THE FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION LIMITED
PRESS RELEASE
Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall’s Fish Fight
Campaign grossly misleading
Around the UK and in
International waters almost 200 THOUSAND SQUARE MILES of seabed is closed to
the UK fishing
industry. The list is endless of closed or restricted areas both actual and
potential - Marine Protected Areas,
Special Areas of Conservation, Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs), Sites of
Special Scientific Interest, UK Real Time Closures of
sea areas where there are concentrations of cod, EU Real Time Closures
for juvenile cod, haddock, whiting and saithe
plus all year closures such as the Windsock off the west of Scotland supposedly
to protect cod, Darwin Mounds and Rockall Bank to protect cold water coral,
Stanton Bank (reef features) not to mention the impact on the fishing industry
of oil and gas plus green energy
operations.
127 MCZs in English waters
alone are in the pipeline under the Marine and Coastal Access Act, on top of
the all the existing SACs or of all the other industry-led conservation
initiatives that are underway.
The Scottish fishing
industry is currently in dialogue with Marine Scotland to identify Marine
Protected Areas as part of a UK network to meet
EU requirements.
What the industry does not
need is the continuing harassment by environmental extremists backed by
substantial sums of money from charitable groups such as the Oak Foundation in
the Fish Fight campaign. That Foundation funded Keo Films to the tune of almost
$500k. HFW is a Director and presenter of the company which has produced his
and Professor Callum Roberts latest unbalanced assault on the industry.
HFW says absolutely nothing
about the effects on marine life of all the pollution, chemicals, agricultural
run-off that pours into coastal waters ever year, aggregate dredging, seals
etc. No, it's all down to fishermen - despite the fleet being a shadow of what
it was.
His statement that 75% of
the world's surface is ocean but that only 0.001% of that is protected is also
utterly misleading as only a very small fraction of that 75% is fishable
coastal shelf waters.
Does the public not care
about the harm that is being done to an industry which is teetering on the edge
of viability by the relentless biased pressure of “celebrities?”
This current campaign is
just another demoralising element which threatens the livelihood of fishermen
whose families have worked with nature for generations to provide food for the UK.
Over the last 10 years the
industry has worked tirelessly with scientists and Marine Scotland and its
predecessors along with responsible environmental groups in open, transparent
discussions to resolve policy differences which allow us to coexist.
People like HFW and Professor Roberts preach
radical conservation which if implemented would result in the seas being
returned to some kind of pristine, pre-industrial era state.
They don't apply this
criterion to the landscape, which has of course been totally transformed
by agriculture for centuries.
The seabed is no different
from the land, it needs to be worked on and turned over to release the
nutrients that sustain the whole ecosystem.
This current Fish Fight
campaign involving a march on Westminster will only fuel
the growing anger amongst hard working fishermen and their families at the
gross misrepresentation of the facts. They do not deserve to be portrayed in a
manner that is totally contrary to the actions they have taken and are
continuing to take to protect fish stocks for future generations.
But why is this misrepresentation
happening? Has the public queried what the real motive is of Foundations such
as the Oak when it comes to splashing out millions of US dollars in their quest
for marine conservation?
Oak is only one of the
charitable foundations currently pumping vast amounts of money into
environmental NGOs dealing with fisheries. The Pew Charitable Trust, David and
Lucille Packard Foundation, Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, the Walton
Family Foundation, in addition to the Oak Foundation, have put an estimated
$75million into direct lobbying activities in Europe since 2000, and in so
doing have raised concerns as to their
real motive.
Most of these foundations
share the same view about extreme nature conservancy, based on the
American view of the ‘Wilderness’. But what is their reason for investing millions of US$ on marine
conservation?
The following may, to some extent, provide the answer to
this largesse.
It is an extract from the October 2012 paper BLUE CHARITY
BUSINESS, Reform of the European Common Fisheries Policy First appraisal
2000-2011 International foundations, Environmental Non Governmental
Organizations [ENGOs] and coalitions.
“The reason officially promoted is ocean conservation
in a vision of wilderness.
However, we quote some troubling facts
which might suggest some other motivations.
Firstly, the European Commission has a
strategy regarding maritime affairs, named Blue Growth - opportunities for marine and maritime sustainable growth,
a program of promotion and support to marine activities which ignore fishing
industry to favour marine conservation, tourism, exploitation of seabed
minerals, marine renewable energy and off-shore activities, etc. These areas of
the marine economy are supported by promises of jobs creation and major earnings.
This strategy presents them as new pioneer fronts and of targeting a new marine
Eldorado.
Secondly, these new pioneer fronts will need vast
marine areas freed from any competing activities. Recent new findings made in
marine gas and oil exploration, in areas which are heavily used by current
fishing activities (Celtic sea), and future developments of offshore-wind
energy will require big-sized offshore areas. It is the same for the future exploration of marine
rare earths. The new pioneers may be disturbed by current fishing activities.
Up to now, the conditions of cohabitation between off-shore renewable energy
and the fishing activities, especially the bottom towed-fishing gear ones, are
not clear. Until now, the British marine renewable areas are not opened to
fishing activities.
Thirdly,
we may think the US foundations which are currently involved in the lobbying
are not fully independent, neither from off-shore gas and oil exploitation
interests, nor from the supply of high-technology industries in rare earths
ones. This presumption is done according to the composition of the board of
trustees of these foundations.”
Is it not time for there to
be a serious look by the All Party Fisheries Committee in the House of Commons
and by the Scottish Parliament at the activities of these organisations as
their network of influence spreads?
Sandy Patience
FAL Chairman
20
February 2013
