Greenpeace Foundation: Dolphin Alert

As has been noted, GreenpeaceUSA has shilled for the dolphin-killers for the last several years. In the interest of clarity, we will be refuting any untruths in their public statements. To keep this process diverse, we will invite "guest experts" to dissect these releases upon occasion. Dr. Naomi Rose is a respected marine-mammal veterinarian and an experienced campaigner for dolphins who works with Humane Society of the United States. Her comments on a recent GPUSA statement are below.

By Dr. Naomi Rose (Humane Society of the U.S.):

For what it's worth, I offer the following point for point rebuttal of GreenpeaceUSA's email response to tuna/dolphin queries.

From: "Deborah Rephan" (Deborah.Rephan@wdc.Greenpeace.org)
Organization: Greenpeace
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 15:58:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Question on dolphin-safe tuna

Hi XXXX,

Thanks for your query about the admittedly confusing issue of "dolphin-safe" tuna. Perhaps this will clarify Greenpeace's position on this issue:

As it stands (prior to today's decision by the US Commerce Department), the "dolphin-safe" label could only be used on a can in which the tuna contained in that can was not caught through the dolphin "encirclement" method. So this label refers only to a specific type of fishing method.

The dolphin-safe label will *still* only refer to a specific type of fishing method. GreenpeaceUSA and the other NGOs who supported the label definition change have been implying (or even outright saying) that the new definition is *stronger* because it has a "no-mortality" standard rather than a "no-encirclement" standard, the implication being that this no-mortality standard applies to all tuna caught in any tuna fishery. This is NOT TRUE. The new definition applies a no-mortality (to be precise, a no-observed-mortality) standard only to the ETP purse seine fishery. In all other tuna fisheries, true incidental take may still occur and that tuna will be considered dolphin-safe (that's the way it is under the current definition -- the definition never meant absolutely no dolphins died in catching the tuna in the can; it meant that the purse seine encirclement of dolphins [or drift nets] was not used. This fishing method, accurately called "inherently flawed" by GreenpeaceUSA once upon a time, was targeted by environmental and animal protection groups because it is the only fishing method that intentionally inflicts harm on a marine mammal to catch fish).

To sum up -- the old definition prohibited dolphin mortality in the ETP using the encirclement method of fishing because the encirclement of dolphins was not allowed. The new definition claims to prohibit dolphin mortality in the ETP using the encirclement method of fishing because an observer will certify whether he saw any dead dolphins when encirclement is used. Which is stronger? The one that prohibits the "inherently flawed" fishing method altogether or the one that does not? Both can claim a no-mortality standard for that fishing method but only the first is guaranteed, since the fishing method is not used.

And while the dolphin-safe label scheme did produce an initial 20% reduction in the number of "encirclements" targetting some tuna, it failed to achieve its overall goal -- during the 1990s, many countries that use the encirclement method simply found other nations in which to sell their tuna.

It is true that the ultimate goal of the dolphin-safe label was the elimination of dolphin sets and that in its first half-decade, it resulted in "only" a 20% or so reduction in dolphin sets. But why did this reduction occur? Just out of the goodness of the fishermen's hearts? Just because the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), out of the goodness of *its* collective heart, asked the fishermen to stop using this method and a few fishermen listened and did so? I don't think so. The only reason the reduction in sets occurred was because the U.S. fishermen stopped making dolphin sets altogether (because our law told them to) and because a few foreign fleet boats did too (all Ecuadorian boats, for instance, stopped setting on dolphins and were able to continue importing their tuna to the U.S.).

But at the same time, a reduction in mortality, even when dolphin sets were still used, occurred. As GreenpeaceUSA notes, there was a massive drop, from tens of thousands to less than 5000, in mortality of dolphins. The IATTC refers to this as "improved performance" and it is largely attributable to the back-down procedure, where, instead of hauling dolphins on board with the tuna (which was invariably fatal to the dolphins), the fishermen release the dolphins alive (traumatized, stressed, injured, but alive) before hauling the tuna aboard. Why did the fishermen start using this procedure (developed and perfected by the U.S. fleet)? Because of our dolphin-safe standard. But our dolphin-safe standard says no-encirclement. So how does the back-down have anything to do it? Because the foreign fleet didn't want to stop setting on dolphins -- it's cheap, easy and convenient -- but they wanted to sell their tuna to the lucrative U.S. market. They were hoping that improved performance would satisfy us -- that we would accept [lowered kills] over elimination of dolphin sets. And guess what? We didn't. So they got frustrated and went to the U.S. State Department and to GreenpeaceUSA, CMC, EDF, WWF, and National Wildlife Federation and asked them to "fix the problem."

And they did. By *weakening* the goal of dolphin-safe from" elimination of dolphin encirclement" to "improved performance" of an *inherently flawed* fishing method. That doesn't sound like progress to me.

This does not mean GreenpeaceUSA doesn't support some kind of label for tuna. When originally created in 1990, GreenpeaceUSA did emphatically support a "dolphin-safe" label, because it signalled an awareness by fishing nations that there was a problem in the tuna fishery, and helped heighten awareness among the general public. This can only be seen as a positive thing.

A compromised and fraudulent label is worse than no label at all. It would have been better to get rid of the label altogether than to retain it while making it mean something else. If this issue is confusing, the fault lies entirely with the Administration and the five NGOs that supported the label definition change.

There has actually been dramatic success in reducing dolphin deaths in this tuna fishery, but GreenpeaceUSA does not believe that the label was responsible for this. Rather we attribute this mostly to an agreement between 12 nations who fish for tuna in the Eastern Tropical Pacific ocean, to reduce the number of dolphins killed during fishing activities.

Why did [this] "La Jolla agreement" come about? What motivated the 12 nations to negotiate this agreement? What motivated the other 11 nations to adopt the back-down, developed by the U.S., when they do not have laws similar to the Marine Mammal Protection Act? The U.S. *had* to improve its performance and then eliminate encirclement altogether, by law. The other nations didn't. So why did they agree to implement the back-down (and the other elements of the La Jolla agreement, such as no night sets, no explosives, etc.)?

It was not out of the goodness of their hearts. If GreenpeaceUSA really believes this, they are naive. If they don't really believe this, it is shocking that they would keep telling the public this as if they do.

The reason the La Jolla agreement came about was because, as I noted above, the other IATTC nations (and Mexico, which is *still* not a member, although it has the biggest fleet in the ETP) wanted to find a shortcut to satisfying the U.S.' dolphin protection standards. They were hoping improved performance would do it (which is what the La Jolla agreement is all about). And guess what? It didn't.

And it shouldn't. Improved performance is better, but it isn't good enough. Not because perfection is the only acceptable standard, but because the chase and encirclement of dolphins using this fishing method *severely harms dolphins*. They are *not* recovering from depletion -- the stress and trauma of the chase is preventing normal reproduction and is undoubtedly killing more dolphins than is observed. The fishing method is most definitely "inherently flawed."

This agreement has led to a greater than 90% reduction in dolphin deaths, an undeniable improvement in the way our marine ecosystems are managed.

The only acceptable way to fish for tuna in the ETP is to leave dolphins out of the equation. Other fishing methods and other ways of locating tuna that do *not* result in unsustainable bycatch of other species must be devised. If they are not, then this fishery, by definition, is mis-managed. If the only acceptable fishing methods in the ETP result in high levels of lethal or sub-lethal bycatch of animals other than adult tuna, then the fishery is in deep trouble -- and the bad consequences of this trouble will manifest themselves sooner than later.

Now that dolphin deaths have been dramatically reduced, and these nations agree to keep working toward an eventual goal of zero dolphin deaths, they would like to see the dolphin-safe label be applied to their tuna as well.

Agreements to work toward goals that have no deadline are not worth the paper they are printed on. The new International Dolphin Conservation Agreement has no goal deadline -- it's a feel-good goal that will never be achieved as long as the encirclement method is used.

But even more importantly, and I cannot stress this enough -- observed mortality is not the only thing that counts in this fishery. If outright deaths of dolphins in the nets were all that mattered, improved performance might be a relevant goal from a management perspective. But outright mortality is not the only issue. The stress, trauma, and injury that result *inherently* from this fishing method, the only method to intentionally target marine mammals to catch fish, *must be taken into account*. The dolphin populations are *not* recovering, even with decreased mortality.

And in case you didn't know, upwards of three million dolphins are encircled every year still in the ETP. *Three million*. Where does all that currently dolphin-unsafe tuna go? To markets in Asia, S. America, and to domestic markets. And some of it goes nowhere -- it is warehoused, waiting for markets to open up somewhere.

From Greenpeace's perspective, the important thing is that under this agreement by the 12 nations, dolphin deaths have been reduced since 1992 from 27,000 per year, to less than 2100, and there are definite signs that other species are also being protected. Also under this agreement, monitors must be on board all tuna fishing vessels, and this is proving to help document the reduction in dolphin kills. To change the definition of "dolphin-safe" to reflect the success of this agreement is something GreenpeaceUSA supports, because we believe it will encourage these nations to stick with the program and continue working towards zero dolphin deaths.

I totally don't follow this logic. The standard for U.S. import has just been *weakened*. How will this encourage the nations that can now sell their tuna in the lucrative U.S. market to continue to work toward zero dolphin deaths? They can now sell their tuna while using a fishing method that inevitably -- INEVITABLY -- kills dolphins. They have no more need to keep trying to improve performance. If what they're doing is *good enough* -- why bother to get better? If GreenpeaceUSA still believes in the goodness of these guys' hearts...

We believe that some participating nations would otherwise simply abandon this program and revert to more destructive fishing practices.

While this is certainly a possibility, it is so unlikely as to be not worth considering. Why have Mexico and the other ETP fishing nations worked *so* hard to re-enter the U.S. market? Because that's where the serious money is. If we had stuck to our guns and maintained a truly dolphin-safe standard and these nations had abandoned the back- down in frustration and gone back to the bad old days of massive dolphin killing, that would have been the end of any chance they would ever have in re-entering the U.S. market. Europe would have been closed to them too. They would have looked terrible internationally, careless of the environment and their image. They would have lost "face." Most nations hate that.

This was a bluff -- and we should have called their bluff. There were other and better ways to get around the trade-barrier issues that Mexico was raising with the WTO. We allowed ourselves to be black- mailed. What a disaster.

However, the Commerce Department must conduct two more years' worth of studies to determine the health of 3 key dolphin species in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. (Their decision today to change the definition of "dolphin safe" was based on one year's worth of positive data).

I cannot *believe* GreenpeaceUSA just said this. This borders on heinous.

The one year's worth of data was *not* -- NOT -- "positive." It is unbelievably unethical for GreenpeaceUSA to have said this. One, the data are in fact *negative* -- all of the data appears to support the hypothesis that the dolphin populations are in fact being severely impacted by *something* -- the chase and encirclement, El Nino, or an ecosystem regime shift cannot be stated with certainty -- but *something*.

The reason Commerce changed the label definition last week was not because the data were *positive* -- it is because the data were *insufficient*. BIG DIFFERENCE. The legislation in 1997 was poorly written (The HSUS said so at the time and tried to get the language changed, but failed). It put the burden of proof on the dolphins and said that if, after one year, the Secretary cannot *prove* that chase and encirclement has a significant adverse impact on dolphins, then he *must* change the definition. The label definition change was a foregone conclusion from that moment on. Of *course* he wouldn't be able to prove a significant adverse impact after only one year! Even if the data were very clear, after only one year, science can't determine statistically significant trends or correlations. A minimum of three years would be necessary. The Secretary has made his preliminary finding based on *insufficient* evidence (read the Commerce press release again -- not only does it stress the "insufficient" point, but it even says that the initial data indicate that two stocks are not recovering at the rate expected given the decreased mortality observed in the fishery. Clearly not a "positive" result. The problem? This lack of expected recovery is not yet confirmed and it cannot be definitively attributed to the encirclement of dolphins. Of *course* it can't, after just one year, especially since the stress studies haven't even been started!)

GreenpeaceUSA will certainly hold them accountable for completing these studies, and for revisiting today's decision on the dolphin-safe label should the dolphins show signs that they are not continuing to recover.

"*Continuing* to recover"? This is truly shocking. Even Commerce didn't lie about this.

The USA's oldest and original Greenpeace, proudly unaffiliated with Greenpeace USA