Dolphin safe tuna label weakening p2 of 2

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."

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

Dr. ROSE - 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.

Greenpeace USA - 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.

Dr. ROSE - 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.

5. Greenpeace USA - 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.

Dr. ROSE - 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...

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

Dr. ROSE - 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.

6. Greenpeace USA - 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).

Dr. ROSE - 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!)

Greenpeace USA - 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.