Greenpeace UK - Oceans

Political flip-flops on bluefin?

Willie — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:36:18 +0000

As ICCAT souvenirs, delegates will be packing their bags in Recife with a delightful polo shirt emblazoned with 'ICCAT' and a bluefin tuna, and a pair of flip-flops in Brazilian colours.

Somehow this is quite fitting.

The meeting has just come to a close, and the rushed final sessions have agreed as much as they could. In that haste, several things were put off to be considered again next year. Like the protection of endangered mako and porbeagle sharks, and measures to reduce the bycatch of seabirds and turtles. These sorts of delays are common in ICCAT when agreements can't be reached. But hey, why do today what you can put off until next year, right?

But the true legacy of this meeting will be the discussion on bluefin tuna. Much of that clearly happened behind closed doors, with the open sessions us mere observers get to see being something of a rehearsed pantomime for some members.

On the final day a proposal came forward for a quota of bluefin tuna (for the Mediterranean and East Atlantic) for 13,500 tonnes for 2010. That could only have been more unlucky if they’d come forward with it two days earlier, on Friday 13th. It marked a huge drop in quota, and for the first time the bluefin quota was set within scientific recommendations. It's just a shame they ignored the recent updated scientific recommendations and used last year's instead.

Only three weeks ago, ICCAT’s own scientists showed that not only did Atlantic bluefin meet the criteria to be listed as endangered by CITES (which would mean a trade ban), but also showed that only a quota as low as 8,000 tonnes would show any chance for the stocks to recover at all. Unsurprisingly, the best option for rebuilding the stock was zero quota. All of this meant that the only credible thing ICCAT could do was close the fishery.

They have failed to do that. So perhaps the polo shirts are meant as a commemorative epitaph for a species ICCAT has given up on. In the words of one delegate who was pushing for the fishery to be closed."‘I would like to bid farewell to our good friend, bluefin."

And the flip flops? Well 'flip-flop' was famously used to describe a presidential candidate in the US for changing his mind repeatedly. So the question has to be: where now for all of those countries who have stood up and called for effective action on bluefin, or even publicly backed a trade ban? 21 out of 27 member states, including the UK and France have done that (although it seems Sarkozy may have already flipped). And does the United States really think that ICCAT has done enough to protect Atlantic bluefin?

If you ask a country's representative here you will get a stock answer along the lines of "oh someone else deals with that", because fisheries and environment departments are usually conveniently partitioned. So who is going to flip-flop now on bluefin tuna? Can the ICCAT participants put their hand on their hearts (which, conveniently is just where the bluefin is on the polo shirts) and say they've done enough here this week?

I don’t think so. The panicked agreements are all about this organisation doing whatever it could to avoid CITES listing, a point that was referred to again and again by interventions around the table. CITES will meet in March 2010, and they may well free up ICCAT’s agenda next year if they do agree an international trade ban, as they desperately need to.

As we now bid farewell to Brazil, we are tempted to do more than just wave our flip-flops on the way out of the meeting.

Take action

Take our bluefin tuna pledge, and insist on responsibly sourced seafood »

ICCAT: complying through gritted teeth

Willie — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:16:04 +0000

The vultures were literally circling overhead as we approached the ICCAT meeting venue this morning… so something is on its last legs.

So, with just one day of the ICCAT meeting left, it’s time to see what has been achieved here this week. The short answer is ‘not a lot’. Despite a week of meetings, including extra, lengthy, evening sessions, virtually nothing has been decided on or agreed yet. Decisions on quotas for fish like bluefin tuna, protection of sharks and seabirds, are being left until the last minute, and all need to be discussed on the last day.

This wouldn’t be so frustrating if the week’s discourse had been more constructive. Don’t get me wrong, undoubtedly there are many at the ICCAT meeting who are working very hard and very long hours, but the system is so fundamentally flawed that it gives us little hope for very positive outcomes.

Little wonder, perhaps, that articles in today's (London) Times and New York Times poured a great deal of scorn on the whole process.

For days we have heard over and over how ICCAT must regain credibility, and for days we have seen some meaningless ping-pong across the tables as countries blamed each other whilst coming up with perfectly valid reasons why they could not be blamed themselves. It’s akin to a class of school kids explaining in turn where their homework is – you know the kind of thing, ‘dog ate it’, ‘mum put it in the washing machine’, ‘it blew away on the way to school’. Individually every excuse seems plausible. Collectively it means ICCAT has a very, very long way to go.

Last night saw, what was in ICCAT terms, a major step, with countries accepting letters of admonishment when they had not complied with the conservation and enforcement measures they had undertaken to do. A letter home from teacher, if you like. To us, this is pretty lame, but to them it is the first time countries are acknowledging formally that they have not done what they should. Trouble is, of course, the parties to ICCAT are here representing their own governments, and quite possibly have a note from their mum too. Personally, I blame the parents.

All this complying through gritted teeth is hugely frustrating. This week we have seen bizarre acceptances of others wrong-doing (and praise for them admitting it) and even some tacit derogations for a couple of countries to do what they want on hugely controversial issues. Remember driftnets, anyone? Fancy killing a few endangered species?

Ultimately, my impression from this meeting is to feel despondent, and I am even more convinced that there need to be a fundamental reforms of the way we ‘manage’ (and I use the word quite scornfully) our oceans. This gradual way of improving the systems we have bit by bit, issue by issue, year by year, just is not enough. The damage we are doing is happening far faster than our willingness to change.

So yes, we need drastic measures. That means setting large areas off-limits to fishing as Marine Reserves, and the bigger the better. It also means banning certain ways of fishing, and banning fishing for certain species altogether. And it means actually enforcing things too, with legal and financial consequences.

If we don’t start doing this on a huge scale, we will have lost not only our credibility, and our homework, but many irreplaceable species and livelihoods too.

Take action

Take our bluefin tuna pledge, and insist on responsibly sourced seafood »

Saving whales and saving money

Willie — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:47:01 +0000

V for victory? A blue whale anticipates major cuts in Japan's whaling programme.

Many times during this conference I've heard bluefin tuna likened to blue whales - a comparison which has already been expressed eloquently by Charles Clover.

There are several stunning similarities - they are both the biggest of their kind, hydrodynamic giants, amazingly adapted for life in the ocean. Most alarmingly though, both have been driven to the brink of extinction by overexploitation by a species remarkably ill-adapted for life in the ocean: humans.

Commercial whaling in the last century reduced blue whales to an estimated 1% of their former numbers, as they were the lucrative prime target for whalers on the high seas. Now bluefin tuna faces a similar fate. And those who have had the misfortune to engage with both organisations are quick to compare the inadequacies of ICCAT with the way the International Whaling Commission (IWC) behaved in decades past.

The IWC also had to be dragged into the realisation that change needed to happen, with the eventual result that commercial whaling was banned in 1986. And although this ruling has since been flouted, most notably by the Japanese government, commercial whaling still remains a much more restricted activity.

Of course Greenpeace still campaigns to end it forever, and we've been working hard in Japan and other parts of the world to try and bring about effective changes that will make this happen. So it's exciting to hear some good news today from Japan.

The new government of Japan is currently reviewing the nation's expenditure. So far, so dull. But the Japanese whaling fleet is heavily subsidised, and lots of taxpayers' money is spent promoting whalemeat to an uninterested Japanese public and cajoling other countries to back Japan's position at the IWC.

But now the committee reviewing government spending has recommended that the fund which gives loans to subsidise the 'scientific' whaling programme revokes almost all of that funding.

What would this mean? Well the whaling programme depends on subsidies. So it probably can't exist without them. At the very least, if these cuts in funding do happen, the scale of the whaling operation will be severely limited.

Greenpeace has been saying for years that this was a pointless waste of money, that could be better spent by the Japanese taxpayers. It looks like the Spending Review Committee agree with us.

This news brings fresh hope for an end to the farce of whaling in the Southern Ocean, and is a great boost for our team in Japan, two of whom (Junichi & Toru) are still facing a politically-motivated trial for their part in exposing embezzlement within the whaling programme. So, fingers crossed, and we will see what happens.

But as a parting shot – here’s another suggestion to the Spending Review Committee – why not recommend that the government saves even more money by immediately dropping the charges against Junichi and Toru too?

Take action - demand marine reserves now

Marine reserves would help protect both whales and bluefin tuna. Sign the petition now.

Could bluefin tuna fisheries be closed? Our man in Brazil reports...

Willie — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:46:31 +0000

So, here in Brazil, the game is on. At the end of yesterday’s session the parties around the table at the ICCAT meeting were asked what their priorities were for conserving bluefin tuna. One by one they made positive murmurings about wanting to 'follow the scientific recommendations', and enforce compliance with them. They all pretty much said they want to see illegal fishing tackled. No rocket science there, and you would be forgiven for wondering why they have not done those things already!

More importantly there were also some hints as to how low some countries would go in terms of a quota, with several actually suggesting the possibility of closing the fishery. To you and me that may be a no-brainer. To many of them, it is a seismic shift.

Now, we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves here. There is a lot of horse-trading to be done behind closed stable doors. And it's worth noting that the talk about closing the fishery is just for one year – which could well be a very convenient way of avoiding bluefin being subject to an international trade ban under CITES.

Greenpeace, and other conservation organisations here, won’t settle for that – and we are reminding the participants at ICCAT that the only credible thing they can do is close this fishery.

And it seems they desperately want to regain some credibility here. You can understand that, after all ICCAT was branded an 'international disgrace' by an independent review. The spotlight is on them because of what they have allowed to happen to bluefin, and the bureaucrats who attend these meetings really don’t like that. Delegate after delegate has talked about the need for ICCAT to claw back credibility, conveniently ignoring that this is a situation their own bad judgement in the past has gotten them into.

From an observer’s point of view here there is much to be cynical about. This is a dysfunctional meeting in a tropical paradise, at a resort whose very construction has caused disruption and problems for the local coastline in Brazil, with gala dinners, cocktail receptions, and a self-congratulating bunch of faceless bureaucrats mismanaging species, fisheries, and livelihoods.

Yesterday was an eye opener, with some impassioned and stirring interventions (particularly from some of the African delegations) requesting stronger action to protect stocks of fish in their waters. At several points I wanted to stand up, cheer and applaud. But those heartfelt pleas were met by some cynical process point-scoring by delegations on the other side of the table, immediately filling me with despair.

There is still a long way to go here.

Take action

Make a difference by pledging to boycott bluefin and those who sell it »

Negotiating with biology

Willie — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:24:27 +0000

As I write this, I'm sitting in the plenary room of the ICCAT meeting, whilst Charles Clover's film 'The End of The Line' is being screened. This in itself is a great coup.

In a memorable scene from the film, whilst attending a previous ICCAT meeting, Clover himself chastised the bureaucrats in that meeting for setting irresponsibly high quotas that ignored scientific advice. In his words they were '…negotiating with biology. And you just can't do that, and expect to see the biology survive'.

It's a stunningly simple thing. Fishing is harvesting wild animals, and that can only happen if there are healthy populations of those animals, which in turn means healthy ecosystems to support them. And you simply can't take out more fish than is being replenished. Fish, like any other animals, are only a renewable resource up to a point!

Organisations like ICCAT, which are Fisheries Management Organisations, theoretically exist to make sure that the countries involved are managing the fisheries, OUR fisheries, effectively. But there's a catch. To you and me this would mean setting sensible quotas and not trashing fish stocks. But many of the people involved in ICCAT and other such organisations, seem to think their job is to squeeze every last fish out of the oceans, and keep their fishing industries happy. So when it comes down to setting quotas, it doesn't quite make sense.

ICCAT gets its own scientists to give it information on the stocks for which it is responsible (tuna, swordfish, sailfish and sharks). It then uses those to decide on quotas, which is a game of political haggling until an agreement is reached. Note that I said it 'uses' those. It isn't bound by them, and sometimes it just ignores them altogether. In fact they routinely set quotas vastly higher than the upper limits of what the scientists suggest would be safe especially on lucrative species like bluefin.

This is utter madness.

This year with huge amounts of public pressure, bad press, and celebrity outrage at the state of bluefin, ICCAT members are all talking very sincerely about setting catch levels that 'follow the science'. Surely they should be bound by the scientific recommendations – otherwise, what's the point of having them? Surely it should not take campaigns and catastrophic stock collapses to make ICCAT see that?

The starting point for ICCAT, and other fisheries management organisations should be the science, and the quotas shouldn't exceed that. But that in itself isn't even enough, as the New York Times has ably pointed out this week. We are doing lots of things to our oceans, trashing other species as bycatch and altering ecosystems in ways we can't imagine. So we should be much more precautionary than the science suggests, especially when we factor in illegal fishing activity (which, as we know, is rampant for the profitable bluefin).

ICCAT has its work cut out. It has been dragged kicking and screaming to the realisation that it has mismanaged bluefin tuna. And that's just the tip of the fishy iceberg. Most of the species under ICCAT's control are large predatory species, and globally they have declined by 90% over the last few decades.

No wonder ICCAT is uncomfortable that the world is watching them this week. But it remains to be seen if they will be shamed into usefulness. I'll keep you posted.

Take action

Make a difference by pledging to boycott bluefin and those who sell it »

Too chicken to protect bluefin?

Willie — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:37:20 +0000

There are a lot of chickens around Porto de Galinhas, in Brazil , where ICCAT, the body responsible for mismanaging bluefin tuna, and other fish species, is meeting this week.

Seriously there are a LOT of chickens. Cheery bright-coloured wooden chicken statues litter the area, chicken garden ornaments and chicken roadside signs, not to mention chicken-shaped phone booths (I kid you not). You could easily be forgiven for thinking you’d stumbled into a KFC theme park – but the chickens are here because Porto de Galinhas directly translates as 'Port of chickens'. Now that in itself is a little euphemistic – because the 'Galinhas' name apparently was derived from a derogatory name used for slaves in the area. But I guess cutesy chickens are a better way to be remembered.

"...fishing interests need to recognize is that unless something is done now, soon there will be no tuna left to fish"
NY Times editorial, 10/11/09

For us, we're here to see if there are any momentous decisions emanating from the assembled delegates for ICCAT, although we're not holding our breath, because wise decisions by some members of ICCAT are as rare as hen's teeth.

In case you missed it, it was reported last week that ICCAT's own scientists had been looking at the status of Atlantic bluefin tuna stocks. Now, the cynical amongst us were cautious about this, knowing that ICCAT desperately wants to keep control of Atlantic bluefin, and really wants to avoid the species being protected by a trade ban under CITES. That's understandable, given the vested interests of the bluefin tuna trade who ICCAT seems to bow to. So when ICCAT's own scientists concluded that a trade ban for Atlantic bluefin was justified because of how much the stock had declined – well that must have put a spanner in the works for many of the ICCAT delegates packing their flip-flops and sun tan cream for a trip to Brazil.

The simple fact is that Atlantic bluefin has been proposed for a ban under CITES. That position has been backed by many EU countries like the UK , and also it has been acknowledged by others like the US as necessary should 'ICCAT fail'. Now even a report from ICCAT's scientists suggests such a ban would be justifiable. ICCAT's meeting happens under that shadow, and there is only one commensurate outcome that ICCAT can deliver – which is quite simply to close the fishery.

Will they do that? Or will they just chicken out?

Take action

Make a difference by pledging to boycott bluefin and those who sell it »

How to cook jellyfish...

jossc — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:04:16 +0000

In this, the second instalment of the 'Our Ocean Wonderland' animations, Stephen Appelby considers the culinary seafood options likely to be open to us once we've emptied the seas of edible fish.

Ever the optimist, Stephen concludes that jellyfish rissoles and sushi could be the answer. Even though tasteless and hardly very filling, they are reproducing so fast (to fill the ecosystemic space left by the missing cod, tuna, hake and plaice that we used to eat) that at least there's likely to be enough of them to go round!

Watch the first part here »

Take action

Push our politicians to create save threatened species by creating international networks of large-scale marine reserves »

Share this video on Facebook »
Tweet this video »
Send this video to a friend »

25% of top restaurants are serving fish as endangered as the giant panda

jossc — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:57:07 +0000

Having made a startling movie which has changed the way people think about what’s on their dinner plate, Charles Clover and the End of the Line team have now turned their attentions to restaurants which are still serving endangered fish.

A survey of more than 100 top restaurants conducted for their new guide, fish2fork.com, found that nearly 9 out of 10 were serving at least one 'fish to avoid' from over-exploited stocks. And some of the most critically-acclaimed eateries are among the worst offenders - 7 out of 25 Michelin-starred restaurants visited served species officially listed as endangered on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Red List.

According to Charles: "Some restaurants still have not grasped that sustainability is now part of the definition of good food. You don’t want to eat a wonderful meal and have nightmares about the species you have pushed a little further towards extinction.

"This new guide shows the wonderful work some chefs and proprietors are doing with fishermen to make sure that they source fish of the highest quality caught in the most selective ways. It also shows the awful dark side of gastronomy, chefs who place an ephemeral taste, for which they can charge the Earth, above the survival of whole species and ecosystems."

Searchable by restaurant name and location, the guide is the perfect place to get the low-down on the best and worst place to eat sustainable seafood. It's also asking all diners to send in their own reviews and either 'Pat a chef on the back' when they get it right, or 'Rat on a restaurant' if it has no policy on sourcing its fish from sustainable sources. So why not rate a restaurant near you soon using fish2fork's questionairre? You can either fill it in on line or print out a copy here.

The rating system is headed by five blue fish, described as " Best in class!" Top of the class so far is Raymond Blanc's Le Manoir in Oxfordshire. M Blanc was one of the first chefs to sign-up to our own Seafood See Life campaign, and also contributed a couple of cracking recipes to show just what can be done with sustainable seafood.

At the bottom end of the ratings, five red fish skeletons signifies the very worst. To be rated in this bottom category a restaurant "will almost certainly be serving one or more highly endangered species such as bluefin tuna or caviar from wild sturgeon. This is totally unacceptable when there are so many good alternatives available and shows a complete disregard for our planet and its fish stocks."

Sadly some of the most prestigious restaurants in the country fall into this category. London landmark J Sheekey, part of the group which which also owns the Ivy and the Caprice, was guilty of providing confusing information and appearing to serve endangered species. Then of course there's Nobu London, part owned by actor Robert De Niro, and target of our own bluefin tuna campaign. It was also awarded the guide's lowest rating - five red fish skeletons.

The verdict of Charles and the team? "Even if this place has handfuls of Michelin stars and AA rosettes you wouldn't find us going there."

The Tokyo Two need your help to get a fair trial

jossc — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:57:02 +0000

Boxes like these, each containing over 20kg of whale meat, were taken illegally by members of the whaling fleet's crew

As regular readers will know, Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki, better known as the Tokyo Two, are on trial for intercepting a box of whale meat as part of an investigation into an embezzlement ring within Japan's taxpayer-funded 'research' whaling programme.

The Japanese government subsidises the loss-making whaling programme to the tune of US$5 million a year, making the embezzlement of whale meat exposed by Junichi and Toru a significant crime. But instead of the criminals behind the embezzlement facing justice, it's the Toyko Two who find themselves in the dock.

It's a politically charged case, and although the prosecutor has a duty to disclose all of the evidence for and against Junichi and Toru so they can properly defend themselves, much of the key evidence needed for their defence has been concealed.

This has forced appeals to the Sendai High Court and now the Supreme Court, with the Tokyo Two and their lawyers repeatedly asking for disclosure. While some statements have been disclosed, most of the relevant information in them was redacted in white. Additionally, a total of 15 pages are missing from important statements.

Even the very limited information which has been disclosed contains strong indications that explanations provided by the government in response to the embezzlement scandal were fabrications, and that Junichi and Toru were justified in intercepting the box because they were exposing embezzlement of large amounts of prime whale meat.

The Supreme Court is Junichi and Toru's last chance to get disclosure of evidence that could further prove the embezzlement and, in turn, their innocence.

Take action

Please write as soon as possible to ask that the Supreme Court overturns the decision of the Sendai High Court, and that it orders the disclosure of this material so that a fair trial can take place, in accordance with Japan's obligations under international human rights law.

NB This cyberaction is now closed as the legal defence council is finalising the submission of all appeal documents to the Supreme Court. Therefore, Greenpeace Japan will now present your messages and signatures to the Supreme Court.

Since this cyberaction began a week ago, more than 3000 people have signed the Greenpeace online petition and written messages to the Supreme Court of Japan asking for the disclosure of evidence crucial the Tokyo Two's defence. Thank you!

The End Of The Line: UK TV premiere

Willie — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:21:06 +0000

It's finally here.

The movie that changed the way people think about what’s on their dinner plate is hitting a small screen near you. The End of the Line will be screened at 10pm on More4 tomorrow night, Tuesday 20th October.

Let’s just stop to think what the film's achieved over the past nine months:

Wall-to-wall news coverage shaming Nobu, and a celebrity backlash against the restaurant for continuing to sell endangered bluefin tuna.
Itsu and Pret a Manger taking unsustainable fish off their menus, and supermarkets keen to explain what they are doing to clean up their fish counters.
A special screening for the EU Fisheries Commissioner, and only the second film to be screened at No. 10 Downing Street.
Celebrity backing from the great and the good, with Steven Fry and Sarah Brown twittering in support.
Sell-out screenings across the country on World Oceans’ Day, and a four week run in London's West End.

This film has raised awareness of destructive fishing issues in places other documentaries have not even dreamed about. Not only has the UK’s government department responsible for fisheries taken note – they have been screening it to all of their staff, and using it as a platform to talk about much-needed fisheries reform.

And at last – for all the right reasons – bluefin tuna is on the tip of everyone’s tongues, and it’s an issue that keeps getting coverage … from special programmes on Al Jazeera, and announcements by President Sarkozy, to the 4th plinth in Trafalgar Square.

And now it’s on TV tomorrow night at 10pm on More4. You should watch it. If you don’t have More4, then find a friend who does. If you do have More4 – invite friends who don’t, round! We want everyone to see the film, understand the issues and take action.

So please, update your diary, and set your video, and tell all your friends to watch The End of the Line.

And if you can’t catch it on More4, look out for news on the DVD release coming soon.

But End of the Line author Charles Clover doesn't just want to get into your living rooms to talk about fish – he’s also keen to get a handle on what's on the end of your fork. A new restaurant-rating website has just been launched by Charles and his team - called www.fish2fork.com – which gives you information about the sustainability of the seafood served up in eateries up and down the UK. Charles explains about it in this article from yesterday's Sunday Times.

It's a great new venture, capitalising on the awareness already raised by the film and other campaigns like 'Seafood See Life'. More importantly it gives us all, as diners, the opportunity to rate and review them – so please, check it out and let us all know how well the restaurants and chefs are facing up to the challenge of sourcing seafood sustainably.