It’s been said that there are three types of people in the world – those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and the last group who stand around asking, “what just happened?”
Greenpeace’s muddled criticism of a breakthrough proposal on long-term tuna sustainability this week confirms the multi-issue extremist group’s place in the “what just happened” category.
Last month in Bangkok, the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) announced an important proposal to limit the capacity of global tuna fishing fleets and share data on catches. It represents the first steps toward a property rights-based system of fisheries management that will ensure the long-term health of global tuna stocks.
Greenpeace is opposed to this but they’re not sure why.
“The industry is only talking about the ‘limiting the growth’ of fleets,” gripes Sari Tolvanen, Greenpeace’s Oceans Campaigner. In fact, the ISSF proposal caps the number of vessels and their capacity to fish. That’s an important distinction that’s lost on Tolvanen.
Ms. Tolvanen complains ISSF has failed to provide a public list of vessels. Actually, a public list is the second step of the proposal, “ISSF will establish a record of large-scale pure seining vessels fishing for tropical tunas globally.” It’s right there in the news release. You can register online right now.
In the end, Ms. Tolvanen attempts to drum up some outrage by railing against the “collective secrecy of [industry’s] plan to increase tuna fishing capacity.” Again, the proposal is clearly intended to control fishing capacity and to do so in the most open and transparent manner. That’s the whole point.
Sari Tolvanen is out of her depth on this issue. The ISSF proposal is an important first step toward solving the complex challenge of managing tuna stocks for generations to come. It calls for direct action by industry based on science and research. And it takes the realities of the marketplace into account so that participants have an incentive to support the program and conserve fish stocks for generations to come.
Greenpeace isn’t involved in the development of real tuna sustainability solutions and now is wondering “what just happened?” Ms. Tolvanen’s indignation is just another reminder that rather than take a seat at the table and participate in constructive dialogue and solutions, Greenpeace prefers to once again be a heckler in the grandstands.
