Greenpeace news

Herakles' Cameroon palm oil project halted

Thu, 23 May 2013 22:45:00 +0200

Bruce Wrobel, the chief executive of Herakles Farms, claims his company’s efforts to flatten a chunk of Cameroon’s dense rainforest to develop a palm oil plantation are borne of a desire to address a "dire humanitarian need".

Yet this week Herakles has had to suspend its activities in Cameroon following a forestry ministry order for the company to halt clearing work at their Talangaye nursery in the southwest region of the country.

Greenpeace has long been among those calling out Wrobel and his company over their failure to tell the real truth over their project. The suspension of work is merely the latest evidence that the proposed plantation is a mess, despite the company’s ever-present PR machine.

In contravention of national law, in the face of local opposition and a huge threat to the local environment, the development is simply the wrong project in the wrong place and it needs to be stopped.

Today, together with the Oakland Institute we have released a new report revealing just how big the discrepancy is between what Wrobel and his friends say publicly and what they are saying to potential investors.

Compiled through confidential internal Herakles documents, here are some of the biggest fibs exposed in Herakles Exposed:

The reality: Herakles has yet to receive a land lease from the Cameroonian government and thus possesses no right to develop its concession area. It has been in violation of national law since 2010. The new order from the forestry ministry again proves Herakles has far from all the permissions required.

The claim: Herakles does not tolerate corruption.

The reality: Evidence strongly suggests Herakles has resorted to bribery, the offer of cash gifts and promises of employment to obtain the consent of some local communities and the government to facilitate the project.

The claim: In a widely circulated open letter of 2012 by Herakles CEO Bruce Wrobel, the company claimed that all timber generated by the project’s massive deforestation would benefit the Cameroonian government.

The reality: In direct contradiction to Wrobel’s public claim, however, Herakles’ presentations intended to attract investors has estimated the company may bank US$60 - US$90 million on the sale of timber and brags about the "profit uplift". We feel sorry for financiers that have been tempted by Herakles profit projections because Cameroonian law states that only accredited logging companies can commercialise timber. And as Wrobel himself wrote, Herakles "are not commercial loggers".

The claim: Herakles will produce 34 tonnes of palm bunches (FFB) per hectare at peak production.

The reality: The most experienced palm producers in Africa yield 26 tonnes FFB per hectare and most plantations yield less than 20 tonnes FFB at peak production.

The reality: The company promises in an investment advisory it would clear more than 10,000 hectares of land in order to plant 1.5 million oil palm seedlings. However, internal communications from employees reveal Herakles is in no position to clear that much land and that the seedlings and nursery are already overgrown by nine months, meaning work is unable to proceed at the advertised speed.

Okay, so Herakles is not the first American or international company to employ questionable business practices abroad … so why does it matter so much?

Since 2008 there has been a massive land rush on the African continent as foreign companies and governments look to produce commodities, biofuels, and food staples in addition to asserting foreign control over natural resources such as timber, minerals and water. The heavily forested areas of the Congo Basin are prime targets as companies search for rich soil in areas with a low population density.

If Herakles’ project succeeds – despite the illegalities, the massive deforestation, destruction of local livelihoods and false claims to investors – many other investors may attempt to do the same.

That is why the project must be stopped – permanently.

Time for civil disobedience

Mon, 20 May 2013 00:01:00 +0200

The tradition of civil disobedience is being reignited. The need is growing and the call to action is becoming impossible to ignore! Non-violent direct action can help re-establish a balance where our rights have been overtaken by the self interest of powerful economic elites, willing to sacrifice our children’s future for their short term gain and profit.

Peaceful acts of civil disobedience has been at the heart of many major struggles humanity has fought over the past several decades: the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, the Civil Rights movement in the US and Gandhi’s fight against British colonial rule in India, to mention just a few examples.

Imagine a world without civil disobedience and non-violent direct action. If that’s too abstract and difficult to imagine, try this: imagine a world where women still can’t vote, where racial segregation and institutionalised discrimination still rule, imagine brutal colonial dominance and extreme inequity and social injustice across the globe. And while in some places we have to look to the past to find such outrageous examples of injustice and inequality, let's not forget that there are still many places where such disturbing realities remain the norm to this day.

Actions do speak louder than words and actions are needed now more than ever given the threat that our planet is facing as a result of rampant environmental and social exploitation.

Civil disobedience and direct action are at the heart of what we do here at Greenpeace, part of our heritage and history, our destiny and mission. Civil disobedience does not require heroes – it only takes decent men and women to say ‘enough is enough’. While with Greenpeace, I have taken direct action in the freezing waters of the Arctic Ocean twice. I have climbed oilrigs representing the voice and concerns of millions of people saying that Arctic drilling is madness and must be stopped. I have even spent time in jail for this – but the fight is not over, and I will continue to support the Save the Arctic movement to stop Big Oil’s irresponsible ambitions. But this is about more than just stopping Big Oil; it’s about creating a world in which future generations can thrive, a world that is peaceful, just and equitable.

Civil disobedience seems to penetrate the consciousness of our political leaders much more than other methods. The public pressure that comes from civil disobedience can tilt public opinion and re-establish the balance between people power and the deep wallets of private companies sacrificing long-term environmental considerations for short-term profits. Political leaders can realise that they need to listen – if not because it’s the right thing to do, at least for fear of losing their mandates and positions.

A big thank you to all activists out there advancing the environmental cause, whether it’s fighting to bring justice to local communities in Nigeria suffering from Shell oil spills or stopping the Keystone XL pipeline in the US! Civil disobedience momentum is building – but much more is needed to avert catastrophic climate change and environmental destruction and degradation. Please join me and take action too!

Greenpeace Budget Response: Meridian Sell-Off Could Cost Economy Billions

Thu, 16 May 2013 04:54:07 +0200

Responding to today’s Budget, which includes plans to sell off New Zealand-owned Meridian Energy, Nathan Argent, Greenpeace’s chief policy advisor, said: “The half-baked decision to sell clean energy gem Meridian could lose the economy billions of dollars."

“The cash generated by selling this company will look like peanuts compared to the huge rewards on offer if the Government actually backed our clean energy expertise, rather than flogging it.

“The global clean energy market is booming. But New Zealand’s chance to use the innovation and expertise that is fostered in Meridian, and pocket the billions of dollars on offer in this worldwide industry, has just been kicked into touch.

“This is not a budget for New Zealanders. This is not a Budget backing our Kiwi innovation and expertise. And it’s not a Budget for our long-term prosperity.”

To read the Greenpeace-published report, The Future is Here: New Jobs, New Prosperity and a New Clean Economy, go here: http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/reports/The-Future-is-Here-report/

2013 Budget Must Back Kiwi Innovation

Thu, 16 May 2013 04:38:21 +0200

Backing home-grown clean energy in today’s Budget could kick-start a multi-billion dollar bonanza for New Zealand’s economy, creating tens of thousands of jobs.

Investing just $500million in clean energy innovation could see the country’s coffers topped up with billions of dollars over the next few years.

A successful Budget will see the announcement of three clean energy innovation platforms:

A Green Investment Bank to invest in clean energy, energy efficiency and sustainable transport fuels. This would seek to co-finance clean energy projects with the private sector, working with the market to build industry capacity.

A Clean Energy Innovation Agency to provide government support for research and development, demonstration, commercialisation and deployment of clean energy. This would provide substantial grant-based support for renewable energy across multiple areas (ocean energy; sustainable transport fuels).

A Clean Energy Innovation Fund to support business investment in research and development, proof of concept and early stage of commercialisation of clean technologies. Successful program applicants will need to demonstrate the extent of their project's contribution to a reduction in carbon emissions or energy consumption, and to the sustainability of a business or industry.

And backing existing New Zealand clean energy industries in this way, instead of selling them off, will make much more economic sense.

Nathan Argent, Greenpeace’s chief policy advisor, said: “A Budget for the people of New Zealand would back our Kiwi know-how, our Kiwi expertise and our Kiwi innovation.“

And it would do this by setting up three key platforms to boost our world-class skills and knowledge in clean energy. This is an industry where New Zealand, given the right government support, could be a global leader.

“Companies like Meridian are right at the heart of this industry. They are the incubators of renewable energy expertise and the developers of cutting edge technologies that a changing world is demanding. That’s why they shouldn’t be sold off.”

The world’s slowest emergency response

Thu, 16 May 2013 04:22:00 +0200

If you don’t like the idea of New Zealand becoming the first country to oversee the extinction of a marine dolphin, you should be very worried. I sure am. Six months ago, the NZ Government sought public feedback on its emergency response to the extinction looming over Maui’s dolphin – of which there are estimated to be only 55 adults left.

You wouldn’t want this lot in charge of civil defence, because six months later, we haven’t heard a thing about what they’ve decided to do. Hardly the speed you’d expect in reaction to an emergency, particularly one that could wipe these native dolphins off the face of the planet, forever.

When the public consultation ended last November, Wellington artist Sheyne Tuffery produced 55 beautiful artworks representing the 55 remaining adult Maui’s dolphins. Greenpeace presented those artworks to 55 MPs who held the future of the species in their hands. We were upfront that the symbolism of this gift depended on their response to the plight of Maui’s dolphin. If politicians were genuine in their commitment to saving Maui’s dolphins (banning net fishing throughout their habitat out to 100 meters depth, as advised by international and local experts), the print would forever be a reminder of their role in bringing Maui’s back from the brink. New Zealand has had some impressive achievements in wildlife rescue including the Chatham Island black robin and kakapo, so our gift urged MPs to be part of another conservation success.

On the other hand, the artworks would be a reminder of their inaction if they were half-hearted or opposed to the protection measures needed to save Maui’s dolphins. If the Government’s protection plan falls short of what the International Whaling Commission and World Conservation Congress have unequivocally recommended, those responsible will have to carry the knowledge that they are making a modern day addition to New Zealand’s less impressive record: Moa, huia, Haast eagle, the list goes on of species we’ve driven to extinction.

What has got me worried is not just the dangerous delay in the Government’s response, but also the fact that we got a “return to sender” in the post this week. It was Conservation Minister Nick Smith’s dolphin print. It’s the not the first to be returned - the annual list of gifts received by MPs was published a week or so back, and “Sheyne Tuffery Print – Greenpeace” was a theme throughout. Several MPs declared that they had return theirs, donated them or re-gifted them. But getting the print returned by the Minister of Conservation feels like a bad omen. Surely it would be the perfect print to adorn the office of a Minister who took the first bold steps to rescue Maui’s dolphin from extinction – if indeed that is what the Government intends to do.

One thing is clear, which is that the Government knows there is widespread public concern about the survival of Maui’s dolphins. The public consultation last year received more than 70,000 submissions, which is not surprising when the Government’s proposal was for protection measures much weaker than experts advised were needed to save Maui’s. While the delay continues, speculation is rife over what the Government is playing at. A rumour is spreading that the delay stems from pressure to allow seismic surveying in Maui’s dolphin habitat to wrap up before an announcement. Although the biggest threat to Maui’s is entanglement in fishing nets, seismic surveys may well be harming the dolphins, disrupting their behaviour or impacting on their prey. Imagine a noise like a gunshot, firing in your street every few seconds, 24/7 throughout a survey period lasting about four months - and tell me that would have no effect on the residents. That is what has been happening the last few months during oil and gas exploration of a 4000 square kilometre area off the west coast of the North Island in between north Taranaki and Raglan.

Another suggestion, possibly even more concerning, is that the Government has already made its decision and it’s bad news for the dolphins - get rid of the problem simply by watching over the last few dolphins as they die off. Like the Anadarko Amendment, the Government’s recent legislation criminalising protest at sea and protecting the ‘rights’ of foreign oil companies, such a decision would be unlikely to go down well with the people of New Zealand. If that’s the case, we can probably expect the Government to announce an unpopular extinction plan over the next long weekend. The Anadarko Amendment was made public on Easter Sunday. Perhaps the managed extinction of Maui’s dolphins will be announced on Queen’s Birthday weekend?

We’re trying to keep some faith in the Government living up to our Kiwi ideal and fighting to protect New Zealand wildlife, we really are. But with slashed conservation budgets, our EEZ handed over to foreign oil companies and six months naval gazing on ‘emergency’ measures to save a unique native dolphin from imminent extinction, they’re not giving us much to go on here.

Carbon dioxide reaches levels never seen by humans

Mon, 13 May 2013 22:44:00 +0200

The levels of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached 400 parts per million for the first time in human history. The last time levels were this high global average temperatures eventually reached 3 or 4C° higher than now, the polar regions were up to 10C° warmer than today the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets were smaller and Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.

There are two reasons to be seriously worried by this year's CO₂ measurements from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. We are hitting the symbolic limit of 400 parts per million, showing how far we have come from the pre-industrial levels of 280 and the relative safety of 350. Even more alarming, though, is the fact that this year the levels have risen faster year-on-year than ever before during the time that measurements have been made, breaking the previous record from more than a decade ago. In other words, not only are we speeding into climatic territory that humankind has never experienced before, we are still speeding up.

The planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions continue to rise at their present level whereas an increase of just 10 parts per million might have taken 1,000 years or more during ancient climate change events. We are altering the conditions within which civilisation developed, at a rate that will seriously challenge our capacity to adapt and change.

The people with their foot on the gas pedal are the dirty fuel and logging industries, with the coal industry alone responsible for two thirds of recent frantic emission growth. And they have no intention of slowing down. Massive coal expansions are planned in Australia, China and the U.S., that would lock in increasing emissions for decades. Stopping or scaling back these projects is absolutely necessary to keep global warming from accelerating further out of control.

The Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution 2012 provides a consistent fundamental pathway for how to protect our climate: getting the world from where we are now to where we need to be by phasing out fossil fuels and cutting CO₂ emissions while ensuring energy security. Implementing a revolution in the way energy is produced and used would add six million jobs in the heating and power sectors alone.

zoom

The multitude of destructive global and local impacts of the fossil fuel industry is becoming all the more apparent and uniting local groups and international networks in resistance. The hope for the planet is that the climate movement and the clean energy solutions can grow even faster than the CO₂ emissions have. We have already seen examples of the movement taking on some of the biggest and most powerful vested interests in the world, delaying or stopping coal terminals, oil sands pipelines and coal power plants; and putting in place successful clean energy policies. What the data from Mauna Loa shows is that spaceship earth needs more hands - your hands - on deck to bring in more of these victories.

United we sail – Mauritian fishermen, Greenpeace protest against overfishing

Tue, 07 May 2013 02:18:00 +0200

This week, politicians, scientists and fisheries managers from around the world are coming to Mauritius to attend the annual Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) meeting. This organisation is charged by governments to protect tuna stocks across the Indian Ocean, but right now it is abjectly failing in this task.

Tuna fishing across the region is poorly controlled – too many boats are taking too many fish, and often these boats come from wealthier, distant nations that use wasteful and destructive fishing techniques.

On Sunday morning, I sailed on the Greenpeace ship Esperanza from the Mauritian capital, Port Louis, along the coast towards Grand Bay where the IOTC meeting is being held, to deliver an important message. But the Esperanza did not sail alone. We were joined by a flotilla of artisanal Mauritian fishermen in their tiny boats who wanted to deliver the same message to the IOTC – act now to improve your management of Indian Ocean tuna fisheries.

Battling strong winds and an increasing ocean swell, the local fishermen did a magnificent job in keeping close to the Esperanza with their banners flying as we crept up the coast towards the IOTC conference centre to deliver our message.

The day before our flotilla sailed up the coast I had met many of the fishermen on the beach where they tie up their boats. In the sand, using a stick, they drew out a map of the coastline and we agreed a place where the Esperanza would meet them so that we could sail up the coast together to deliver a message to the IOTC.

These local fishermen, whose boats are only a few metres long and open to the weather, struggle to make a living because their catches have been declining dramatically over recent years. As the number of large, foreign tuna fishing vessels have increased, the local fishermen have seen their catches fall in size. They tie up their vessels on a crumbling concrete jetty that is barely usable or on a nearby beach covered in rubbish that has washed up in recent tides.

Just along the coast, visible from the fishermen’s beach, much larger long-line vessels from places such as Japan, Taiwan and Korea and huge state-of-the-art French, Spanish and Korean purse seiners berth alongside well-maintained concrete docks and use modern port and processing facilities.

This contrast, between the operations of the local fishermen and the foreign fishing fleets using the modern port underscores the Mauritian fishermen’s grievances and offers some explanation as to why they joined us to call on the IOTC to improve its management of the region's tuna fisheries.

IOTC management is currently so poor that there is no clear idea how many boats are actually fishing in the Indian Ocean. Wasteful and destructive tuna fishing techniques, such as purse seining with Fish Aggregating Devices continues to expand unchecked.

Wealthier, distant-water fishing nations such as France, Spain, Taiwan, Japan, China and Korea are supported more by current management than many local fishermen, who very often struggle to make a living. Waters are poorly controlled and policed meaning there is a significant amount of illegal fishing taking place across the Indian Ocean.

Transhipments of fish between vessels at sea are allowed – an operation that if poorly monitored (and this is usually the case), allows for loads of illegal fish to be landed ashore. In its recent voyage across the Indian Ocean, the Esperanza and her team have found evidence of this illegal fishing. We have now presented this information to the IOTC.

As we approached Grand Bay, the wind and swell picked up yet again and the fishermen decided it was time to return home. We waved them goodbye from the Esperanza as they turned for the coast. But they had made their point and their message will be heard at the IOTC next week.

The local fishermen who we sailed with today are already feeling the impacts of poor fisheries management by the IOTC. For them, declining tuna and other fish stocks are an issue that they and their families confront every day. They will remain in the front line of a poorly protected Indian Ocean, but unless the IOTC acts now to change the fishing here, we will soon all be the poorer for it.

Oliver Knowles, Oceans Campaigner, is currently on the Esperanza.

Greenpeace report looking at Indian Ocean fishing capacity

EU bans three bee-killer pesticides: a light of hope for bees and agriculture

Mon, 06 May 2013 00:30:00 +0200

The next time you see a bee buzzing around, it’s worthwhile remembering that much of the food we eat depends significantly on pollination these insects provide. But bees and other pollinators are declining globally, particularly in North America and Europe, putting this essential role in doubt.

In the US, the loss of 30-40% of commercial honeybee colonies since 2006 has been linked to “colony collapse disorder”, a syndrome characterised by disappearing worker bees. Since 2004, losses of honeybee colonies have left North America with fewer managed pollinators than at any time in the last 50 years. In recent winters, bees colony mortality in Europe has averaged about 20% (but up to 53% for some countries).

Without insect pollination, about one third of the crops we eat would either have to be pollinated by other means, or face considerably lower yields. In all, up to 75% of our crops would suffer some decrease in productivity. Undoubtedly, the most nutritious and interesting crops in our diet (including many key fruits and vegetables), together with some crops used as fodder in meat and dairy production, would be badly affected by a decline in insect pollinators. The most recent estimates value pollination services at €265bn.

And the problem could become even bigger as the world moves progressively towards growing more crops that are dependent on bee (and other insect) pollinators. So why are some policy-makers still trying to delay actions designed to save the farmer’s smartest natural allies?

A significant first step

Europe took a significant step in the right direction this Monday as a majority of EU member states voted for a partial ban of three bee-killer pesticides. After the fierce lobbying by the powerful pesticide industry, the vote was a vindication. The bee-killer companies have lost this battle; and the bees have won – for now! This is a success that environmentalists, beekeepers and the considerable amount of European citizens that got involved in the related campaigns can be proud of.

The decision still has to be formally confirmed by the European Commission. But it cannot ignore that there is overwhelming scientific, political and public support for a ban. Tonio Borg, EU Health and Consumer Commissioner already made clear that ‘the Commission will go ahead with its text in the coming weeks’ , in light of the majority support from the member states in Monday’s vote. Since member states failed to reach a qualified majority to either endorse or oppose a ban in two consecutive votes, the Commission now has the right move ahead on its own proposal.

This is good news for the bees and for the farmers of Europe. This EU-wide decision is the world’s first region wide ban on bee-killer pesticides. It will restrict the use of three neonicotinoids (clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiametoxam) for seed treatment, soil application (granules) and spray treatment on plants and cereals attractive to bees.

Exposing the culprits: Bayer and Syngenta

Remarkably enough, the three neonicotinoids are best-selling blockbuster products manufactured by the agri-giants Syngenta and Bayer. Both these companies conducted an imposing PR campaign furiously trying to protect their profits with no regard to the high environmental costs. They ignored scientific evidence on the toxicity of the pesticides in question and tried hard to delay the ban.

Greenpeace recently exposed their lies on several occasions: the organisation hung a giant banner on Syngenta’s headquarters in Switzerland, attended Bayer and Syngenta Annual General Assemblies in Germany and Switzerland; and organized a symbolic funeral ceremony for a queen bee in front of Bayer’s headquarters in the Netherlands.

An incomplete ban

However, this is truly only a first step, as this ban is incomplete and full of potential flaws.

Firstly, it is only a temporary ban, and two years may not be enough to guarantee that the health of bees and other pollinators will improve. Secondly, the restrictions only apply to certain uses on crops: the ban is far from comprehensive. Thirdly, the neonicotinoids are very persistent and may have built up over the years in soils and be present in other plants visited by bees. Even uses of neonicotinoids in closed greenhouses have been associated with heavy concentrations in aquatic systems causing losses of aquatic insect biodiversity as evidenced by a recent Dutch study .So it is far from clear that even with the ban in place nectar and pollen will safe for bees and other insects.

In addition, more bee-harming pesticides need to be removed from the market. Greenpeace believes that the EU must go further and implement a wider ban covering all uses of neonicotinoids and all agricultural sectors rather than the limited action the EC has proposed. This should also include all of seven-priority bee-killer pesticides identified by Greenpeace in its ‘Bees in decline’ report.

Four of the seven are not neonicotinoids and we will keep strongly campaigning to remove these pesticides from the market.

This would be a crucial first step to start a move away from the current chemically intensive agricultural system. Even then, only a shift to modern ecological farming practices can be the long-term solution to save the bees, and preserve European agriculture. Our work has only begun.

Matthias Wüthrich is an ecological Farming campaigner at Greenpeace Switzerland and European bees project leader.

John Key and the Oil Cowboys

Wed, 01 May 2013 22:18:00 +0200

“This government is very clear, we won't let cowboys operate here in New Zealand”. That’s what our Prime Minister John Key said as he welcomed a wagon trail of ten gallon hat-wearing oil executives in Auckland this week.

The thing is, Key is bending over backwards to welcome cowboy oil operators to our waters. And you don’t get more cowboy than one particular Texan company.

The company is Anadarko and they were heavily involved in the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico. It was the worst environmental disaster in American history.

An investigation published yesterday exposes just how involved they were. They were up to their oily elbows in the disaster.

The dirty dossier against them is compelling. The Government's crackdown on our proud tradition of protest at sea looks very much like the direct consequence of some industry lobbying. Anadarko is embroiled in a legal mess because of their role in polluting the oceans. Speaking about the Gulf of Mexico disaster, they have claimed that: “At no time did Anadarko have any input or say in the operation of the well in the planning or execution”. We now know that that isn’t true. In the US, they are being prosecuted under the Clean Water Act and for evading environmental clean-up costs.

In the past year, there have been are at least three major actions before (or pending within) the US courts directly relevant to Anadarko’s reputation as a good corporate citizen and steward of the environment. Two are related to the Deepwater Horizon affair, where Anadarko was intimately involved in approving and funding the details of the well’s operations before the blowout.

If Anadarko were interested in reducing pollution and protecting the sea that we fish and swim in they wouldn’t be going to the frontiers to get at the last drops of oil. They would be supporting a clean energy future for us all. But they are not. They are a roadblock to New Zealand’s future prosperity.

Anadarko don’t want you to know what kind of company they really are. And that’s because they’re a bunch of cowboys.

Chilean Seabass – why Monterey has lost its way

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 23:31:00 +0200

The Monterey Bay Aquarium (MBA) is a great ally of the oceans but its recent decision to include Chilean Seabass as ‘best choice’ in their Seafood Watch has bewildered many. Chilean Seabass includes Antarctic Toothfish from the Ross Sea, which, as the name implies is neither Seabass nor from Chile. In a blog justifying that decision, Alison Barratt from MBA said “while fishing is ongoing (in the Ross Sea), our recommendation reflects the current status of that fishery.”

The ‘current status’ is based on the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification of the Ross Sea toothfish fishery as sustainable (I have yet to find MBA’s or MSC’s definition of sustainability). It is of great concern that the MSC’s assessment is strongly contended by many leading Ross Sea scientists as this short clip from my documentary The Last Ocean shows.

It is of greater concern that an institution as influential as Monterey Bay Aquarium is making decisions about the Ross Sea fishery based on a scope as narrow as the MSC‘s. The assessments they carry out are funded by fishing companies seeking certification. They look only at the science around the sustainability of the fishery, they do not measure or consider the value of where that fishery takes place. In essence, the MSC provide facts and figures about the fishery but not the heart and soul of the Ross Sea issue – which goes far beyond Chilean Seabass and/or sustainability.

The Ross Sea is about the values of protecting very special places – in this case, the most intact and untouched ocean ecosystem on Earth. Just because we can take a fish sustainably does not mean it is right to do so. We no longer take buffalo from Yellowstone, kiwis from New Zealand or lions from the Serengeti – because we now know these creatures and the places in which they live bring a value to our lives that far exceeds the financial gain of a few. The Ross Sea is one of those places.

The MBA would do well to recognize that decisions made about the Ross Sea fishery are value based decisions. Those who make them would do well by considering the values the Aquarium was foundered on, and where the aquarium is – Cannery Row, the remnants of just one of the many many collapsed fisheries around the world. When next discussing whether the Ross Sea Fishery is ‘best choice’, a ‘good alternative’ or to be ‘avoided’, I suggest they ask themselves one simple question – is being sustainable enough justification to destroy the natural balance of Earth’s last truly wild ocean?

Peter Young is Producer/director of the Last Ocean feature documentary and co-founder of The Last Ocean Charitable Trust

Image: Emporer Penguin Chicks. John B. Weller