Source: Radio Australia
PNA ministers will be celebrating the 30th anniversary of their foundation at this year’s Annual General Meeting on the 1st and 2nd May.
PNA rejects claims of dolphin harm. On top of their agenda will be the issue of dolphin safe labeling.
The Parties to the Nauru Agreement have expressed concern about what they call, incorrect “alerts to consumers†from the California-based Earth Island Institute, a private environmental monitoring program for dolphin safe products.
PNA’s Commercial Manager Maurice Brownjohn says all tuna catches in PNA waters are monitored to ensure there’s no harm to dolphins.
Presenter:Stephanie Foxley
Speaker:Maruice Brownjohn, Commercial Manager, Parties to the Nauru Agreement
Yesterday, the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) warned consumers and the tuna industry that the Earth Island Institute’s (EII) Dolphin Safe program was not “reliable,†after dismissing EII accusations that the PNA skipjack tuna fishery was not sustainable. Maurice Brownjohn, PNA’s Commercial Manager, spoke to Radio Australia’s Stephanie Foxley about the issue. Read the transcribed interview below.
Maurice Brownjohn: What we’ve been experiencing in the region is that there have been several alerts put out suggesting that products from our region are not dolphin safe, and also alerting consumers to not work with our Pacifical program, which has been set up to market MSC skipjack. It appears that this has nothing to do with dolphins or sustainability; it appears there are other issues.
Stephanie Foxley: Neither yourselves, PNA or Pacifical, are part of the Earth Island Institute program, so what makes PNA’s tuna a better option?
What makes our tuna a better option is that we have not just policies in place, but we also have 100% observer coverage on all the vessels, and we also have prosecutions of offences. We’re being asked to join a program that appears to be self-certified by the companies and the captains, which we don’t see any validity in at all.
So can you explain exactly what the argument is?
There are several issues. The PNA islands have gone ahead and had MSC certification for the free school skipjack officially. We’ve gone ahead and established a marketing organization to market the free school skipjack, which is MSC certified, and we’re finding that our customers and our processors are being alerted and told they must not work with us because we have not subscribed to Earth Island. We don’t think that’s a reasonable thing particularly when the Earth island program doesn’t appear to have any verification.
So do you believe that Earth Island Institute’s program, that allows companies to certify themselves, is no longer relevant or reliable?
Well, I think it was very valid 20 years ago when there was an issue with dolphins and yellowfin in the Eastern Pacific, but all -including Earth Island- would agree that the skipjack fishery, which we have here, there are no dolphin issues, there are no direct interactions. Therefore it is irrelevant and I don’t see why we should not have recognition for the sustainable management and governance that occurs here. Therefore the parties are not willing to subscribe to the Earth Island scheme.
How do you think you’re going to get over this issue for consumers about which product they’re going to choose?
I think what needs to be in the marketplace is a product that is sustainably produced and the certification is verified. As I said earlier, we have 100% observer coverage at sea. If there’s an infringement, they do get prosecuted. I don’t see how that even compares to a standard where the companies can certify themselves as being sustainable and compliant. I fail to understand how that can even be a valid scheme.
Can you not work together?
We have tried talking with them, but they seem to be adamant that we must join their scheme, which we think is totally unreasonable, and we’ve got nowhere.
Why do you think their scheme is unreasonable?
It has no validity.
In what sense?
It’s a self-certification saying, “I declare that my fish is sustainably caught.†It has no verification, no checks, no balances and it’s highly questionable on the validity of it. There’s no comparison, and particularly when the fishery that was being initially targeted is the MSC certified fishery, which is still the world’s highest sustainability standard.
What happens from here?
The parties are continuing to investigate the validity of the alternate schemes, such as Earth Island, but there are also other accreditation schemes for dolphins, such as the AIDCP scheme. So we’re looking at the various options that are around for sustainability, but at the same time, we’re also exploring whether it would be a more viable option for PNA to establish its own standard for certification and accreditation, bearing in mind that PNA waters do produce 50% of the world’s supply of skipjack tuna.
So do you think they will come to the table to come to some sort of agreement with you?
I would like to think so and they’re welcome to work with us on developing the standard. We’re not shutting them out, but we cannot accept alerts going out to the public saying that we are not sustainable and that we are not dolphin safe, when in fact we hold the only MSC certification for free school skipjack in the world, which is the highest standard.