WWF admits seafood ratings not based on science

[amarshall]

This has a lot of relevance to our tuna fishery. WWF redlisted Pangasius (vietnamese catfish). The vietnamese producers screamed bloody murder and demanded they remove the redlisting citing zero proof that their fishery was harming anyone. WWF retracts listing and admits their rankings are not based on science.

This is a rhetorical question but how many other environmental crusades by these NGOs are not based on science? ESA listing comes to mind.

This is not some rinky dinky newspaper reporting this. This is the Financial Times of London.

http://www.seafoodnews.com/NewsStory...StoryId=797425

WWF reverses 'red' listing on Pangasius, in admission that ranking scheme is not scientific

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS [Financial Times] By Ben Bland - December 15, 2010 - Hanoi,
WWF, the environmental campaign group, has dropped its call for consumers to avoid Vietnamese catfish - a key export product - following intense lobbying from the Vietnamese government and seafood industry.

Last week, the government hit out at WWF, saying its claim that Vietnam's rapidly growing catfish industry was damaging the environment and endangering food safety was 'not objective, scientifically baseless and incorrect'.

Catfish, also known as pangasius, is a key export industry for Vietnam, with producers expected to sell 600,000 tons of the fish overseas this year, generating $1.5bn.

The government said the call not to buy catfish would 'seriously hurt the livelihood of Vietnamese aquaculture farmers as well as European consumers,' who buy more than one-third of Vietnam's catfish exports.

After meeting with government officials and representatives from the seafood industry in Hanoi on Wednesday, WWF made an abrupt U-turn, abandoning its advice not to buy the fish, which it has made in seafood buying guides produced in Europe, and encouraging consumers to support the industry.

Mark Powell, global seafood co-ordinator for WWF, said the organization stood by its scientific assessment of the industry's problems - that it lacked adequate regulation, damaged natural habitats and was at risk of disease outbreaks.

However, he said WWF had changed its view on the best way to promote sustainable catfish production in Vietnam and now wanted to work with farmers and consumers to ensure that the industry can meet global standards in future.

'WWF will recommend that seafood buyers continue to buy pangasius as a way to support the movement towards certification,' he said.

Nguyen Huu Dung, vice-president of the Vietnam association of seafood exporters and producers, said the producers and WWF would 'collaborate closely to develop the catfish breeding industry in Vietnam, aiming to reach the goal of sustainable development'.

International non-governmental organizations and local civil society groups are tightly controlled and monitored by Vietnam's communist government.

Last year, one of Vietnam's few independent think-tanks, the Institute for Development Studies, decided to close because of new government restrictions on civil society groups, which were criticized by some Vietnamese academics and EU diplomats.

Over the past week, there has been a flurry of front-page stories in state newspapers attacking WWF and calling on the organization to apologize for the damage it has done to the Vietnamese economy. Local WWF staff said that it had been a 'sensitive' time for their organization.

However, Mr Powell dismissed the suggestion that WWF's sudden change of policy had been driven by political pressure.

'I don't think that's what happened,' he said. 'What happened is we discussed the future and how WWF can give advice to seafood buyers that is most successful in promoting a future of certified, sustainable production.'

© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2010