Hoki not so sustainable
A good piece in today’s Sunday Star Times by Kim Knight about the difficulties being faced by the Hoki fishery in renewing its Marine Stewardship Council accreditation as a sustainable fishery. The Hoki fishery received its accreditation in 2001 against the opposition of Forest and Bird because of overfishing and killing of albatrosses and furseals. The Greens have also raised these issues.
F&B concerns were vindicated soon after when the quota was slashed from 250,000 tonnes in 2001 to 100,000 tonnes in 2004 becuase the stock collapsed from overfishing - proof that it was not sustainable when it was accredited.
Perhaps ones of the most interesting dimensions of the article is the apparent shallowness of the environmental concern shown by the fishing industry spokespeople. This from George Clement, chief executive of the Deepwater Stakeholder Group:
“The university-educated liberal-minded city-dwelling middle class person certainly has that [environmental] focus, (but) they are not the majority of the people purchasing seafood in Europe.
“There’s a big market and demand for fish in the world, and part of that demand has an interest in the environmental footprint that was made in gaining that fish, but that’s not necessarily all of the market, or a significant portion.”
Now I’m not denying that what he says has some truth in it. But the comments like this in the article suggest a pretty shallow interest in the environmental dimensions. They are interested in the marketting opportunities that come out of a sustainability tick but less interested in sustainability itself. Their attitude seems to be that if they can sell just as many fish trashing the environment as looking after it, then that’s fine.
This has implications for the strategy pursued by the Greens and the environmental groups of using the leverage of environmentally aware consumers to put pressure on the corporations to behave in a more environmentally friendly manner. Some corporations have responded by trying to get market advantage by being more environmentally friendly, which has been great (so long as it’s real and not greenwash). But, in this instance, when push comes to shove, the environmental interest seems rather secondary indeed to the bottom line.
Which is hardly news, but to my mind demonstrates why we need to factor in the true price of unsustainability at the point of production, via eco-taxes for example, and not just rely on green consumers to do all the work at the point of consumption.
March 25th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Factoring the “true” price of…..membership mayby?
Fact is the “true” price of all such commodities that need sustainablility will only eva exclude those PEOPLE who are in all likelyhood, the most sustainable in their general lack of gluttony at the banquet; as well as perhaps being the types of people who contribute more to the real wealth of any society, often at their expense and for the benefit of those who choose the more profitable, and associated priviledged, routes.
And the “true” solution is such that:
“When Woodrow Wilson spoke of democracy releasing the energies of every human being, he was declaring that we cannot leave our destiny to politicians, elites, and experts; either we take democracy into our own hands, or others will take democracy from us”.(Bill Moyers: A Time for Action, a Call to Action-essay)
So with that in mind, the real equation is something like:
Public Money + Common Wealth = “Democrats for Social Credit”
March 26th, 2007 at 12:31 am
my mistake, was in a hurry to work, now back; title of essay i mentioned was actually a speech titled “Ä Time for Anger, A Call to Action” by Bill Moyers.
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0322-24.htm
Democrats for Social Credit.
March 26th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Roll on producer responsibility mandated by law in the Waste Minimisation Bill.
If they can be made to package responsibly, then perhaps manufacturers can be made to think about the sustainability of the extraction processes involved in their particular resource development industry.
Perhapsdrawing the analogy a little long for some folk…
March 26th, 2007 at 6:52 am
“Which is hardly news, but to my mind demonstrates why we need to factor in the true price of unsustainability at the point of production, via eco-taxes for example, ”
Is taxation the only answer the Greens ever consider?. Taxes dont work, they get added into the price of the product or service. Consumers then go for pay rises to cover the extra costs or simply go without other neccesities.
Notice that with cigarettes for example. Taxed to high heaven but still the people who can least afford them continue to suck them up regardless.
Education is the only answer, real education, not 30 second TV adverts.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:37 am
“Education is the only answer, real education” is exactly right but it is a corollary reliant on a commonwealth, it is an major inseperable part of what a functioning and adaptable democracy really is if it’s to have the most prosperous, legitamizing and strengthening outcomes reached for the way it reflects life lived with a harmony in it’s natural environment.
Public Money, Common Wealth and well resourced public print/tv channel sources(as well as a re-furnished Dems for Social Credit websight which i’m told is coming very soon..) focused on inequalities, excesses and deprivations being absolutely required if solutions are to be balanced and engender the shared dignity of co-existence which is every societies right.
Anotherwords, education which reinforces our highest common denominators, not our lowest as is the present case with your oligarchical justifying, omnipresent hypocrasy and narcism makes the world go round sell-out stuff. And obviously for any “Dem for Social Creditor”, if your democracy’s education is going to serve it, your society can not be bankrupt and be dictated by DEBT.
Democrats for Social Credit.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Even, I would like to suggest, eversogently, that it’s exceedingly bad taste to come and paste slogans for a rival political party on the Greens blog. Take it elsewhere eh mate? Or stick around, but leave it out.
March 26th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Alistair, my palate may not be as refined as yours but indeed the inherent nature of Democracy doesn’t require it to be; if you want to split hairs between POV’s and slogans, who’s to say that one is the coolest hairstyle on the block or that it isn’t when you do so?
You seem to be saying that it is the right of the whoever owns the block to say so and no one elses, hence your need to define the ownership terms and the rivalry inherent in that.
The Democrats for Social Credit blog will not have my support in the area of owning it’s users, it will be there to help people take ownership and create their own shared Democratic society, NOT for IT to take ownership of people’s commitment to a shared Democratic wealth.
Mayby some less sophisticated Greens and others feel the same way about their participation at this blog too.
March 26th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Even
The bad taste remains. Excuses do not alter it nor does ideology justify it.
We probably won’t try to STOP you, but your point of view will be discounted, and credibility on issues you wish to pursue here will be lost.
No promises, no threats… just saying, expect it.
BJ
March 26th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
C’mon Gerritt - prices (including tax) have always and will always affect consumption. Cigarettes are addictive, and people will suffer a lot of indignity to maintain their habit, but Hoki are merely fish. Consumers are looking for a source of protein and the relative cost of Hoki vs Tofu becomes a relevant issue. Which isn’t to say that it’d work perfectly, but it isn’t the same deal as cigarettes.
Education helps, but this is a problem in the true cost of a sustainable fishery or a sustainable industry in general, and as such it points to issues with the actual sustainable carrying capacity of the country and the planet. Exceeded IMHO, by more than 50% already. As such I am not optimistic about either the price OR the supply of Hoki. We may do better as a nation than most, but we have to do more than simply be better than most, we have to be good enough at this to actually sustain it in perpetuity. This is unfortunately, a higher standard than most would admit.
respectfully
BJ
March 26th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Fair point BJ, cigarettes is not the best example.
Market forces at work? Would like to see sustainable fish farming at a much larger scale. say five or six mile offshore with deep set nets. That would be ecologically exceptable one hopes. Especially as it leaves the deep sea fish stocks alone for occasion sustainable harvesting.
New Zealand will need to improve its naval and airforce fishing protection abilities as I foresee plundering of the oceans such as we see with the Patogonian Toothfish (?) stocks at the moment.
Still believe the oceans are going to be where the food will be grown in the future. Just that we need to get it further offshore and out of our harbours.
March 26th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
As the price for sustainable protein sources goes up and the availability of unsustainable sources diminishes, the market will make such offshore aquaculture feasible… maybe. The problematical nature of any effort like this in the open ocean is pretty obvious to anyone who’s spent a chunk of his life on that ocean. Money and energy would be required to make it work.
I still remember reading “diet for a small planet” back when it came out.
This Green at least, has pointed out the necessity of naval preparedness and its importance to an island nation.
respectfully
BJ
March 26th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
I’m no greenie but I was disgusted by the attitude of Peter Talley, in today’s Press:
Fisheries boss backs killing whales, seals
March 26th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
# Gerrit Says:
>Still believe the oceans are going to be where the food will be grown in the future. Just that we need to get it further offshore and out of our harbours.
also, we need to concentrate on bottom-feeder fish. Currently most fin-fish farming in New Zealand is farming carniverous fish, which means you have to catch other fish for your farmed fish to eat. And the quantity of fish you have to catch to feed them is much greater than the quantity of fish you get from the farming.
Farming on land would never have worked if our ancestors had insisted on farming lions, and caught sheep in the wild to feed the farmed lions.
There’s currently a lot of work being done in China on farming dogfish, which are bottom feeders.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
No longer will I purchase anything from the Talley’s range, as far as I am concerned Peter Talley is scum.
Can anybody tell me if Talley’s have other brand names, I would not want to buy one single product from that germ.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Nice to see the Greens put something other than Climate change on the agenda… yes its a concern, but there are other environmental concerns, and other reasons people vote for the Green Party too. Some more of these posts might help balance things up… just a thought?
Anyway…
read “End of the Line - how overfishing is changing the world” for an up to date, easily digestable review of fishing around the world. You’ll think twice before hoeing into your fish&chips next time!
“The End of the Line” is a well-written, highly informative book which addresses a serious global issue.
“Imagine what people would say if a band of hunters strung a mile of net between two immense all-terrain vehicles and dragged it at speed across the plains of Africa…. left behind is a strangely bedraggled landscape resembling a harrowed field… this efficient but highly unselective way of killing animals is known as trawling… it is practiced the world over every day, from the Barents Sea in the Arctic to the shores of Antarctica and from the tropical waters of the Indian Ocean and the central Pacific to the temperate waters off Cape Cod.”
Overfishing is a serious problem that must be addressed. The statistics are staggering. As journalist Charles Clover shows in his global exploration of the destruction caused by overfishing, we have inflicted a crisis on the oceans in a single human lifetime greater than any yet caused by pollution.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
I think it is perfectly fine for people to post slogans from other parties on the Greens blog, we are mature enough to handle it, I imagine other parties would delete them, but we argue on the merits of policies.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:24 am
I read the above posts last night and decided to sleep on it because this is an issue that makes me so angry that I start spitting blood! What Naturevision refers to is drag-net fishing, the most deplorable of fishing practices. These bastards do their dirty work mainly in international waters,and yes it`s illegal internationaly, but who is going to enforce these laws?As Garrit rightly questions as to where our navy is, as I question where the UN is. For the past 20 years the power of the UN has been undermined by the US.(since the 1`st Iraque war) Our navy is wasting it`s time in the middle east even if it`s only a tentative involvment. I say to Bush stuff your bloody war !! We have more real enemies who are actually starving our grand children.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:51 am
Today, about half the fish meal harvested from the oceans is used in aquaculture. The rest goes to feed land animals, mostly swine and poultry. In this regard, the first step in taking pressure off wild fisheries is to direct the full amount of sustainable fish meal to aquaculture, where it has fewer substitutes. The good news in the long term is that science is making progress in dramatically reducing or eliminating the amount of fish meal required in the diets of previously carnivorous marine fish. Virginia Tech just announced results of successful experiments in feeding cobia a no fish meal diet, for example. It will take years for full commercial applications, but at least it outlines a path, sustainable at each step along the way, to eventual seafood production of the species that humans actually relish eating. Ideally, we’d all be vegetarians, but this approach is the next best solution.
March 28th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Hi, I think I will take Naturevisions advice and get my fangs into ” The End Of The Line “. Ialso agree with David (above) that (1) vegiterian diets are the most sustainable and(2) fish farming would take the stress off shoals of wild fish and as one of above contributers says you have to start from the bottem up and create a whole eco system. Iwould be a pure vegiterian but fish is very benificial to those with cholesterol problems which I have.
Has anyone noticed the rising price of tinned tuna and sardines it`s gone up nearly 50% in the last 2 years and most of it is imported from the other side of the world! Bloody ridiculious!