure of the entire purse seine fishery would have greater conservation benefit, in support of the ISSF goal of healthy stock status of the migratory tuna stocks in this region.
Since your original story was published, a subsequent Q&A with Greenpeace has also been posted on atuna.com
This time Canada campaigner Sarah King speaks for Greenpeace and claims ISSF represents big tuna players because the smaller guys can’t afford to join. For clarity, working with our Foundation is voluntary and any company can follow our standards and advocate for the same science-based conservation that we do. We publish everything online, it’s there for anyone to use. But sustainability is not cheap. An important issue requires a serious commitment, part of which is financial. Every member of our coalition agrees that significant money must be spent on the water and on science, not just on campaigning.
King also asserts that ISSF does not support the countries of the PNA. Again, this is not true. Our involvement as a stakeholder in the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessment process of all tuna fisheries is to strengthen the standards for identifying sustainable practices. Our ultimate objective is to protect the stocks of tuna that these countries, and many others, depend on. That is the way the MSC designed its process to work.
Suggesting that ISSF abandon the fisheries management process for other initiatives is misguided. There is nothing more effective at managing tuna resources than a governing body that represents all nations impacting a shared stock. Piece-meal management won’t lead to sustainability for a highly migratory stock of any species.
While Greenpeace may have chosen to “try to do (their) thing at the consumer side of the market,†sustainability depends on the continuous review of what the world is doing as a whole to ensure a sustainable future for all of our shared resources. I expect criticism of ISSF. But I’m disappointed that, in this case, the criticism comes most aggressively from an organization that does not take the time to learn more about the facts and our approach. Our invitation remains open for Greenpeace to join us twice a year, as we sit down with our Environmental Stakeholder Committee.
All of these corrections and comments could have been made before the article was published. On many occasions your writers have chosen to submit one-sided stories that do not include all relevant points of view. Instead, these views are often published separately – like right now.
I would rather be in the story with Greenpeace.
Mike Crispino
Vice President, Communications & Outreach
ISSF