The following is a letter to the editor submitted by Greenpeace spokesperson John Hocevar, in response to the SeafoodSource story “NFI sounds off on Greenpeace campaign”:
The National Fisheries Institute has latched onto a “kill the messenger” strategy of attacking scientists, reporters and conservation organizations who have anything critical to say about fisheries or seafood. That approach is keeping them busy these days, as the science is very clear about the toll that unsustainable fishing has taken on marine ecosystems and fishing communities alike. Instead of rising to the challenge and collaborating with others to find solutions, NFI has opted to defend the status quo. Perhaps this is what they feel their fishing industry members pay them to do, but their line gets less convincing every year.
The biggest problem for NFI is simply that the results of decades of unsustainable fishing have grown too large to ignore. From McDonald’s and Wal-Mart, companies selling large quantities of seafood are well aware that it has grown difficult to find sources of seafood that are reliable, let alone sustainable. And in the absence of leadership from the fishing industry in tackling this problem head on, it’s neither a secret nor a surprise that seafood businesses are now often looking to aquaculture to supply their needs.
As they have grown more desperate, NFI has increasingly played fast and loose with the facts. For the past year, they’ve been waving their arms about Greenpeace’s assessments of U.S. supermarkets, claiming that our effort has no basis in science and that we are taking credit for every positive step that anyone’s ever taken. While most retailers would admit that Greenpeace has had some influence on the sector’s move toward seafood sustainability, the fact is that we have never tried to claim credit for changes seafood retailers have made. Fortunately, there are a lot of people working on this issue — it is far too important for any single organization to tackle alone.
More recently, NFI attempted to warn everyone not to listen to Greenpeace about pollock. They claimed we said pollock stocks had collapsed last year, when what we actually did was note several significant warning signs and offer suggestions to avoid future collapse. While the North Pacific Fishery Management Council did reduce the catch limit by 18.5 percent, our view was that this was insufficient to rebuild the stock, particularly with continued heavy trawling pressure on the spawning aggregation.
While NFI doesn’t like it, Greenpeace offers a perspective that has gained traction over the years as evidence mounts that the current management approach is not working. A more precautionary, ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management is urgently needed. A centerpiece of this approach is a network of fully protected marine reserves, which can help rebuild fish stocks and provide a buffer against uncertainty. As impacts of climate change and ocean acidification increase, this buffer will be more important than ever.
As for pollock, we will have to wait and see what the data shows. Despite our differences, from Greenpeace to NFI, we all share the hope that the recovery NMFS projected for pollock will materialize. It doesn’t sound promising to us, but this is one time we hope we’re wrong.
John Hocevar
Greenpeace
