THE FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION LIMITED
PRESS RELEASE
Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall’s Fish Fight
Campaign grossly misleading
Around the UK UK
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
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.
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
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.
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?
FAL Chairman
Categories:
CFP,
FAL,
Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall,
NGOs
0 comments:
Post a Comment