Thomas Flamank
"Speak the truth and only then can you be free of your chains"
John Wilkes
'The liberty of the press is the birthright of every Briton’
DRAWING A LINE IN THE ‘FISH FIGHT’
from Laurence Hartwell
Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s Fish Fight campaign, which is urging people to march on Parliament and demand the implementation of 127 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in UK coastal waters is, in Seafish’s view, in danger of undermining and undervaluing years of environmental improvements, unless it stops its vilification of the UK fishing industry.
Paul Williams, CEO of Seafish, said: “The Fish Fight Charter is simplistic, indiscriminate and lacking in scientific evidence in many areas. The inconvenient truth to campaigns such as Fish Fight is that fishermen’s knowledge has shown how the boundaries of a number of proposed MPAs, and the location of features within them, are wrong. So you need fishermen on board in order to achieve the environmental, social and economic improvements that everyone is striving for, and the science must be in place before you designate MPAs. Going down the ‘evidence-lite’ route, as this Fish Fight campaign does, is likely to achieve very little and the campaign will simply alienate the fishing industry – a sector that is vital to leading environmental improvements in our seas.
“Hugh’s Fish Fight has lost sight of the fact that 31 proposed MPAs have been approved, out of the original 127 proposed, for a reason. That reason was that the Government’s Scientific Advisory Panel found that the review of the scientific basis for the additional areas – what was being protected, why it was important, what would be the benefit – simply wasn’t adequate. To put pressure on the industry and Government for more at this stage is therefore irresponsible and opportunistic as it is our understanding that more MPAs will eventually be considered anyway once proper scientific evidence for them has been gathered.”
Seafish’s response tackles many of the assumptions made in the Fish Fight Charter and also questions why the celebrity chef is raising these issues now when industry and environmental groups have been working with Government for years to improve the vibrancy and productivity of the marine environment. Some of the key points raised hinge on the assumption that all mobile gear destroys the sea-floor. The fact is that the right mobile gear used in the right place and at the appropriate intensity does not destroy the seafloor.
There is also the false assumption that all MPAs enhance fishing communities. Fundamentally, mobile gear fleets are important to many economically fragile coastal fishing communities. Another false assumption that the campaign operates on is that MPAs bring unalloyed environmental benefit. On the contrary, displacing fishing activity from MPAs could negate the ecological benefits afforded by an MPA network.
There are some areas where Seafish does agree with the Charter such as the importance of establishing MPAs in order to protect the environment and enable sustainability. This is already being done in many areas and has created vibrant and productive seas around the UK. The difference of opinion is how this is achieved and also in how the campaign has chosen to illustrate the need for action.
If you enjoyed this well-informed and written piece by Laurence, why not bookmark his regular blog Through the Gaps ? Laurence is out pretty much every day gathering the latest fishing news and pictures from Newlyn and beyond and you can take part in an ongoing Twitter conversation about local fishing through his popular site whether you’re at home or at sea!
Posted by
Luc
February 25, 2013 at 1:03 pm
What a load of tripe – why would anyone would side with government bodies on environmental issues? It is clear the ocean management in this world needs to change and a good place to start is by highlighting the issue to the public so they think about where thier tuna, prawns and other fish come from.
kim
February 25, 2013 at 3:44 pm
Isn’t this what hartwell’s on about though
http://www.cornwallcommunitynews.co.uk/2013/02/25/feeding-the-nine-billion/
the whole thing of posh foodies vilifying hard working fishermen when they should involve them? There’s far too many conservationists don’t factor human beings in as part of their equations. There’s a whole history of socialist and humanitarian conservationists breaking with the greens over a kind of eco-fascism. Isn’t Hugh sticking it to the fishermen unfairly?
Ed Russell
February 26, 2013 at 1:00 am
Dear Mr. Fearnley-Whittingstall,
my name is Ruth Brown, you met me in February 2012 when you came to Bird Island, South Georgia, to film an episode of ‘Fish Fight’, and I appeared in this episode which aired on Thursday last week (21st Feb) on Channel 4. I am writing to protest about the unfair and unflattering light in which you portrayed me, and the glaring inaccuracies in information that you presented to viewers.
In your program you implied that the research I do is paid for by licence money received from the krill fishing industry, and that I am therefore unable to speak freely about my opinions of that industry. This is not true. I work for British Antarctic Survey, who do not receive any money from fisheries and are funded by the Natural Environment Research Council, a government body that funds independent scientific research. British Antarctic Survey fund and manage all work that is carried out on Bird Island, yet were not mentioned once in your program.
During your interview with me, I repeatedly told you that the data I collect on penguins and other seabird species is handed over to CCAMLR (the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources), an international consortium that manage all fishing activities in the Southern Ocean. CCAMLR use this data to inform their decisions about fishing practices and to ensure that Southern Ocean fisheries are sustainable. I find it remarkable that in a program dedicated to fisheries in the Southern Ocean, you did not once mention CCAMLR, the international body that governs fisheries in the Southern Ocean.
In your program you mentioned that penguin populations are declining, with the implication being that this is a result of competition with the krill fishery for their main prey food, krill. This is at best misleading. It is true that macaroni penguin populations at South Georgia are in decline, and I would direct your attention to a recent paper on the subject (Trathan et al 2012 ‘Ecological drivers of change at South Georgia’ Ecography 35 (11), 983-993), which discusses the possible causes of this decline. The authors conclude that the most likely reason for declining populations of macaroni penguins at South Georgia is an increase in the population of Antarctic fur seals, which also feed on krill. Indeed, fur seals have undergone a population explosion at South Georgia in recent years despite the presence of the krill fishery, a fact which was not mentioned in your program.
In your program you asked me how much krill an individual penguin consumes in a single meal. The amount of krill consumed by animals in this ecosystem is an important point. The estimated total amount of krill consumed by macaroni penguins in a year is around 1.6 million tonnes, and the estimated total amount of krill consumed by Antarctic fur seals in a year is around 6.8 million tonnes (Trathan et al 2012). In contrast, the average annual krill catch by the South Georgia fishery is 43,500 tonnes (Trathan et al 2012), and is therefore insignificant compared with the amount of krill consumed by the animals. These figures were not mentioned in your program.
Whilst you were on Bird Island, one of your production team (Lucy Meadows) told us that the krill boat on which you filmed experienced zero by-catch. In my opinion this is an astonishing and noteworthy fact, given the high levels of by-catch seen in other fisheries. However, this fact was not mentioned in your program.
In your program you suggested that populations of great whales in the Southern Ocean have fully recovered following the end of commercial exploitation. This statement is misleading. Whilst some species of whales have recovered to pre-exploitation levels, others have not, and a very modest amount of research on your part would have shown you this (see, for example, Lotze et al 2011 ‘Recovery of marine animal populations and ecosystems’ Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26 (11), 595-605).
In conclusion, the episode of ‘Fish Fight’ which covered fisheries on the Southern Ocean was poorly researched and misleading. Many important facts were left out, as they would clearly have compromised the pre-conceived journalistic slant of the program. You and your production company (KEO films) repeatedly ignored the research and opinions of scientists and conservationists who have spent decades studying the ecosystem around South Georgia, believing that you are better placed to comment on that ecosystem than they are.
I am an enthusiastic supporter of campaigns for sustainable fishing in general, and of the ‘Fish Fight’ campaign in particular. It therefore saddens me that you have chosen to tarnish this noble cause with what can only be described as a tawdry piece of hack journalism. I am ashamed that I was a part of it, albeit unwittingly.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ruth Brown
Pingback: UK – DRAWING A LINE IN THE ‘FISH FIGHT’ | FisheryWorld.com