ISSF’s PVR
With around 900 tuna fishing vessels now appearing on the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation’s (ISSF) ProActive Vessel Register (PVR), the list has expanded massively since its birth in 2012. While there has been obvious development in the numbers, doubts have been raised over the extent of its contribution to sustainable progress.
The launch of the PVR was first announced during the 2012 Bangkok World Tuna Conference, by ISSF’s President, Susan Jackson. She said that the online database had been designed to recognize vessel owners that are taking steps to fish for tuna more responsibly.
Today the list consists of hundreds of vessels, spanning purse seiners, longliners and pole and line boats, and gives each a ‘tick’, ‘cross’ or ‘pending’ symbol on various conservation criteria. These criteria cover IUU listings, shark finning policies, full tuna retention, FAD logbooks, and several others.
ISSF prides the PVR as being “the most effective mechanism currently available that transparently identifies – among the vast and disparate global tuna fishing fleet – those individual vessels that are implementing science-based, sustainable tuna fishing practices.” This gives the impression that the register is something of a limited ‘VIP’ list for the best of the best in sustainability terms.
In the ISSF’s list of PVR FAQs, however, the organization notes that almost any tuna fishing vessel can be listed in the database, which means it could in fact have a ‘cross’ marked next to some of its conservation measures.
After 1.2 percent of firms showed points of “major non-conformance” in audits in June, ISSF has recently stated that the issues have been addressed, and no companies now fall in this category. Full conformance however is still not at 100 percent, but rose recently to 95.6, ISSF announced.
Conservation measures include points on observer coverage, fleet capacity and more. Apart from the inclusion of a measure on the use of FAD-logbooks, up until recently ISSF has had no other stipulations relating to FADs in this list.
In November 2016 however, it added a conservation measure which recommends its members, if sourcing FAD-caught tuna, to buy from firms using only non-entangling FADs. Participating companies have a 12 month period to comply with this rule.
A significant chunk of the tuna industry, and also NGOs, have long recognized that fishing on FADs is an unsustainable method that must be reduced. While the ISSF has also acknowledged the impact of the devices, it chooses to try and make FAD fishing sustainable, rather than reducing its use.
An ISSF spokesperson told Atuna that “if all ISSF conservation measures and recommendations are fully implemented, bycatch in purse seine tuna fisheries will be reduced by half or more.”
Following the launch of the PVR in 2012, the end of 2015 was set as a deadline for any vessels wanting to join the list.
Now that the cut-off date has passed, if a company does want to add a purse seiner to the PVR, it must first scrap one of its older vessels of a similar size.
The aim was to cap the increasing capacity of the global fleet, as expanding fishing effort was identified to be having a growing detrimental effect on certain tuna stocks.
Despite working to discourage increasing capacity, critics have actually suggested that ISSF’s PVR deadline created a vessel construction boom, as companies worked to get seiners on the list before the end of 2015 date.
Doug Hines, a US boatowner pointed to this occurrence recently, airing concerns over ISSF’s role in sustainability. He stressed that the 2015 deadline “created a rush to build new vessels, which generated overcapacity of producing tonnage, contributing to increases in catch, reduced values, and further pressure on regional stocks.”
What caused the rush? Ultimately any vessel not on the list cuts itself off from around 75 percent of the global tuna processing capacity, and thus 75 percent of the worldwide tuna buying power.
The ISSF states that its participating companies must only source tuna from purse seiners listed on the PVR, and the organization, through its membership, claims to represent around three quarters of worldwide tuna production, with participation that now reaches 28 firms.
According to some, there was a recent inconsistency from ISSF in the management of the PVR and its initial intentions.
This was in the shape of a move that saw the organization launch a cooperative agreement with the PNA, allowing the region to list new seiners on the register after the 2015 closing date.
This move from ISSF is what initially sparked Hines’ criticism, in which he also called the relaxation of the PVR deadline “truly confusing”.
It is believed that both ISSF and the PNA took the move to avoid a potential blacklisting for three Solomon Islands flagged seiners. These vessels were constructed after ISSF’s PVR deadline, and according to the rules could not be added.
This would have made it impossible for canneries of ISSF members, like Tri Marine’s Solomon Island’s based facility, SolTuna, to buy and unload the fish these vessels catch.
Despite criticism of this ISSF decision, its work so far has also received substantial praise.
WWF US’ William Fox, who is also a member of the ISSF Board, believes that the formation of the ISSF was an unprecedented breakthrough. He called the PVR the next “quantum leap” for the group, allowing compliant vessels to make themselves known, and keep non-compliant vessels off the supply list.
Already in 2015, Fox said that with the success of the project, he hoped to bring the PVR concept to other fisheries.
Despite this praise from WWF US, Greenpeace US has been outspoken in giving its opinion on the ISSF, stating that it is “nothing more than a front for giant tuna companies that profit from killing ocean creatures, damaging ecosystems and exploiting workers.”
In a blog post published in 2016, Greenpeace US bashed ISSF, as the NGO aimed to set the record straight on the organization and the large tuna companies it represents.
It had little positive to say about ISSF, a coalition of tuna industry companies, WWF and a number of scientists, stating that the organization blocks environmental action, and covers up the unsustainable profiting of tuna industry giants.
The post gives the impression that Greenpeace has little appreciation for the extensive investments of ISSF in research and education over the past years, and boldly claims that “destructive tuna industry giants founded and funded the ISSF,” noting that its eight founding members are all big tuna firms, which at the time controlled half of the global canned tuna market between them.
But there is no doubt about it; ISSF’s name is becoming even more common in the sustainable sourcing policies of big buyers and retailers.
According to Jesse Marsh, Strategic Policy Advisor with ISSF, who spoke at this year’s World Tuna Conference in Bangkok, there are now nearly 30 retailers that refer to the PVR and/or ISSF conservation measures in their sourcing policies.
She added that there had been a 31 percent year on year increase in 2015 in retailers and foodservice buyers that refer to ISSF conservation measures and/or the PVR, including big tuna stockers like Walmart, Kroger, Morrisons and Lidl.
An ISSF spokesperson stressed to Atuna that this means that “many of the world’s leading companies are engaging with their supply chains to encourage implementation of best practices that advance tuna sustainability.”
Marsh explained that vessels choosing to sign up to the ISSF database, including purse seiners, longliners and other fishing methods, are subject to regular third party audits on their compliance with the various criteria mentioned on the ISSF’s conservation measures list.
The ISSF spokesperson explained that the foundation encourages retail and food service companies to incorporate ISSF conservation measures and the PVR in their sourcing guidelines, knowing that the organization cannot reach its “goal of sustainable tuna fisheries without the support of all stakeholders.”
She added: “When market leaders make commitments to work with ISSF in support of our science-based conservation measures and the PVR – a tool that enables transparent sourcing decisions by retail seafood buyers – we all win.
“From the seafood industry looking to protect the health of global fisheries, to the consumer seeking the most sustainable seafood for their family, the impact of such policies is far reaching.”
While ISSF sees it as a positive step that more companies are choosing to recognize its conservation measures within their tuna sourcing policies, criticisms have been aired that this is a way for retailers and buyers to avoid making MSC commitments on tuna products.
Lidl Germany, for example, plans to sell only MSC labeled fresh and frozen fish products in its permanent range, from 2017 onwards. This is a range which includes no tuna products. For canned tuna, however, the company states that it currently sources pole and line or FAD-free tuna from ISSF participating companies, and gives no indication of making similar MSC promises in the future.
The store’s other canned fish ranges are largely dominated by MSC labeled products.
Eroski in Spain was the latest example of a retailer announcing sustainable tuna sourcing commitments that meant buying canned tuna only from ISSF participating companies. For fresh and frozen tuna is sources MSC certified product from local fisheries, but this is not a policy that has filtered into its canned tuna range.
There has been a clear increase in recognition of ISSF, its members and its conservation measures. Atuna asked the organization what data it has available to show that there has been a direct contribution to sustainability due to firms following these criteria.
An ISSF’s spokesperson pointed Atuna to the group’s annual report, noting that there are facts and figures in there for review.
The report, titled ‘Global Reach, Global Impact’ explains some of the work that ISSF has been doing to tackle IUU fishing, mitigate bycatch, and understand and manage FADs, but appears to lack solid figures on how, for example, compliance with ISSF conservation measures has reduced the bycatch of juvenile bigeye and yellowfin tuna; an industry-wide topic of concern.
Referring to ISSF’s stock status analysis, the report notes that while 48 percent of tuna stocks globally are at a healthy level of abundance, 39 percent are in need of stronger management, and 13 percent of tuna catch (by tonnage) comes from stocks that are experiencing overfishing.
Positively, ISSF shows that the percentage of major commercial tuna species stocks that are healthy have grown over recent years. However so has the share of the species that are in need of stronger management.
The organization says that the strength of its sustainability advocacy has grown and will continue to grow, stating that its outreach to fishing fleets will have an increased emphasis on longline and pole and line vessels. To support these efforts, ISSF has redesigned the PVR to show vessels by gear type, along with measures specific to each.
As the global tuna industry increasingly recognizes MSC as the gold standard on sustainability, a factor that was clear from the most recent World Tuna Conference in Bangkok, it’s unsure where the role of ISSF will be left. While the organization encourages firms and fisheries to reach the MSC standard, it has confirmed it does not necessarily encourage entry into certification assessment.
To date, some of the ISSF’s major members, just like Thai Union, the biggest processor in the world, have shied away from the MSC scene. But even TU can’t ignore the growing trend, having recently made commitments to source all of its tuna from MSC certified fisheries or fisheries in improvement projects, by 2020. ■