Severn Estuary. Picture: Andrew Kerr

Severn Bridge picture: Chris J Bowley

A proposed barrage across the Severn Estuary could destroy one of Britain’s most prized natural resources, a new report warns.

The scramble to harness the massive renewable power the Severn tides could generate threatens an internationally important wildlife site, according to the Wildlife Trusts’ report.

It claims that none of the five short-listed schemes proposing either a barrage or a lagoon system to produce electricity is cost effective and threatens to ruin the site for both people and wildlife.

The report says the Government should consider a range of alternative schemes using modern, low-impact technologies.

One of the proposed schemes involves building a £14 billion 10-mile-long barrage across the Severn from Cardiff to Weston-Super-Mare. Supporters say it is capable of providing 5-6 per cent of the current electricity usage of England and Wales – the equivalent of eight large coal-fired power stations.

But conservation groups have warned it is potentially the most damaging scheme and could turn into an environmental disaster ruining a vitally important wetlands site which supports millions of creatures.

The Wildlife Trusts’ report – Energy at any price? -  was released in the House of Lords as RenewableUK (formerly BWEA), the country’s leading renewable energy trade association, called at its annual wave and tidal energy conference for the Government to invest a further £150-£200 million in the two technologies.

Over the last decade the Government has invested an estimated £60 million in wave and tidal research and development. The UK leads the world with the largest installed generating base of 2.4 megawatts (MW), a further 27MW with planning consent, 77.5MW of projects in planning, and 700MW expected in the Pentland Firth area by 2020.

RenewableUK forecasts 1-2 GW of wave and tidal energy installations in the UK by 2020, making a significant contribution to the country’s carbon reduction targets.

The barrage plan has been backed by the government’s own advisory group, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), which says it would make a substantial contribution to meeting the 20 per cent of all energy from renewable sources by 2020.

But the Wildlife Trusts says using the estuary’s enormous tidal power – it has the second highest tides in the world – by damming the estuary with an old fashioned barrage would be a disaster. It wants the government to commit to looking at other types of as yet untested technology.

The report says the decision should be taken on which scheme is the most cost-effective, causes the least environmental damage and which ensures it will not be something society regrets in decades to come.

The Severn Estuary, the report claims, provides a haven for the young of commercial fish stocks, provides a means of transport and trade and is the site of many recreational pursuits enjoyed by people of all ages. Its importance to wildlife is recognised through UK, European and International law and by building a barrage, the Government would be reneging on its commitments to protect this wildlife to the highest levels.

Joan Edwards, head of Living Seas for The Wildlife Trusts, said:  “It is no exaggeration to say the Severn Estuary is an irreplaceable part of the UK’s natural heritage. 

“It is a dynamic system which affects all our lives.  We want to remind people about what the Severn Estuary means; it is part of our cultural heritage and it also very much part of today too; people rely on it for their livelihoods.  We are mobilising our members to take action.

“We cannot view our energy needs in isolation from our environment.  Altering the Severn’s intertidal habitat is so risky.  We have a moral and ethical obligation to ensure the best options for the natural environment are pursued.  We should not consider out-dated technology which could impact on the Estuary on an unprecedented scale.

“Destroying the Severn Estuary – arguably the eighth natural wonder of the world – would be a deadly sin.  We need your support to protect this unique place – join us and become a ‘Severn Bore’!”   

Naturalist and vice president for The Wildlife Trusts, Nick Baker, added:  “While it can appear a little flat and featureless the Severn Estuary – like all of our estuaries – is a unique and incredibly rich environment for wildlife.  The mud literally teems with little life forms – twitching mud monsters and strange chimera can be found by sieving through just a spoonful of the gloopy grey Estuary mud.

 Most of us cannot be bothered with this lowly end of the life scale but I’m sure these same people would be mind-blown by the dashing and twisting of a flock or hundreds of dunlin trying to out-manoeuvre a hunting peregrine, or the mud-stitching elegance of a godwit in its pink breeding blush.  These, and many more species of wading bird, are international tourists attracted to, and dependent on, this same mud to survive – the Severn Estuary is an internationally important habitat for all of these reasons.

“If you need an illustration of how important the Estuary is and its wide-reaching influence, nip down to Bridgewater bay in July; it looks like it’s been snowing the once grey mud is covered in drifts of white – these are the moulted feathers of shelduck. Up to 4,000 birds congregate here from all over the western coast, especially from Ireland, in order to sit out this vulnerable time of their annual cycle away from the reaches of predators.” 

The Severn is an important migration route for Atlantic salmon which hatch in gravel beds upstream before making their way downriver and into the open sea. They return by the same route up to four years later to spawn in the beds where they were born.

The Severn is also an important river to the European eel whose still mysterious lifestyle includes travelling up the river as elvers to return many years later as mature fish on their way to spawn and die in the Sargasso Sea in the Caribbean.

Sea trout, lamprey and shad also use the river.

A Severn eel. Picture: Mike Lane

The report recognises the role the Severn Estuary could play in the renewables programme but it says the decision cannot be taken in isolation from the needs of the environment. It concludes:

“The Wildlife Trusts believe that none of the shortlisted options is cost effective, and all five could destroy one of the most prized natural resources in the country. Whilst we recognise that the SETS (Severn Embryonic Technologies Schemes) options are still in their infancy we believe they demonstrate the most promise.

We have a moral and ethical obligation to ensure that the least environmentally damaging most cost-effective option is selected. So we need to fully investigate all the options, to make sure that the technology is right for the job. Most of all we need to ensure that decisions we take now, in the face of climate change, are not ones that we will live to regret in years in come.”

Severn salmon would face turbine blade threat. Picture: Laurie Campbell

 The five proposed schemes and the report’s assessment of each one:

• The Cardiff-Weston barrage – a 10-mile scheme costing £14bn that would stretch from near Cardiff to near Weston-super-Mare. It could generate up to 8GW – 5% of the UK’s energy needs.

Report says: Highest energy and overall impact with far more intertidal habitat loss than any other option. Fish passage to all tributary rivers impeded, leading to likely regional extinction of Atlantic salmon and twaite shad.

• Shoots barrage – a scheme further upstream which would generate around 1GW, equivalent to a large fossil fuel plant

Report says: Smallest barrage, lowest adverse impact, but lowest energy potential too. Located above the Wye, so fish passage to SAC (Special Area of Conservation) rivers still possible. Wholly within the cSAC,(Candidate Special Area of Conservation)  SPA (Special Project Area) and Ramsar (Internationally Important Wetland), so significant loss of habitat.

• Beachley barrage – an even smaller scheme, just above the Wye River, which would generate around 625MW

Report says: Habitat loss same or less than Fleming, but no fish passage to the upper Severn and the Wye SAC.Wholly within the cSAC, SPA and Ramsar, so significant loss of habitat and disturbance during construction.

• Bridgwater Bay lagoon – a proposal which would impound a section of the estuary on the coast between east of Hinkley Point and Weston-super-Mare, which could generate 1.36GW

Report says: Extends across smaller proportion of Estuary than Fleming Lagoon, so likely to have less impact on erosionand siltation. Impedes fish migrationto Rivers Parrett, Cary and Brue.Relatively low carbon saving.

• Fleming lagoon – a similar scheme which would generate the same amount of power from a section of the Welsh shore between Newport and the Severn road crossings.

Report says: The longest structure, all of it in cSAC. Impacts to migratory fish and freshwater habitats likely to be less than barrages, but would greatly affect erosion and sediment movements around the wall.

 The three schemes the report says should be looked at more favourably are:

 Tidal Reef:

Least technically developed option so estimate for intertidal loss likely to be less accurate. Turbines likely to turn more slowly than in barrages and lagoons, posing a lower risk to

fish. Large footprint is outside cSAC.

Tidal Fence:

Relatively low impact over a wide area. Partial barrier and low turbine speed less harmful to migratory fish.Less impact on siltation/erosion too due to constant flow. Large construction footprint, outside cSAC.

Spectral Marine Energy Converter:

A series of pillars supporting a causeway road. Structures in the pillars use very high speed turbinesto generate electricity. Tidal flow is only partly impeded. Data and location not yet available.

Facts and Figures:

There are 228 nature reserves, owned or managed by The Wildlife Trusts, in the region, totalling 3,450 hectares.  

There are 17 Living Landscape schemes, covering 372,700 hectares (1,400square miles).

Up to 16 nature reserves would be directly affected by a barrage, seven of them on the banks of the river.

Surfing the Bore

About 80 times a year, the incoming tide and the Estuary’s funnel-shape create the Severn Bore – and the chance to surf for more than six miles in fresh water. 

The Severn Estuary has a 14 metre tidal range – the drop in height of the water from high tide to low tide – the second largest in the world. 

The largest tidal range in the world, at 16 metres, occurs in the Bay of Fundy on the east coast of Canada.

Number crunching / Vital statistics

10,000,000 – estimated tonnes of sediment carried to the Estuary on a spring tide.

69,000 – visiting birds, sheltering from the Arctic winter or refuelling during migration.

24,700 – size in hectares of the Severn Estuary; one of the largest estuaries in Europe.

20,958 – extent in hectares of mud & sand flats, the fourth largest expanse in the UK.

5,000 – years for which there is evidence of sedimentation in the Estuary, an invaluable geomorphological and archaeological record.

1,500 – extent in hectares of rock, boulder, mussel/cobble scars, rocky pools and shingle.

1,400 – extent in hectares of saltmarsh, the largest expanse in the South West.

100+ species of fish found in the Estuary.

10 – species of commercial fish including herring, cod, plaice, sole, whiting, blue whiting, hake, horse mackerel, ling and saithe.

Grey reef shark. Picture:| Peter Faulkner Marine Photobank

by Charles Clover and Jon Ungoed-Thomas

Portal Picture of shark poaching in Chagos: MRAG

 THE government’s chief scientist and his wife have made £500,000 in the past year in a company overseeing commercial fishing that allegedly threatens one of the world’s most pristine marine environments.

Professor John Beddington and his wife, Caroline, are joint shareholders in Marine Resources Assessment Group (MRAG), a London-based consultancy that manages fisheries and provides specialist advice around the world.

Conservationists claim that a fishery managed by the company in British territorial waters in the Indian Ocean has been catching threatened species including blue sharks and manta rays. It is estimated that between 2003 and 2008 more than 120,000 were caught as “bycatch” from commercial tuna fishing.

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, is now considering banning fishing to protect the area, which has some of the finest coral reefs in the world.

MRAG, which has won at least three contracts from the British government in the past two years, is a profitable venture for Prof.Beddington, who was appointed the chief scientific adviser in January 2008. Last year, the company recorded profits and shareholder funds of £708,000 — up from £184,000 in 2008.

Shareholder funds, which can be shared between Prof.Beddington and his wife, rose by more than £523,000. Although Prof.Beddington receives no remuneration from the company, he and his wife are the sole shareholders.

One of the fisheries managed by the company is in the Chagos archipelago — a group of about 55 islands south of the Maldives. The Foreign Office awarded MRAG a contract to manage commercial fishing around the islands in 2005. It is due for renewal in May.

In his role as a £165,000-a-year senior civil servant, Prof.Beddington has warned of the dangers of overfishing the oceans. However, a new report claims that commercial fishing managed by his company in the Chagos archipelago is “almost certainly having detrimental effects on the ecosystem”.

The report, by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), which manages London Zoo, claims that tens of thousands of ray fish and sharks, described as vulnerable or “near threatened” species, have been caught in the waters by trawlers overseen by Prof.Beddington’s company.

“You can’t say it is a well-managed fishery,” said Heather Koldeway, the report’s author. “The amount of bycatch is immense and there are species in it which are threatened.”

The alleged impact of the commercial fishing has emerged after Mr.Miliband published a consultation document last November proposing that the waters around the Chagos islands — also known as British Indian Ocean Territory — be made one of the world’s largest marine reserves.

ZSL’s response to the consultation, seen by The Sunday Times newspaper, says sharks and rays are slow-growing, have a long lifespan, and are vulnerable to over-fishing. The scientists also claim that the intended catch of the licensed fishing vessels, yellowfin tuna, suffers from overfishing. They urge a ban on commercial fishing.

However, MRAG argues that commercial fishing should be allowed to continue. Chris Mees, development director of MRAG, said much of ZSL’s evidence was gathered before new measures were introduced to ensure fish landed as bycatch were more likely to survive.

He warned that a ban could lead to an increase in unregulated fishing in other waters — “effectively increasing the bycatch”.

MRAG, founded in 1986, employs more than 30 staff with offices in America and Australia. Although Prof.Beddington and his wife own the firm, his spokesman said: “Professor Beddington has never taken a dividend or a salary from the company.”

The spokesman said Prof.Beddington had declared his interest in MRAG when he became a government adviser and “has not been involved in the management of any MRAG-related companies and has not discussed with the Foreign Office or any other government department or agency fishing issues [with] which MRAG, or its associated companies, is involved”.

Environmental groups want Mr.Miliband to ban all fishing in the Chagos archipelago.

William Mackenzie, of Greenpeace UK, said: “The waters around the Chagos deserve to be fully protected as a marine reserve, off-limits to the destructive fishing that is trashing marine life.”

Additional reporting: Gillian Passmore

http://fish2fork.com/blog/2009/11/make-chagos-worlds-biggest-marine-reserve/

Eels for sale in a Japanese market. Picture: Telstar Logistics

French fishermen are flouting EU rules and selling baby eels to China at a massive profit, a conservation group alleges.

 One in every three eels caught should go towards a recovery plan aimed at restocking European wetlands and rivers which have suffered a dramatic decline in eel numbers.

 Already three tons of eel have been sold to Asia where they will be ‘grown’ on aquaculture farms until they are big enough to be slaughtered for the food market.

 And conservationists fear that the entire French eel quota – up to 14.5 tonnes – will be sent for export with none left for restocking.

 France controls 90 per cent of the supply of baby eels – known as glass eels or elvers -  and is absolutely essential to the success of the European Eel Recovery Plan drawn up by the EU.

 But conservationists claim the French are putting short-term profitability before sustainability. With the collapse in eel numbers the market has become extremely lucrative with the current price for elvers in China reaching 850 Euros per kilo – compared with a market price in Europe of just 450 Euros only a few weeks ago.

 Now the UK’s Sustainable Eel Group (SEG) a partnership of environmental, conservation and fishing communities has written to CITES – the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species – demanding that action be taken.

 SEG Chairman Andrew Kerr said: “ We have to stop the French. There is only a finite amount of eels and vital restocking won’t take place if they are all sold to China.

We feel the French are exploiting EU bureaucracy by exporting more eels than can be sustained.

 “It is not just unintelligent it may even be illegal but unfortunately it is characteristic of the management of European fisheries.”

The European eel (Anguilla Anguilla) has suffered a catastrophic decline with numbers of vitally important young eels – known as elvers – down by as much as 99 per cent since 1980 in some areas especially the Northern and Baltic region.

In the River Severn in the UK and in France and Spain, the traditional regions of large eel recruitment, it is estimated there has been a 70% decline. It is on the IUCN Red List of Species as critically endangered.

 Last month the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) published research which showed that the number of elvers reaching the River Thames in London have crashed by 97 per cent in the past five years.

The crash in numbers of returning eels across Northern Europe is blamed on overfishing, habitat loss, pollution, the damming of rivers which disrupts the eel’s migration routes, and climate change affecting ocean currents.

 Last year the eel was given a CITES Appendix II listing which requires states to hold an export permit which can only be issued if it can be proved the export will not have a detrimental affect on the survival of the species

 An EU Regulation also required all member states to introduce eel management plans which had to be in place by June of last year. This requires 35 per cent of captured eels less than 12cms in length to be used for restocking, rising to 60 per cent by 2013.

 The SEG claims the French began exporting eels to Asia even though many EU national agriculture ministries were explicitly saying that the French Eel Management Plan had not  been approved. The 14.5 tonnes of exports were only to be allowed under the Eel Recovery Regulation once the French plan was approved and once adequate provisions for restocking across Europe were made.

 Last year the French landed 30 tonnes of eel and claimed the 14.5 tonnes for export represented just 21 per cent of an anticipated catch of 70 tonnes this year. But so far, with the eels season half over, they have landed just 10 tonnes. Each tonne represents 3m-4m elvers.

 “ We now find that orders for restocking wetlands elsewhere in Europe have been placed and are now very unlikely to be filled as French Fisherman are to be allowed to make large short term profit through exports to China in priority over meeting the obligation to make 35% of the catch available for restocking,” said Mr.Kerr.

 Peter Wood, a vet and member of SEG who is also managing director of Gloucester-based UK Glass Eels, Europe’s leading supplier of Glass Eels for stocking, said:

“If the French Eel Management Plan is agreed by the EU Commission without tighter controls to ensure the implementation of a secure principle of “priority for restocking” it is highly likely that satisfying the 14.5 tonnes for immediate profit will leave no glass eels to meet Europe’s restocking programmes.”

Portal picture: Mulaohu

Tsukiji Fish Market, Tokyo. Picture: cranrob

The Japanese are the world champions when it comes to eating seafood.

They eat more fish per head than any other nation – putting away on average 65 kilos every year – three times the amount eaten by Americans and Chinese, and 13 times more than they eat in India.

But the Japanese know nothing about over-fishing in the world’s oceans and don’t even understand the concept of sustainability.

The shock findings were made by academic researchers who wanted to find out about Japanese attitudes to sustainable seafood.

Researchers from the University of Rhode Island in the US and Stavanger University in Norway from a focus group they set up that Japanese shoppers were ignorant of all the issues surrounding over-fishing.

Despite the size of the Japanese seafood industry – they are the world’s largest importer and second largest seafood consuming nation after China – very little is known about their views on sustainability.

But the study revealed that most shoppers know nothing about the eco label system that identifies produce as being from sustainable and well-managed fisheries. Some had never even heard about over-fishing before.

They were sceptical about how humans could ‘manage’ fish stocks and one woman shopper told researchers: “There can’t be a shortage of fish – just look at how much there is in the supermarkets”.

A survey was then carried out among a representative group of 3,700 people – mostly women – because traditionally in Japan, it is the women who shop for food.

More than half bought fish several times per week, usually salmon, mackerel or tuna.

Almost two-thirds said freshness was the most important aspect of buying fish, followed by food safety. Less than seven per cent even mentioned environmental concerns.

Mostly shoppers wanted wild, fresh and Japanese-caught fish and more than one-third listed consideration for the environment as unimportant.

In a controlled experiment, shoppers did show a change in attitudes once they had been iven information about the status of fish stocks and an explanation of eco labelling.

Armed with the information and given money to spend in a mock auction of seafood, they were prepared to pay an average of almost 10 per cent more for produce which carried an eco label.

The study also found that Japanese people are more likely to accept information about seafood if it came from their own government rather than outside agencies such as the UN and NGOs.

It concluded that eco labels alone will not work in Japan and will have to be supported by a government information programme to succeed.

Associate Professor Yuko Onozak of Stavanger University told the Seafood Summit in Paris: “ The Japanese are not aware of any problems with the sea. They don’t see it. They don’t hear it. They don’t think it is their problem.

The first step is to get them to acknowledge that there is a problem in the first place. We have to better educate the Japanese before the problem can be solved.”

Portal picture: Mdid

Britain’s biggest seafood supplier has dropped European eel and North Atlantic halibut from its product list.

 Both species are on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List as critically endangered – only one step away from extinction in the wild.

 The move by M&J Seafood was widely welcomed by conservation groups who have been campaigning to get both fish off restaurant menus.

 The European eel (Anguilla Anguilla) in particular has suffered a catastrophic decline with numbers of vitally important young eels – known as elvers – down by as much as 99 per cent.

 Last month the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) published research which showed that numbers in the River Thames in London have crashed by 97 per cent in the past five years.

The halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) the largest flatfish in the world, has also suffered a dramatic fall in numbers mainly because of over-fishing. Although there is no specific halibut fishery it is caught mainly as a by catch by bottom trawlers and has long been a favourite on seafood menus.

M&J, part of the Brake Group, is the market leader with a £2 billion per year turnover, supplies hotels, restaurants and contract caterers in the UK. Its 2,000-strong fleet of lorries move more than 1,000 different cuts of fish and shellfish.

 It said its decision to remove the eel from its frozen and fresh portfolio was in line with its commitment to support sustainable sourcing and to champion under-utilised species. It was offering species such as smoked mackerel, salmon and trout as an alternative.

Halibut from ‘target capture fisheries’ – where it is caught accidentally as by catch – would now be banned. The company will use farmed halibut from Scotland and Norway or wild fish taken seasonally from Pacific, Canadian and Alaskan certified fisheries.

Mike Berthet, group director, fish and seafood at M&J, said the decision had been taken after careful assessment of both fish species.

“ We already get 80 per cent of our halibut from the Pacific and from farms so this decision fits well with our policies. I would rather see fish taken as by catch sold rather than tossed overboard but we couldn’t be sure that every effort was being made to prevent halibut being taken as by catch,” he said.

“As for the eel, there has been a dramatic fall in numbers, there is no sign of it returning in volume and there is irrefutable evidence that all farms need eels from the wild. Eels take 20 years to come to maturity so after doing our homework we have decided to delist it.

“There is no doubt the decision will cost the company money but we felt it was the right thing to do. We hope our customers will support our decision and that our competitors will follow our lead.”

Welcoming the decision Greenpeace Oceans Campaigner Willie Mackenzie said:

“By stopping trading in European eel and Atlantic halibut M&J are not only doing the right thing, but they are sending a powerful message around the world to other suppliers, retailers and restaurants.

Serving up endangered seafood is simply not acceptable. We wouldn’t do this to rhinos or gorillas, but when it comes to tasty bluefin, eel or halibut, we seem to be a lot more reluctant to take action.

 But, increasingly those like Nobu who profit from endangered species are pariahs and are becoming isolated in the seafood industry.

  Ultimately of course the challenge is not simply to stop trading these species, but to take effective action to protect and rebuild the wild populations of these fish, and that is a much harder challenge.”

Oceana/Eduardo de Ana. Portal picture: Tom Pychner

The Spanish version of The End of the Line, the first major feature documentary film revealing the impact of overfishing on our oceans, was launched by MarViva Foundation, Oceana Europe and renowned singer Miguel Bose in Madrid on Feb 3.

The film examines the imminent extinction of bluefin tuna, brought on by increasing western demand for sushi; the impact on marine life resulting in huge overpopulation of jellyfish; and the profound implications of a future world with no fish.

Bose is the narrator’s voice in the Spanish version of the documentary, directed by Rupert Murray and based on investigative journalist Charles Clover’s book of the same title.

During the presentation, MarViva and Oceana published a statement signed by a group of environmental organisations and international figures urging Spain to support the ban on the international trade of bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) at the next Conference of the Parties of the  Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of <http://www.cites.es/NR/rdonlyres/1BD748B1-E722-4D21-A9EC-2B61A636F7F3/0/Convenci%C2%BEnCITES1973.pdf> Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) that will be held in Doha (Qatar) in March.

Representatives of Greenpeace, Ecologistas en Acción, Pew Foundation and the government of the Balearic Islands, and Roberto Mielgo (the former tuna farmer turned whistleblower who is a protagonist of the film) were present to support the statement.

They highlighted the critical situation that this species is undergoing in the North Atlantic and the need for immediate action to ensure its future. Decades of overfishing, illegal fishing and management dominated by industry interests, have decimated the bluefin tuna spawning stock to levels below 15% of the existing population before industrial fishing.

Negotiations are currently taking place in the heart of the EU for a common stance for the CITES meeting, which will be a determining factor for this species’ future. The European Parliament Environment Committee, in a resolution within the process framework, has already urged Member States to support Monaco’s proposal for a ban on international trade.

The signatories consider that Spain has the responsibility of acting to preserve bluefin tuna, and they urge the Spanish government to immediately adopt and promote the following measures:

Support of the inclusion of bluefin tuna in Appendix I of CITES

Bluefin tuna is disappearing. The decades of management by the Contracting Parties to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), which include the EU, have been called an “international disgrace”

 Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT. 2008.

The parties have shown themselves to be incapable of adopting the necessary measures such as quotas in accordance with scientists’ advice or the closure of the fishery during the spawning period. CITES is currently the sole valid alternative to guarantee the future of this species.

On the other hand, the socio-economic considerations do not make sense in this context. The EU Member States must guarantee the fishing industry’s long-term viability. The Administration’s current position only constitutes a guarantee that bluefin tuna fishing will cease to exist in the near future.  

Spain, which currently holds the EU presidency and has the highest quota percentage among Member States, therefore has the responsibility of supporting this measure.

Creation of marine reserves in bluefin tuna spawning areas

The protection of bluefin spawning areas in the Mediterranean through the creation of marine reserves is a necessary step to protect this species, starting with the area located to the South of the Balearic Islands where there is already sufficient scientific information that upholds the immediate need for protection.

The signatories include:

Organisations:

1.        Palma Acuario

2.        PEW Foundation

3.        Slow Food Spain

4.        Slow Food Illes Balears

5.        Greenpeace España

6.        Avina

7.        Ecologistas en Acción

8.        WWF

9.        Grup Balear de Ornitología (GOB) Mallorca

10.        Grup Balear de Ornitología (GOB) Menorca

11.        Grup Balear de Ornitología (GOB) Eivissa

12.        Instituto Internacional de Derecho y Medio Ambiente (IIDMA)

13.        Amics de la Terra Balears

14.        Amigos de la Tierra Spain

15.        Centro de Estudios Rurales y de Agricultura Internacional (CERAI)

            International Public figures:

1.        Kofi Annan, former secretary general, United Nations

2.        Javier Solana, former High Representative of the European Union for the Common Foreign and Security Policy

3.        Michael Douglas, actor

4.        José María Figueres, former President of Costa Rica

5.        Sybilla, designer

6.        Ted Danson, actor

7.        Elle MacPherson, model

8.        Basilio Baltasar, Director, Fundación Santillana

9.        Dr. Enric Sala, investigative scientist of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) y Ocean Fellow, National Geographic Society

10.        Diego Hidalgo, President, Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el       Diálogo Exterior (FRIDE)

11.       Jordi Bigas, journalist

12.        Diego Azqueta, Honorary President, WATU Acción Indígena

13.        Sean Cleary, CEO, Strategic Concepts

14.        Colin and Livia Firth, actors

15.        Jordi Bigas, environmental journalist

16.        Víctor Viñuales, Director, Ecología y Desarrollo

17.        Pedro Barbadillo, director

18.        Rupert Murray, director, The End of the Line

19.        George Duffield, producer, The End of the Line

20.        Charles Clover, investigative journalist, author of The End of the Line

21.        Valeria Golino, actress

22.        Baron Eric De Rothschild, banker

23.        Greta Scacchi, actress

24.        Stephen Fry, actor

25.        Dr. Carles Amengual i Vicens, Education Secretary, Liga Médico Homeopática Internacional

26.        Yannick y Ben Jakober, artists

27.        Irene Peukes, designer

28.        Sandy Hemingway, President, Amigos de la Tierra Spain

29.        Liliane Spendeler, Director, Áreas Ambientales, Amigos de la Tierra Spain

30.        Yolanda Kakabadse, former President, IUCN, and Senior Advisor, Fundación Futuro Latinoamericano

31.        Prof. Jacques Marcovitch, former President, Universidad de Sao Paulo

32.        Jaume Tapies, chef and President, Relais & Chateaux

33.        Musaed Al Saleh, Council member, Earth Council Geneva (ECG)

34.        Jacques Perrin, director and producer

35.        Tom Aikens, chef

36.        Sophie Andrieu, author

37.        Joanna Lumley, actress

38.        Charles Dance, actor

39.        Fiona Shaw, actress

40.        Zac Goldsmith, environmental journalist

41.        Damian Aspinall, entrepreneur

42.        Ben Elliot, entrepreneur

43.        Ben y Kate Goldsmith, entrepreneur and envionromentalists

44.        Laura Bailey, actress

45.        Alan Rickman, actor and director

46.        Prince Urbano Barberini, actor

47.        Richard E Grant, actor

48.        Sophie Dahl, writer and model

49.        Emilia Fox, actress

50.        Amber Valletta, actress and model

Bluefin for sale at Tokyo fish market. Picture: Sanctu

Portal picture: Greenpeace

A worldwide ban on trade in the endangered bluefin tuna has moved a step closer after France pledged its support for the move.

In a significant move the French said they would support the listing of bluefin tuna under appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) but with conditions.

French environment minister Jean-Louis Borloo and fisheries minister Bruno Le Maire said they want an 18-month delay before the measures come into force. In return for its support France is also likely to seek an exclusive fishing zone for line-caught tuna as well as financial aid to retrain fishermen who are likely to be laid off.

This will be seen as a sop to the powerful French fishing lobby which has threatened blockades if the ban is imposed. The fishermen’s leaders are also seeking an urgent meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

The fast-disappearing bluefin is a lucrative export market for the fishermen, fetching premium prices in Japan where it forms a central part of the sushi menu.

France is following Italy, which holds the EU’s third largest quota for bluefin tuna, in support of the proposed trade ban. France and Italy together hold a bluefin tuna quota of more than 4,320 tonnes in 2010, one-third of the total allowable catch of bluefin tuna and more than half the EU quota.

Conservation groups have warned that a prolonged delay to any ban would prove disastrous to bluefin tuna stocks and could lead to the extinction of the species.

Monaco has already proposed a CITES listing for bluefin but this was opposed by Mediterranean fishing countries – Spain, Italy, France, Cyprus, Greece and Malta – last September. The u-turn by France in the face of pressure from environmentalists could be decisive at the next CITES meeting in Qatar in March when the ban could be imposed.

Greenpeace EU oceans policy director Saskia Richartz said: “Europe is finally coming round to putting its weight behind the protection of bluefin tuna. It would now be ridiculous to follow France and stand by for the next two years without taking action while tuna moves closer to extinction.”

UK Fisheries Minister Huw Irranca-Davies said:

“Whilst we were pleased that ICCAT recently took steps to protect Bluefin Tuna fish stocks, we remain unconvinced that this action alone will give the highest protection we feel is needed, not least because of the hidden and significant threat of illegal and unreported trade in Bluefin.

“As such, we maintain our long held position that Bluefin be given the highest protection available by listing it under CITES Appendix 1. We hope that the indication from France that they are willing to support this stance will encourage other EU countries to re-evaluate their position and give this threatened species the protection that is urgently needed.

“We hope that the momentum building around the Monaco proposal – a proposal which the UK has always supported – will pave the way for the EU to support the listing at the meeting of CITES parties in Doha in March. The situation of the Bluefin tuna is clearly exceptional, both in terms of the decline of the species and the failure of international effort to halt and reverse those declines.  The UK will work tirelessly to secure the adoption of the Appendix I listing in Doha.”

Dr Sergi Tudela, WWF’s tuna expert, said: “WWF is pleased that the French leadership among Mediterranean states is calling for the international trade ban for Atlantic bluefin tuna and we urge the French government to drop the call for an 18-month delay in implementing the ban.

“This decision was made despite a comprehensive report made last year on the historical depletion of tuna stocks, which revealed that current stock levels are under 15 percent of what they once were.

The mechanism suggested by France for triggering the ban is not allowed under the text of the CITES convention, besides being neither scientifically nor economically justifiable.”

“Atlantic bluefin tuna is in a state of severe collapse after decades of overfishing and reproducing stocks are dwindling to an all-time low – and the driver of this situation is clearly international trade.

“To give the species a break, an immediate ban ofinternational commercial trade at CITES – without condition or delay -is the only logical step for the global community to take. Anything less is woefully insufficient.”

France’s policy change could be decisive at the next CITES meeting in Qatar in March, after Italy said last week it would back a ban.

Last year a panel of independent experts appointed by the UN recommended at a meeting in Rome that international trade in the critically endangered bluefin should be banned or at least controlled if the species is to survive.

A majority on the advisory panel set up by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) wanted an outright ban on trade in bluefin but consensus could only be reached on a recommendation for tighter restrictions on trade.

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) at a meeting in Brazil last November fixed the catch limit for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean this year at 13,500 tons – ignoring the advice of its own scientists who recommended a catch of just 8,500 tonnes to give stocks even a chance of recovery.

See Greenpeace blog here: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/oceans/por-fin-%E2%80%93-france-support-trade-ban-bluefin-20100204

Sockeye salmon run

Salmon have played a central role in the lives and culture of Pacific Northwest people throughout history. Their abundance in the oceans and rivers made them a major source of protein for hundreds of First Nations villages, and they were also crucial to trade. Today, they are still considered to be one of the tastiest and healthiest foods available.

Sardine harvest.Picture: Alaska Teacher

Scientists have developed an alternative to fishmeal used across the world to feed farmed fish.

By using micro-nutrients as a supplement they have been able to cut the amount of fishmeal in the food to 15 per cent without affecting the quality or taste of the fish.

Aquaculture – breeding fish for human consumption – has grown from just 1m tonnes in the 1950s to more than 50m tonnes in 2006. In the 10 years between 1996 and 2006 the industry grew by more than 10 per cent each year.

Supporters claim it has the potential to be a sustainable source of seafood for billions of people but critics say it is unsustainable because they are fed on wild fish often from over-fished areas.

Conservationists also say fish farms and fish farming damages the marine environment through pollution and fish escapes.

The fish, usually anchovy, mackerel or blue whiting, are ground into a protein-rich mix of fishmeal, fish oil and soya.

Diminishing stocks of the small fish and rising prices has forced the industry to look at more sustainable alternatives.

Dr Alex Obach from the Skretting Aquaculture Research Centre at Stavanger in Norway told the Seafood Summit in Paris that it was now possible to obtain protein from both organic sources and from land animals.

Research had shown that feeding salmon with a mix that contained as little as 15 per cent fishmeal supplemented by micro-nutrients such as amino and fatty acids, minerals and proteins was just as effective as food pellets with a much  higher fishmeal content.

Dr. Obach told the conference: “ We were eventually able to match the performance of fishmeal with mico-nutrients. There was no effect on fish health, the fish fillets looked the same and there was no difference in texture.”

Dr Andrew Jackson, Technical Director of the International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organisation (IFFO) said that more fishmeal, produced mainly in Peru, Chile and Denmark, was now used for human consumption.

In 1960 98 per cent of fishmeal went to animal and fish feed but the figure was now down to 40 per cent. Much more fishery by-products – guts, head and backbone – were now being recycled as raw material for fishmeal.

The bulk of the fishmeal in the aquaculture industry is used to feed salmon, trout, crustaceans and marine fish.

China dominates aquaculture producing as much as two-thirds of the world’s farmed fish. In 2005 China used 200,000 tonnes of fishmeal but by 1999 this had reached 750,000 tonnes.

“They couldn’t keep this up and by 2009 the figure had fallen to 120,000 tonnes because they were using fisheries that were not sustainable,” said Dr Jackson.

“Almost all feed fishing is within national waters but over-fishing damages the country and China now has to import fishmeal.”

Dr Jackson added: “Fishmeal cannot meet demand and eventually stocks would become depleted. There is also the argument that it is ethically wrong to feed fish to fish in a hungry world..

“Wherever possible fishmeal now goes for human consumption. People have developed a taste for mackerel and herring and in Peru five per cent of the fish is now eaten by people with the figure still rising.”

Dr Jackson told the conference that IFFO was establishing a code and certification system for fishmeal producers which would ensure that fishmeal would be produced responsibly from well-managed and sustainable stocks.

He predicted there would eventually be MSC-approved fishmeal.

Dr Pauly said official UN figures showed farmed fish account for nearly half of all fish consumed by humans were “wildly distorted” and inflated by over-reporting by China, the world’s largest producer of farmed fish.

Speakaing at the Seafood Summit in Paris, he said: “It is a fiction, based on statistics that the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation doesn’t believe itself. “

It was Dr Pauly who proved in 2001 that wild fish catches were in decline by exposing the fact that Chinese reporting of wild fish catches bore little relationship to reality.

He found that Communist officials had an inbuilt incentive to exaggerate catches in order to get promoted.

The figures had been exaggerated so much that they had hidden the fact that world catches of fish had been in decline since 1989.

This time Dr Pauly turned his guns on the official figures for aquaculture and said that these are just as likely to be wrong because “the incentive to over-report is still there.”

The UN FAO’s State of Fisheries and Aquaculture report, published last year, carries a throwaway line that “capture fisheries and aquaculture production statistics for China may be too high.”

Dr Pauly said that the growth of fish farming in other parts of the world were in single figures whereas the Chinese claimed growth rates of 20 per cent were not credible, given that the growth of China’s energy supply was only 5 per cent per year.

The growth put the claims of rapid growth by the aquaculture industry into context, said Dr Pauly.

“Seafood and aquaculture are not going to feed the world,” he said.  That would be done by increasing production of grains, such as rice.

Most demand for seafood was satisfied by taking fish from the poor world under unfair agreements and selling it in the rich world, thereby making the poor world poorer and less well-nourished.

Dr Pauly, also said official aquaculture figures contained a massive amount of double counting.   Roughly a third of all fish caught are small fish that are ground up to make fish pellets for fish farms.

“If you feed the world with salmon, you cannot feed the world with the anchovies you feed to the salmon,” he said.

He said that the amount of fish fed to feed other fish, pigs and chickens, was “a tremendous waste of good food.”

When he worked in Peru in the 1980s he was told that you could not eat the Peruvian anchovies caught by the millions of tons off the coast for use in fishmeal.  He found that anchovies were not prized because they were fed to prisoners.  There is now a local campaign to eat the anchovies, not farmed salmon.