Marketing and
the Environment:
Tuna versus
Dolphins
This case was written by Professor Michael Czinkota © with George Garcia and Kristen M. Mehlum using the following sources:
John Alexander, “Meaning of Dolphin-Safe Tuna Label Changed,” Environment News Service, May 5, 1999; Saul Alvarez-Borrego,
“The Tuna Dolphin Controversy,” UC Mexus News, University of California Institute for Mexico and the United States, 31 (Fall
1993): 8–13; CNIE Organization, “Dolphin Protection and Tuna Seining,” March 14, 1999; Department of Commerce, “Tuna Purse
Seine Vessels in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean,” Federal Register 64 (Number 113, June 14, 1999); Josef Herbert, “Tuna
Restrictions Relaxed,” The Associated Press, April 30, 1999; and Michael Simons, “Commerce Department Sued over Dolphin
Ruling,” The San Francisco Examiner, August 19, 1999, A12.
I
n the eastern tropical areas of the Pacific Ocean (a major tuna-fishing area), schools of
yellowfish, skipjack, and bigeye tuna often swim beneath schools of dolphins. To catch quantities of tuna,
fishermen look for the leaping dolphins and cast purse seines (nets pulled into a baglike shape to enclose
fish) around both tuna and dolphins. When tuna is harvested with the purse seine method, fishermen can
efficiently and reliably catch a high number of good-sized tuna. Unfortunately, dolphins are also trapped in
the nets. Because they are mammals, dolphins must surface to breathe oxygen. Entangled in the net, they
can asphyxiate and die unless they are released.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the “incidental” catch of various species of dolphins by tuna fishers in
the eastern tropical Pacific (ETP) was in the hundreds of thousands. Because of society’s growing and
vociferous concern for these senseless deaths, new fishing techniques were developed to reduce dolphin
mortality.
Perhaps the most important new technique is the “backdown operation.” After “setting on” dolphins to
catch tuna—that is, encircling both tuna and dolphins with the purse seine—the ship backs away, elongates
the net, submerges the corkline in the back, and pulls the net out from under the dolphins. If the operation
works correctly, the tuna remain in the bottom of the net and the dolphins swim free. However, if the
operation is flawed, dolphins are injured or killed and discarded from the catch as waste.
Rather than relying on this imperfect correction of the purse seine method, some environmental groups
think that entirely different methods of fishing for tuna should be employed. Alternatives could include
using a pole and line or setting on tuna not associated with dolphins. However, according to marine
scientists and fishermen, the alternative methods have serious drawbacks as well.
Some catch many sexually immature tuna, which for some reason don’t associate with dolphins.
Juvenile tuna often are too small to be marketed. If too many are caught, the sustainability of the population
could be jeopardized. In addition, alternative methods frequently catch high numbers of other incidental
species, such as sharks, turtles, rays, mahimahi, and many kinds of noncommercial fish. Finally, all fishing
methods expend energy. The practice of setting on dolphins uses the least amount of energy per volume of
tuna caught.
According to many of the experts involved, including the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission,
the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, and the scientific advisor to the American Tunaboat
Association, the most efficient method for fishing tuna, in terms of operational cost yield and the
conservation of tuna population, is to set on dolphins with a purse seine. From the canning industry’s the
point of view only purse seine fishing provides the volume of catch necessary for the growth of the
industry.
Many experts also believe that with current technology, it is not possible to abandon the practice of
setting on dolphins without falling into other, more grave problems. Although research to develop better
techniques
continues, positive results are not expected in the near future.
The Trade Aspects
This tuna-dolphin problem has been the source of serious friction on the international level. The United
States and Mexico, two countries sensitive to marine mammal protection and with solid laws in place for
many years, have come head-to-head over the issue. The conflict between environmental concerns and free
trade for the United States and Mexico is further complicated by the existence of the North American Free
Trade Agreement.
In 1988 the United States amended the U.S. Marine Mammal Act to prohibit the incidental killing of
dolphins during commercial tuna fishing. The amendment required the banning of tuna imports from any
country that did not implement several specific measures to reduce dolphin mortality and achieve a kill-perset rate (the number of dolphins killed in each casting of the fishing net) of no more than 1.25 times the
U.S. rate.
In February 1991, a U.S. trade embargo was imposed on tuna caught by foreign fishing fleets using the
purse seine method in the ETP, with Mexico as a prime target. This harsh step was seen as necessary,
because
over the previous 15 years, an estimated seven million dolphins died in tuna nets. The embargo cost tunaexporting countries such as Mexico, Costa Rica, and Ecuador hundreds of millions of dollars. To avoid
future losses, the embargoed nations met with U.S. officials in 1992 to determine ways in which they could
improve their fishing methods, end the embargo, and regain access to the lucrative U.S. market.
Several changes in fishing methods were introduced after these negotiations. Although foreign fishers did not
abandon the purse seine method, they learned to dip their nets deeper to allow dolphins to escape. Dolphin safety
panels were installed in many nets, serving as escape hatches for the dolphins. Divers are now deployed to assist
dolphins unable to find their way out of the nets. A biologist is assigned to every ship to observe fishing methods
and to record dolphin mortality. The participating governments also adopted a vessel quota system in which the
overall yearly quota for dolphin mortality is equally divided among the boats fishing in the region. This way, each
boat is individually held responsible for its dolphin kill. Otherwise, a few careless ships could destroy the entire
fishery’s attempts to meet lower mortality rates for the year.
The effect of these changes on dolphin survival were major. Figure 1 shows that in 1986 over 20,000
dolphin mortalities were caused by U.S. vessels in the ETP. By 1998, the estimated number was 738. The
amount of dolphin mortalities caused by non-U.S. vessels also dropped drastically from 112,482 in 1986 to
a preliminary estimate of 2,000 for 1998.
As of the mid-1990s, the total yearly mortality for each dolphin species was under 1 percent of its
population, an amount that can be sustained without reducing the total number; in fact, the dolphin
population was increasing. Thus, concern for dolphin conservation started to diminish. Most scientists
started to view the mortality of dolphins incidental to tuna fishing not as an environmental problem, but as
one of avoiding unnecessary killing. In fact, a National Marine Fisheries Service scientist stated that if
Mexico had money for research, it would be better invested on behalf of the Vaquita, a species in real
danger of extinction, than in the tuna-dolphin issue, because there is no danger to the dolphin population as
a whole.
In November 1996, President Clinton promised that a revision of U.S. tuna-dolphin legislation would be
a priority for the next convening Congress. A revision was necessary in order to appease Mexican
discontent about restrictions on their tuna imports to the United States. The International Dolphin
Conservation Program Act (IDCPA) was the result and became law in August 1997. This act served to
weaken the U.S. Marine Mammal Act of 1988. The legislation called for the lifting of the U.S. embargo on
tuna imports from countries that continued to use the purse seine during fishing operations. However, these
nations had to be certified by the U.S. State Department as having joined a binding international program
and having domestic legislation in place to enforce international dolphin protection efforts. The program
consists of nations working together through having international observers on board when the purse seine
nets are tossed, to see if any dolphins are killed.
The IDCPA also allowed “dolphin-deadly” tuna (or tuna caught by purse seine method) to be sold in the
U.S. market. Eventually, such a catch would even be allowed to use a “dolphin-safe” label. However, until
a study could be completed by the U.S. Department of Commerce concerning the positive or negative
impact of purse seines on dolphin populations, “dolphin-safe” labels were still restricted to non–purse seine
tuna. This was to ensure that consumers knew which brands of tuna use fishing methods that threaten
dolphin conservation efforts.
In April 1999, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce decided that “catching tuna by chasing and ensnaring dolphins
in large encircling nets does not cause a significant adverse impact on the dolphin population.” This decision
enables
the
enactment
of
new
dolphin-safe
standards
under
the
IDCPA. Thus, “dolphin-safe” labels can now be used for purse seine tuna, provided that an international observer
and a captain do not see dead or injured dolphins in the nets.
A number of environmental organizations, including the Center for Marine Conservation, Greenpeace,
and the World Wildlife Fund, support the change. Greenpeace believes the U.S. Department of Commerce
decision reflects the success of the IDCPA to reduce dolphin kills in the ETP. Gerald Leape of Greenpeace
also states that it is “appropriate for the U.S. to now modify the definition of dolphin-safe . . . since 1992,
the nations fishing for tuna in the ETP have reduced the number of dolphins killed from 27,000 to fewer
than 2,100 annually . . . this is an undeniable improvement in the way we manage the marine ecosystem.”
But other groups feel the dolphin-safe label will now become meaningless. Representatives from
countless environmental groups and organizations such as Earth Island Institute, Humane Society of the
United States, Dolphin Safe/Fair Trade Campaign, and Sierra Club say the decision was made contrary to
all available scientific information. David Phillips of the Earth Island Institute states, “Scientists, U.S. tuna
companies, and the public know that chasing and netting dolphins is not safe for dolphins . . . the decision
is consumer fraud and a death warrant for thousands of dolphins.” Patricia Forkan, executive vice president
of the Humane Society, states, “The decision by the Secretary is an outrageous attack on environmental
protection laws in order to allow Mexico and other dolphin-killing nations access to the lucrative U.S. tuna
market. Once again, trade trumps science.”
The Ongoing Debate
On August 19, 1999, a coalition of environmental groups including Earth Island Institute filed a lawsuit
against Secretary of Commerce William Daley and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). They
alleged that the federal government decision to relax dolphin-safe standards wrongly weakened the
protections guaranteed by the dolphin-safe label on cans of tuna. Mark Palmer, a spokesman for Earth
Island Institute, states that “the research done so far by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) staff
scientists and the Inter-American Tropical Commission already shows that the [dolphin] populations are
not rebounding and in some cases are still declining.” Others also argue that “some dolphins that are not
observed to die in the nets die later from stress.” The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco,
seeks to overturn the Marine Fisheries Service decision.
Despite the controversy surrounding labeling, the three major U.S. tuna processors—StarKist, Chicken
of the Sea, and Bumble Bee—have said they will continue to use only tuna caught by methods other than
encirclement. This decision does not seem to greatly affect the growth in the sales or volume of these three
major processors, who share about 90 percent of the U.S. tuna market. StarKist Tuna, part of the H. J.
Heinz Company, has stated in its fourth quarter fiscal 1999 report that seafood sales volume for the quarter
increased by 6 percent.1
In the midst of the legal action and the continued debate, the NMFS will continue the second half of its
scientific study. The finding of this study will be announced by December 31, 2002. At that point the
secretary
of
commerce
will
make
yet
another
decision
regarding
the
dolphin-safe label.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Is the denial of market access an appropriate tool to enforce a country’s environmental standards?
2. Did the U.S. denial of market access ultimately work?
3. What is your view on the quote, “Once again trade trumps science”? Is this case an example of that?
4. Is a zero-dolphin-death goal realistic?
FIGURE 1
Incidental Dolphin Mortalities
SOURCE:
http://www.cnie.org.
1http://www.starkist.com/insideskt/corp/press/index.html