Through the Gaps! - Newlyn Fishing News Cornwall UK fish commercial fishing fish cooking and art

Tuesday 26 February 2013

Deleted from HFW's Fish Fight web site - an open letter from Dr Ruth Brown who works for the British Antarctic Survey, a governemnt funded (not charity funded) organisation looking after the Southern Ocean

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.

Fish discards ban 'may be diluted'

Richard Lochhead ‏@RichardLochhead big challenge in today's Brussels talks on fish discard ban is how to build in flexibilities that don't become big loopholes that some want Details 22 hrs

Richard Lochhead ‏@RichardLochhead Big day tomorrow - will EU fish ministers be brave & agree historic fish discards ban without loopholes - c'mon @simoncoveney you can do it! Details

Current tweets from Richard Lochhead who represents the Moray Constituency as a Scottish National Party (SNP) MSP in The Scottish Parliament and is also the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment in the Scottish Government.

also from Ulrike Rodust:

Ahead of the EU fisheries ministers' meeting tonight, S&D Euro MP Ulrike Rodust warned that the European Parliament will not accept a watered down reform of EU fisheries policy. Said Ulrike Rodust who leads the negotiations for the European Parliament: "Some Member States are trying to push the Irish presidency to include more loopholes in the text they agreed last June. The Council is going in the wrong direction. It is moving further and further away from the ambitious European Parliament's vote earlier this month. "EU fisheries ministers should remember that a wide majority has voted for a discard ban without any exemptions. We are willing to find a reasonable compromise, but I think it will be difficult to accept a text which would allow throwing back certain species of unwanted fish overboard without any limitations at all".

Europe's fisheries ministers may dilute plans for a total ban on the practice of discarding fish at sea, as they meet in Brussels. An outright discards ban was widely welcomed when backed by the European Parliament last month, but it is being resisted by France, Spain and others. Ministers will consider a compromise text, that a European Commission source described as "quite unacceptable".

It would delay fisheries reform beyond the current proposal of 2016-2019. It would also allow maybe 7% of fish to be discarded, exempt some species from the ban altogether, and give fishing crews extra catch quotas for an interim period.

It would also allow blue whiting, one of the most abundant stocks of the North East Atlantic, to be dumped if it is inadvertently caught. Boarfish may also be exempt.

Some ministers are striving to soften the provisions of the reform package to protect their fleets from sudden change.

But the Fisheries Commissioner, Maria Damanaki, urged ministers not to compromise. "The politicians must listen to what the public is telling them," she said. "The public does not want fish to be just thrown away." She said all caught fish should be landed; if they were of low value, they should be turned into fish meal.

Ms Damanaki was presented with a petition signed by nearly a million people demanding an end to discards, and for fishing at a level that allows stocks to replenish.

Campaigners were surprised and delighted last month when MEPs voted by a margin of around 4-1 in favour of sweeping reforms. The majority was far greater than had been predicted.

The Irish Fisheries Minister, Simon Coveney, who is chairing the meeting, said: "It is imperative that European Fisheries Ministers collectively take this progressive but challenging decision now and co-operate in agreeing appropriate and effective measures to eliminate discards with ambitious timelines."

But he is obliged at the meeting to find a joint position that the Council can negotiate with the Commission and parliament - and compromise will be difficult as several nations, including the UK, consider than any slipping from a total ban would be wrong.

The "progressive" nations fear that any discussion of exempt species would open the door for further exemptions.

In a review of global discarding, the UN noted that the north-east Atlantic had the highest discard level in the world, estimated at 1.3 million tonnes - the majority attributed to the EU. The Commission estimates that 23% of all fish caught by EU vessels are discarded.

Discussions at the Fisheries Council may last into the night, although on a less contentious note, ministers are likely to re-commit to better technology to prevent unwanted fish being caught in the first place.

Full story courtesy of the BBC

Dutch and German freezer trawlers

Two big Dutch and one German freezer trawler can be seen fishing south of Mount's Bay in the last twenty four hours. Twenty years ago a big fleet of English and Dutch freezer trawlers fished the huge shoals of mackerel in the Western Approaches. Since then, climactic change has seen the mackerel move further and further northwards until now they are largely concentrated around Scotland and well into Iceland's 200 mile limit.

Illegal fishing: what happens at sea too often stays at sea

The problem of illegal fishing is enormous and Greenpeace has been working hard to combat illegal fishing for many years, as we try to protect our oceans and ensure future generations have fish and fishing jobs. We have sent ships into the open ocean year after year, to monitor fishing activities with governments as diverse as Palau and Mozambique. In some ways, this work is taking off today as Interpol’s first-ever conference on illegal fishing begins in Lyon, France. Rainbow Warrior In The Indian Ocean

The Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warrior is observing fishing activities in the Indian Ocean where poor management has left many stocks over exploited including albacore tuna and many sharks.

It is estimated that between $10 and $24 billion worth of fish is caught illegally All too often, these fish are taken from developing countries and end up as cheap seafood in rich countries. Illegal fishing, especially in tuna and shark fisheries and trade takes income and food away from coastal communities. The lucrative tuna trade unfortunately encourages cheating in order to maximise profits, especially as overfishing causes fleets to move further and further to chase shrinking fish populations. Esperanza In The Pacific zoom

Greenpeace is hoping to change all of this. To coincide with the Interpol conference, we are releasing the findings from our most recent ship tours in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. We are also renewing our call to governments to stop illegal fishing, specifically by:

Ending the practice of transferring fish catches at sea
Enforcing existing regulations and improve surveillance of fishing ships
Mandating that fishing ships have proper electronic identification devices, such as AIS on.
Reducing fishing fleets

We hope that global law enforcement will join us in the fight to leave future generations healthy, living oceans. Sharing data and best practice information is a good place to start as would be the prosecution of individuals and companies involved in illegal fishing. We need your help to show the global fishing industry that our oceans are not Las Vegas - what happens at sea shouldn’t stay at sea. You can tell your seafood companies to improve their sourcing policies here. We’ll keep you posted on how our work to defend our oceans develops.

Reproduced courtesy of the Greenpeace web site.