Forty-four years ago this month, a biologist named Garrett Hardin delivered a controversial address to a group of fellow scientists on what he called the “Tragedy of the Commons.” Using the example of sheepherders on a common plot of grazing land, Hardin explained a fundamental principle of conservation: A valuable resource is quickly depleted when it is held in common. As most people know from experience or intuition, when something is owned by “everyone,” it’s treated as though it’s not owned by anyone.

The same applies to the oceans and the rich resources that live in it.

That’s why the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation’s (ISSF) proposal announced on World Ocean’s Day is such an important step forward for all those concerned with the future of the seas.

ISSF proposes applying practical economic theory to the challenge of long-term tuna sustainability by capping the demand for new large-scale tropical tuna purse seiners. These are the boats that catch a majority of the world’s tuna for the canned market. The ISSF plan also calls for recording vessel data, including how much fish a vessel can carry, so that all participants have the fullest picture of fishing activity. With this data in hand, and once industry stops adding new vessels to tuna fisheries, nations can begin working toward a fair and equitable rights-based management system that restores natural incentives to conserve fish stocks. More »

As predicted, Greenpeace’s ranking of grocers’ seafood sustainability practices don’t measure anything except compliance with Greenpeace’s own extremist agenda.

Where is the science? There is none. The survey is based on loaded questions and answers like “Do you encourage consumers to write articles, Letters to the Editor, opinion pieces, etc. . . . to advocate for improved sustainability and reduced fishing pressure . . .?” And “Do your seafood suppliers refuse to buy seafood from operators on the Greenpeace blacklist?” The message was bluntly clear: If you don’t get with the Greenpeace program you can expect a failing grade on the survey.

And what is the methodology behind the rankings? How are the responses calculated, weighted and trended year after year? We don’t know because Greenpeace won’t disclose its methodology. If we were to hazard a guess, we’d say the results are whatever Greenpeace wants the results to be.

The fact is Greenpeace simply made up its survey and published its predetermined results not with a stack of data but with a press release, confident that some in the media will still treat Greenpeace with wholly undeserved deference.

But Greenpeace is a “multi-issue extremist” organization with no authority or insight to offer on seafood sustainability, supermarket operations, or retail consumer behavior. Its unscientific rankings ignore globally recognized sustainability organizations, standards and certifications including the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). For example the rankings give stores lower scores for carrying fish that Greenpeace has decided are at risk, regardless of responsible management or internationally recognized certifications. More »

It should come as no surprise that Greenpeace is trying to capitalize on Earth Day coverage to build visibility for its false attacks on canned tuna sustainability. After all, this eco-extremist group seizes every opportunity (no relevance needed) to repeat its baseless accusations about the health of tuna stocks used for canned tuna.

What is surprising are the lengths to which Greenpeace will say and do anything, including contradicting its own demands, using any media attention to rally its supporters to give money, signing more petitions and even hosting useless recipe contests.

Case in point. Greenpeace applauds Huffington Post’s unscientific attempt to portray canned tuna as a product that is high in CO2 emissions. Ironic from an organization that has spent a lot of time and money promoting carbon intensive pole-and-line tuna fishing as a sustainability panacea to replace the less carbon intensive tuna catch methods currently used today. In fact, pole-and-line fishing gear uses almost 300 percent more fuel than purse seine fisheries. Not to mention that pole-and-line fishing cannot meet the existing demand for tuna, which means denying millions of families access to an affordable, nutritious and ready-to-eat protein.

But hey, this is Greenpeace we’re talking about. Facts don’t matter, only self-promotion and fundraising — regardless of costs to the same environment it purports to save and those pesky humans who need healthy foods to survive.

It’s something we’ve been telling you for years. When Greenpeace talks about “emotionalizing” an issue that means . . . lying about an issue. And there’s been plenty of emotionalizing when it comes to canned tuna over the past year. A court in New Zealand has had it with Greenpeace raising money off of deception and found that when Greenpeace claimed 20,000 birds had died as the result of an oil spill there it wasn’t just mistaken, it was deceiving the public after official figures showed 1,300 birds had died from the spill.

The fund raising model that pushes Greenpeace staffers and volunteers alike to bring in the needed $700,000  a day it takes to keep the lights on, is one that makes them almost compelled to exaggerate or outright lie. Just think about it—you can’t motivate your base to donate by describing the loss of 1,300 birds, so you bump it up to 20,000 and see how that plays.

If Greenpeace could stick to the science and facts rather than fundraising, perhaps it’d be less marginalized in the court of public opinion and spend less time losing in actual court.

Greenpeace’s narrative prior to the WCPFC Guam meeting would have you believe that no group but theirs cares about tuna conservation issues in the Pacific (or anywhere, for that matter). But Greenpeace’s simultaneous release of its PR survey results in Canada, otherwise known as a retailer ranking shows literally no difference in the goals of Greenpeace and the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), well, except for one.  ISSF and it’s members including the major US tuna brands, are actively doing something about it.

CBC News news in Canada writes that Canadian retailers were judged based on:

• Have a sustainability policy.
• Avoid using tuna from threatened stocks and those caught using “destructive” fishing methods.
• Are able to trace the tuna they use to its source.
• Promote marine reserves and domestic, coastal fisheries. More »

Greenpeace thinks it can call the shots by issuing rankings, and unfortunately, the media lets it get away with nonsense. CBC News (Canada) called out 5 brands that “remained near the bottom of Greenpeace’s list because … they use tuna caught by fishing methods that Greenpeace Canada considers destructive…”

See it? Greenpeace’s list. Greenpeace’s rules. Greenpeace ranks. And Greenpeace spanks.

At least one of the brands “near the bottom” never completed the Greenpeace survey. Did that stop Greenpeace from ranking the brand? Of course not. Greenpeace’s “evaluation” of any brand (or grocery chain or electronics company) is completely subjective, with or without data.

Greenpeace reports, “Pastene did not respond to Greenpeace’s survey this year and continues to skirt any discussion on the sustainability of its tuna. The company’s lack of transparency should raise a red flag…” Such audacity coming from an organization that itself won’t reveal the criteria by which it judges each participating (or not participating) canned tuna brand or the scientific methodology of its survey instrument to give it a modicum of validity. Then again, Greenpeace wears its hypocrisy on its sleeve.

Greenpeace continues to demonstrate that it lacks the credibility necessary to be taken seriously. It judges companies’ sustainability efforts but won’t actually commit to partaking in serious dialogue on the issues at hand. It purports to work with tuna companies and sustainability advocates, yet it repeatedly refuses to collaborate with committed conservationists, marine environmentalists, governments, scientists and others under the umbrella of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation. Instead of ranking companies and pulling media stunts, it should join the ranks of dedicated stakeholders working towards long-lasting solutions.

We applaud Pastene and every other brand, company or store that refuses to acknowledge Greenpeace’s legitimacy to issue non-science based ultimatums.

Those who’ve read Greenpeace’s latest histrionics — Saving the oceans one tuna brand at a time — are surely stupefied and left to wonder, what are they talking about?

To save you the pain of trying to navigate Greenpeace’s largely incoherent blog post, we’ve untangled a handful of the most nonsensical
ramblings:

Greenpeace makes it official: Giving up. Moving on. More »

via IntraFish

It would be easy to dismiss IntraFish’s take on Greenpeace’s campaign against canned tuna as merely an opinion, everyone is entitled to one. That particular opinion ultimately suggests the marginalized activist group is likely to “permanently change” how tuna is harvested and sold (Another Win For Greenpeace, March 7, 2012).

But rather than take the easy way, perhaps it is more appropriate to ask IntraFish to actually investigate the very real and negative impact Greenpeace’s demands would have on American families’ diets if they ever came to fruition, while probing the group’s goals for ulterior motives and unintended consequences.

IntraFish quotes hyperbolic Greenpeace campaigners lauding retailers, who are bullied into submission, as “progressive, comprehensive and visionary” but does not do the homework that would expose a campaign that is short on facts and long on fundraising. More »

Earlier this month, Greenpeace sought to remind its supporters  that Taiwan’s pledge to better manage Pacific fisheries was full of hot air. How did it plan to do that? By launching a hot air balloon of course. Comically, however, wind prevented the balloon from actually flying. Perhaps that’s a metaphor for Greenpeace’s failure to launch serious reforms.

Let’s juxtapose the latest Greenpeace campaign with efforts undertaken by members of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). Months earlier, the ISSF analyzed research compiled by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Scientific Committee. And based on that rigorous scientific evidence, the ISSF developed recommendations to better manage tuna stocks, minimize bycatch and protect endangered species, including:

1. Complete closure of purse seine fishery in the Western and Central Pacific Oceans (WCPO);
2. Stop all transactions with purse seine vessels that transship at-sea to minimize illegal, unreported and unauthorized (IUU) fishing activities;
3. Adopt a limited entry, closed-vessel registry to reduce the number of fishing vessels to a level that is commensurate with the productivity of the WCPO fisheries; and
4. Prohibit deliberate purse seine setting around whale sharks, as well as, adopt mitigation measures for oceanic white tip sharks and blue sharks. More »

The Greenpeace Retailer Seafood Sustainability Survey and Ranking is a shopworn tactic meant to embarrass retailers and dictate their seafood sourcing practices while generating publicity and dollars for Greenpeace and establishing it as an arbiter of environmental virtue.

Surveys are a tried-and-true PR gimmick intended to capture media attention and Greenpeace’s annual “rank and spank” supermarket ranking and scorecard on seafood sustainability is no different.

The Greenpeace survey is not a measure of your commitment to sustainable seafood. It is merely a scorecard on how closely you align with Greenpeace’s own standards. Greenpeace does not recognize any other organization or certification standard.

You cannot win. Never in the survey’s five-year history has a retailer scored better than 65 points on a 100-point scale.

Retailers who complete the survey are privy to the results only when they’re published in Greenpeace’s annual publication: Carting Away the Oceans.

The latest edition of Carting Away the Oceans (CATO V) told consumers to “Eat less fish. Reducing seafood consumption now can help lessen the pressure on our oceans…” Greenpeace is telling your customers to buy less fresh, frozen and now shelf-stable seafood.

By completing Greenpeace’s survey, retailers simply open themselves up to the activists’ subjective, non-scientific evaluation of their business, while simultaneously helping Greenpeace raise dollars from old and new members.

There is no credible methodology behind the survey. More »