MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1995 



current levels to allowable quotas under the La Jolla 

 Agreement, would hurt U.S. canners who remain 

 committed to selling only dolphin-safe tuna, and 

 would be detrimental to the majority of the U.S. tuna 

 fleet, which has relocated to the western Pacific where 

 tuna are harvested using dolphin-safe methods. 



Earth Island Institute also opposed ceding manage- 

 ment authority for dolphin conservation programs to 

 the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. Earth 

 Island Institute noted that the Tuna Commission is a 

 fisheries organization whose primary mission is to 

 ensure sustainable tuna production. Only secondarily, 

 it contended, does the Tuna Commission attempt to 

 minimize dolphin mortality. Earth Island Institute 

 also noted that the La Jolla Agreement, which forms 

 the basis for the international program, is not a 

 binding international agreement and has not been 

 formally adopted by the Inter- American Tropical Tuna 

 Commission. Other criticisms of placing management 

 authority in the Tuna Commission leveled by Earth 

 Island Institute were that some tuna-fishing nations, 

 including Mexico, Colombia, and Ecuador, are not 

 members and that the Commission operates by con- 

 sensus, allowing any member to veto proposed 

 conservation measures. 



Earth Island Institute further contended that backing 

 away from tuna embargoes, in part because of GATT 

 considerations, set a dangerous precedent for other 

 U.S. environmental laws. Earth Island Institute 

 asserted that imposition of trade sanctions is often the 

 only effective means of securing environmentally 

 responsible behavior on the part of other nations. 



The Center for Marine Conservation presented 

 testimony on behalf of itself, the Environmental 

 Defense Fund, Greenpeace, the National Audubon 

 Society, the National Wildlife Federation, the Whale 

 and Dolphin Conservation Society, and World Wild- 

 life Fund. These organizations noted the success of 

 the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the La Jolla 

 Agreement in reducing dolphin mortality, but stated 

 that it was time to examine the unintended conse- 

 quences of current conservation efforts. The Center 

 for Marine Conservation recognized that the 1992 

 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

 had not brought about an international moratorium on 

 setting on dolphins as hoped and that, absent such a 



moratorium, some provisions of the amendments had 

 not been effective. In addition, the Center questioned 

 the durability of the unilateral approach to dolphin 

 conservation embodied in the Act and noted early 

 evidence suggesting that the dolphin-safe policy 

 advanced by current U.S. law may create other 

 bycatch problems in the fishery if there were a 

 widespread shift to such fishing methods. 



Although the Center for Marine Conservation 

 believed there to be problems with existing tuna- 

 dolphin legislation, it recommended against amending 

 the Marine Mammal Protection Act at that time. 

 Rather, the Center supported initiation of a multilater- 

 al process, involving all stakeholders in the fishery, to 

 address the outstanding issues through establishment 

 of a binding international agreement. In the Center's 

 view, such an agreement, at a minimum, must address 

 the conservation of the ecosystem and biological 

 diversity of the eastern tropical Pacific, establishment 

 of international conservation and management of tuna 

 and dolphin stocks, and maintenance of consumer 

 confidence. While acknowledging the success of the 

 La Jolla Agreement, the Center noted that the agree- 

 ment was a non-binding resolution and needed to be 

 strengthened to provide effective long-term conserva- 

 tion and management under the auspices of the Inter- 

 American Tropical Tuna Commission. 



Representatives of Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, 

 Mexico, Panama, and Venezuela met in San Jose, 

 Costa Rica, on 14 July 1995 to review the tuna- 

 dolphin situation. The nations issued a joint declara- 

 tion in light of the House Resource Committee over- 

 sight hearing. While reiterating many of the concerns 

 expressed in the 15 June statement, the nations were 

 heartened by the statements that had been made by the 

 State Department, Congressional representatives, and 

 various non-governmental organizations. The six 

 nations expressed concern, however, that the U.S. 

 Administration and most other witnesses did not call 

 for Congress to amend the definition of dolphin-safe 

 tuna. They stated that lifting the tuna embargoes 

 without also addressing the dolphin-safe definition 

 would not be acceptable and expressed the view that 

 promoting such fishing practices would be detrimental 

 to the eastern tropical Pacific ecosystem and the tuna 

 resource. The nations reiterated their concern that the 

 continued stability of the La Jolla Agreement was in 



106 



