A new wave helping retailers purchasing sustainable tuna?

What will be the next step in steering the tuna fisheries towards a more sustainable course? That was the question popping up in last week’s Tuna Night at the new MSC Belgium headquarters in the center of Antwerp. A selected audience of industry, government, research and trade was invited to figure out a ‘recipe’ for a sustainable tuna industry in the future. They were in search for a new wave in quest for sustainable tuna.

Director Hans Verhoeven of the Belgium based market research iVOX presented an interesting Belgian consumer market audit. The conclusion: the consumer has some dedication to ocean sustainability issues, but this did not translated yet into his or her behavior as buyers in the seafood market. There is a certain trust in ecolabels for seafood, but many don’t know where to look for. The knowledge on tuna is rudimentary and mostly limited to the vague notion that there is some kind of problem with overfishing. Part of the consumer public even don’t buy tuna, because they think the fish is ‘on the boarder of extinction’.

The good news is, one would say, that the notion of sustainability is embedded with the Belgian consumers. In the Antwerp Tuna Night, many participants expressed the conviction that sustainability has become an issue that is there to stay. A remarkable milestone that was less than self-evident a decade ago, when a wave of worries about the collapsing stock of the Atlantic bluefin tuna pushed sustainable tuna on the agenda.

Ten years later we might conclude that the bluefin is saved thanks to many factors among which a better management of the tuna stocks. As a result, sustainable tuna fisheries are becoming less a priority in the campaigns of many NGOs. It has become more of a mainstream issue in the broader discussions around responsible food chains. Many stakeholders in tuna fisheries, and not only in Belgium, have the feeling that we need a new wave for sustainability. The challenge is to explore ways to make it happen when it comes to buying tuna.

Let’s go back to the original idea that sustainable fisheries can be driven by demand. The so-called Theory of Change is the driving principle behind market-based certification schemes like MSC. The idea is that if the market knows where to look for (the right label), demand for more sustainable tuna will grow. The chain will have to deliver according to this changing demand.

Scholars (1) have already concluded that the original Theory of Change (version 1.0) was succeeded by newer versions. Originally it was thought that consumer at the end of the chain would steer the sustainable demand. But NGO’s started to direct their activities towards retailers instead (version 2.0), after the strategy of influencing consumers proofed to have limited results. Then, to address the supposedly limited quantity of sustainable supply, the NGOs started their own sustainability schemes, like Fisheries Improvement Projects (FIPs). Meanwhile, suppliers and distributors came with their own commitments, like the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), the Atún de Pesca Responsable or FAD-free labels. (version 3.0)

That is where we are now. The retailers can choose between a range of certifications and commitments on sustainability. On first sight that seems a good thing: let thousand sustainable certifications and commitments blossom and compete. But the negative effects are evident: the quality of the sustainability schemes that are offered widely varies. There is a natural tendency for a race to the bottom: all kind of semi-certifications are entering the market that are designed to give the product a sustainable image, while in reality the contribution to sustainable tuna fisheries is doubtful. That can end in an ugly way, like the recent US criminal court case for consumer fraud using the Dolphin Safe label. (see my blog).

This has to change. Of course, state intervention might end this practice of messy certifications and commitments. But it might well be that the national authorities will take their time to intervene in this complicated battlefield of Tuna Wars. The interests at stake are high. Meanwhile, the retailers carry the burden to find out what is sustainable tuna and what not. A tricky business that is not without risks.

So, it might well be that we need a Theory of Change version 4.0 in which a new actor will enter the seafood chain: an independent adviser who steers the retailers in purchasing their sustainable tuna and advises on the risks of the different schemes available. Maybe this new kid on the block is the ‘recipe’ for a new wave towards sustainable tuna fisheries.

(1)      C. A. Roheim, S. R. Bush, F. Asche, J. N. Sanchirico and H. Uchida, Evolution and future of the sustainable seafood market, Springer Nature Sustainability, Volume 1, August 2018, 392-398, https://www.nature.com/natsustain/

The end of Dolphin Safe in Tuna Wars?

It may have taken several decades, but we now might be looking at the beginning of the wreckage of the Dolphin Safe label. This week American consumers started a class-action lawsuit for fraud and racketeering against the Big Three US tuna brands, Bumble Bee, Starkist and Chicken of the Sea. (http://disq.us/t/3epuvpx) The consumers feel deceived, we read in the complaint.  ‘The “Dolphin-Safe” label signifies that no dolphins were killed or seriously injured as a result of the catching of the tuna contained in their products. But the suppliers’ tuna fishing practices “kill or harm substantial numbers of dolphins each year.”  

Many in the tuna industry and the sustainable seafood movement with some knowledge about sustainable fisheries have been waiting for this moment. The Dolphin Safe label is already for years the elephant in the room of sustainable fisheries that most people prefer to deny. From a well-respected, successful certification in the nineties, that helped to eradicate the massive Dolphin slaughter in the Yellowfin tuna fisheries in the Eastern Pacific, the Dolphin Safe label evolved into a practically useless tool in making look all tuna fisheries more sustainable. It even is far from robust enough to guarantee its own claims for a totally dolphin harmless tuna fisheries.

This is serious business. The Dolphin Safe label can be found on tuna cans all over the world. It is probably the most widespread label, used by all the big tuna industry that is united in the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). If a court decides that Dolphin Safe proves to be a kind of compulsory greenwashing scheme, a tool mainly supporting market interests, this would have devastating effects on the credibility of sustainability certification in general. Why, the public will rightly ask, was this label allowed for such a long time on so many cans? How can we trust that other certifications are any better?

The success for using ‘Dolphin Safe’ comes to no surprise: it hardly cost any effort for the big brands, fisheries and traders in terms of measures to make their tuna business look more sustainable. The history of Dolphin Safe has its murky sides too: who did not want to ‘collaborate’ with the label and its organisation (Earth Island Institute) could face problems in the tuna business. So, it was better to let yourself squeezed into the scheme instead of making life difficult. Meanwhile the strong ‘Flipper’ related Dolphin Safe image managed to survive with fluffy journalism that supported its noble cause but was not able to unravel the powerplay behind the screens. Notable exceptions, like the 2015 K. William Watson article in Forbes (‘Dolphin Safe’ labels on Canned Tuna are a Fraud’) never got the attention they deserved.

In my book ‘Tuna Wars’, that will be published soon by Springer Nature, I write about the three ‘Flipper Wars’ that have raged in the tuna world. The Dolphin Safe label was an effective weapon for the tuna industry in these wars. The Big Three effectively used the label as a barrier for competitive Mexican imports entering their home market. Meanwhile, Dolphin Safe expanded from its origins in the Eastern Pacific to the Western and Central Pacific, the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic, where the setting of nets on Dolphins never was an issue as such and the claims of the scheme (not one single dolphin killed or harmed!) where practically impossible and unmonitored. Meanwhile the big players used Dolphin Safe to hinder the entrance in the tuna fisheries of the much more robust certification of the MSC.  

Fraud and racketeering have still to be proved in court for sure. The case is messy. The consumer plaintiffs are very much underlining the objective of no harm to any dolphins whatever as the highest standard for sustainable tuna fisheries. They are right that the Big Three created a false representation of such a full proof dolphin safe fishery with the Dolphin Safe label. But they are wrong in suggesting that the MSC certification is also making a false statement when it comes to dolphins that are caught in tuna fisheries. This is missing the point: MSC is about sustainable tuna fisheries, not sustainable dolphin fisheries. It works with multiple standards that go far beyond the single issue of dolphin safety. From this point of view, also the idea that pole and line and handline are the only sustainable gears (as the plaintiffs argue) is far away from reality and practically useless.

It is now for the court to decide. Let us hope that at least its verdict facilitates a start to mop up the mess, and open ways for further development of credible sustainable tuna certification.