Fishy business. The Social Impact of SST.pdf - Act Now!

SSTC quite rightly claims that RD has nothing to do with them. They will be using the latesttechnology to ensure there are, for example, no detectable odours from the factory. But analysisby the WWF East Sepik office in Wewak shows that to date SSTC has not provided the sort ofenvironmental effects assessment information normally expected internationally. Thisparticularly applies to social impacts. Given SSTC makes great play of its internationalcorporate partners – and by implication, StarKist’s high environmental standards – this seems amajor omission. The company may indeed provide a clean factory with high wages and a goodrelationship with the rest of Wewak. There are cases elsewhere where tuna factories do providesome of these elements. But experience of many communities around the Pacific suggests this isunlikely. For example, the company notes it has to provide low-cost tuna and part of the reasonfor coming to PNG is the low wages that can be paid. In addition, the company has told WWFthat negative social impacts are the responsibility of the local government. Essentially, it’s yourproblem, not ours.In addition, the NGOs say there is inadequate attention being paid to issues such as thecumulative overfishing of tuna in the West Pacific Ocean. While in theory the maximumsustainable yield of tuna is only 50-60%, there is no discussion about how affective monitoringwill be when the MSY take reaches 90%. Nor is there any recognition about debate over thewhole concept of MSY; the problem of by catch and ecological disruption through intensivefishing; the problem of local depletion of tuna and other fish species to the extent that localfishing declines or disappears; and the whole issue of whether it is justifiable to catch deepwater species for canning and/or supply to privileged markets such as Japan.The company of course claims – again rightly – that they have complied by the laws of PNG.The question then arises whether these laws, or more particularly the application of these laws,is adequate.WWF is providing technical and other support for the NGO group, which is an entirely localinitiative.c. Comments on OEC Submission(WWF) Submission on Environmental Plan Application: South Seas TunaCorporationWewak Tuna Processing Facility February 2001Received: 2 April 2001Tabled 21 March 2001To: Office of Environment and ConservationAttention: Luke Tanikrey and Billai LabaThank you for the opportunity to comment on the above.The following comments are being made myself on behalf of the WWF Sepik Community LandCare Project. However, please note the comments do not necessarily represent the views ofWWF; they are being made in the context of my role as a strategic planner and environmentalconsultant contracted to WWF. In addition, while my work experience includes preparing andauditing environmental effects assessments, the following is an informal review of the proposedEnvironmental Plan. I have not had the time nor the resources to undertake a full review.78