At the end of this letter, I will ask you to take
a personal stand - on one side or the other - on one of the most controversial
issues of our time.
Dear Greenpeace Member,
It's time to set the record straight on tuna and dolphins.
We want to save more dolphins - no matter who catches the tuna. We must strengthen the criteria for the "dolphin-safe" label on cans of tuna, or we believe more dolphins will die.
That's why Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, the National Wildlife Federation and others supported a new U.S. law and a new international agreement to govern tuna fishing in the eastern Pacific fishery.
But not all environmental groups agreed on this issue. The Earth Island Institute (EII), for example, has placed a number of ads distorting the facts, attacking Greenpeace, and encouraging Greenpeace members like you to leave this organization.
Because of their campaign and distortion of facts, we have lost an important chance to save more dolphins worldwide. We've lost this chance because the U.S. Senate, under last minute pressure, did not bring this to a vote. It is unlikely this current legislation will be brought up again in the next Congress..
In our 25-year history, we have never openly criticized another environmental group's position or tactics, but enough is enough. We would like to set the record straight.
So I'm writing to spell out the tuna\dolphin issue for you in as much detail and with as much background as I possibly can. Then, I will ask you to make your own assessment.
If you agree with Greenpeace's position, I hope you will send a contribution in support of our vital efforts to eliminate dolphin deaths and protect other species. Frankly, we need you. There is still work to be done.
But I also want to hear from you if you disagreed with our position, or have question about it. All I ask is that you read this letter first. Those Greenpeace members who have expressed concern have done so only after seeing EII's cheap shot ads. I felt you should have all the facts.
Why Dolphins Are At Risk
For reasons scientists don't yet understand, adult yellowfin tuna in the eastern Pacific tend to congregate under dolphins. When U.S. tuna fishermen discovered this about 30 years ago, they developed a fishing method called encirclement; follow a school of dolphins, cast a net and haul in the tuna below. Before long, hundreds of thousands of dolphins were killed each year, as they drowned in the nets or were crushed as the boats winched them in.
When environmentalists became aware of the problem, many worked together to find a solution, starting with a tuna boycott to raise public awareness, though Greenpeace did not participate in this boycott.
The intention was never to shut down the tuna industry. Tuna is the leading seafood product consumed in America, and an important, renewable protein source for poor and low-income persons the world over.
The answer, or so we thought at the time, was to ban the encirclement method of tuna fishing. We all worked together, Greenpeace, Earth Island Institute and others, and the result was the "dolphin-safe" label you see on tuna cans today.
It was one of the most visible and effective victories in the history of environmental activism. But as it turns out, "dolphin safe" tuna is not safe enough.
What the "Dolphin Safe" Label Really Means
In the eastern Pacific, tuna caught by encircling dolphin does not qualify for the "dolphin safe" label. Tuna caught in large-scale driftnets also does not qualify as "dolphin safe", and we spearheaded that ban, as well. But EII only seems to care about one thing: the encirclement of dolphins by the U.S. fleet.
The label says "dolphin safe", so U.S. consumers believe that no dolphins die in the process of putting tuna on U.S. grocery shelves. But this is not the truth. It only means that no dolphins were encircled.
If the fishers use an "accepted" method to catch tuna, like encircling logs of encircling schools of tuna, and if dolphins happen to die in the process, it doesn't matter. The tuna still qualifies for the "dolphin safe" label.
The good news is, an observer is on board each ship in the eastern Pacific, and dolphin deaths have indeed declined there. But this only accounts for less than 20% of U.S. tuna. The other 80% comes from other fisheries where monitoring is lax, at best. Ships get by with verbal reports to dockside observers.
Bottom line, no matter what fishery it comes from, when you pull a can of tuna off the grocery shelf, you really have no idea whether a dolphin was killed or not.Earth Island Institute would prefer that you did not realize this.
So what does "dolphin safe" really mean? It means we made a good start.
Perhaps the biggest weakness of the current "dolphin safe" label is that it ignores the activity of the 11 other nations fishing in the eastern Pacific. Thankfully, these nations and the U.S. signed a voluntary initiative to reduce dolphin deaths.
The La Jolla Agreement; Setting New Standards
In 1992, in La Jolla, California, the fishing countries of the eastern Pacific negotiated a voluntary schedule for reducing dolphin deaths by three fold over seven years - from 19,500 to less than 5,000 by 1999.
Greenpeace applauded their goals of "eliminating dolphin mortality in this fishery, (and) seeking ecologically sound means of capturing large yellowfin tunas not...with dolphins..."
The joint efforts of fishermen, scientists and organizations like Greenpeace helped achieve a dramatic reduction in dolphin mortality, from hundreds of thousands of deaths a year to about 4,000 in 1994, far below that year's voluntary limit of 15,500.
This astounding turnabout was achieved through a vast improvement in tuna fishing methods. Nets now include "dolphin safety panel" escape hatches, divers help dolphins leave the nets; a "backdown" methods puts the boat in revers, dipping the net below the surface, allowing dolphins to escape.
This not only resulted in low dolphin mortality, but also low bycatch of sea turtles, billfish and other marine species.
Earth Island Institute wants you to believe that the "dolphin safe" label of the U.S. is solely responsible for the 99% reduction in dolphin deaths in the eastern Pacific. But how could this be, when 11 other fishing nations are still encircling dolphins?
The truth is, voluntary international agreement is responsible for most of the reduction in dolphin deaths in the eastern Pacific.
You will not get these facts from Earth Island Institute.
Now, we must lock the successful voluntary steps taken by these nations into a legally binding agreement and give all of them access to U.S. consumers. Otherwise, voluntary compliance will surely dissolve, and dolphin deaths will rise again.
We agree. That's why we supported the Panama Declaration.
The Panama Declaration - Expanding Protection for Dolphins and Other Species
The countries that signed the La Jolla Agreement met in Panama in October, 1995, pledging to make voluntary standards binding if the U.S. embargo was lifted. Building on the earlier accord, they now agreed to;
- reduce dolphin deaths toward zero;
- ensure healthier marine ecosystems by protecting dolphin as well as juvenile tuna and other marine species;
- provide incentives for fishers who do not kill dolphins;
- allow the U.S. to impose further trade sanctions on nations failing to live up to their commitment to protect dolphins.
If these conditions were to become binding and the embargo was lifted, it would have set useful precedents for fisheries agreements around the world., including those poorly monitored fisheries outside the eastern Pacific which now provide more than 80% of U.S. tuna.
If the embargo is not lifted, non-U.S. fleets may leave the voluntary program, and if so, more dolphins will die.
So, while we believe that the "dolphin safe" label was a good first step, we now feel strongly that the criteria still must be changed.
Progress or Status Quo?
Earth Island Institute has blasted Greenpeace for this view, saying that we have "reversed our position." But we're not going in reverse at all; we tried to move forward.
One has to wonder why EII dug in its heels. Do they have a vested interest in Starkist and Bumblebee and the other tuna giants who control the U.S. market and who pay EII hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to fund EII's "dolphin safe" monitoring program? Is that what this fight was about?
Also, EII and its allies like journalist Alexander Cockburn have confused our position on dolphins with our position on NAFTA. For the record; Greenpeace has always been opposed to NAFTA. We believe it is a license for multinational corporations to plunder the planet and exploit workers with impunity.
But our opposition to global trade agreements like NAFTA does not mean we oppose global environmental agreements. For 25 years, we've worked for such agreements on whaling, driftnets, ocean dumping, nuclear testing and other issues. Now, we feel that international agreement is needed to protect dolphins.
The "Dolphin Safer" Bill
Greenpeace endorsed the revised "dolphin safe" bill in the House of Representatives, where it passed easily with broad bipartisan support. The bill went on to the Senate, where it did not come to a vote. Thus, we have lost this chance to save dolphins worldwide.
Sadly, EII branded this progressive legislation as the "dolphin death bill," and their scare campaign, that makes George Bush's Willie Horton ads look tame, killed this legislation and dolphins in the process.
Now, only H.J. Heinz, Starkist, Bumblebee and other tuna giants have U.S. protection - not dolphins.
Right now, the "dolphin safe" label only covers one method of tuna fishing (encircling dolphins) in one fishery, the eastern Pacific. That's not good enough anymore. It's time to improve all methods, and for all nations to agree to higher standards. We have to start all over again.
Will Earth Island Institute continue turning a blind eye to thousands of dolphins - who will be at risk in non-U.S. fleets abandon voluntary reductions - for the sake of preserving the "dolphin safe" label for the tuna companies that fund them? Only time will tell.
We can ask this kind of question because Greenpeace, unlike EII, accepts no corporate contributions.
What we do accept, is EII's right to disagree with out position. But we will not tolerate the below-the-belt tactics they use to advance their agenda and deceive Greenpeace members, among others.
We knew this would be tough; we knew we'd take some shorts for taking a long-term global view. But we did what we thought was right - because we firmly believe the revised "dolphin safe" bill, and the binding international agreement it would have made possible, would have protected more dolphins and other marine species.
Where Do You Stand?
Now that you have the facts, please consider where you stand on this issue. You may want to read this material more than once, talk it over with family and friends, before you decide. Though the time for this legislation has passed, there will be other opportunities in the future to advance similar worldwide agreements.
If you agree with Greenpeace, let me know. And, if you can, send a much needed contribution for us to continue to protect dolphins and all marine species such as stellar sea lions in our Factory Trawler Campaign.
And if you're not sure, write back. Let me know what question or concerns you have. If I have failed to make this clear, I want to know.
No matter what you decide, thank you for showing enough concern to read this far. It's people like you that give Greenpeace the power to work toward a green and peaceful future.