12 November 2015
In March of this year Pew Charitable Trusts published a report Turning the Tide: Ending Overfishing in North Western Europe. That report contained a number of statements which are demonstrably untrue and contrary to scientific opinion.
The report makes the assertion that:
- Fishing in recent decades, in
pursuit of food and profit, off North West Europe has dramatically
expanded - Calls by scientists and
environmentalists to reduce fishing pressure have been ignored - Many fish stocks collapsed
throughout the region - The reformed CFP should
prove a successful first
step in restoring and maintaining the health of the fisheries and fish
stocks
The unambiguous view of the scientific community has been clearly stated, most
recently at the State of
the Stocks Seminar in Brussels:
“Over the last ten to
fifteen years, we have seen a general decline in fishing mortality in the
Northeast Atlantic and the Baltic Sea. The stocks have reacted positively to
the reduced exploitation and we’re observing growing trends in stock sizes for
most of the commercially important stocks.
For the majority of
stocks, it has been observed that fishing mortality has decreased to a level
consistent with Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) – meaning levels that are not
only sustainable but will also deliver high long term yields.”
(Eskild Kirkegaard, Chair, ICES Advisory Committee)
In fact, the data confirming these general trends has been available in the
ICES advice for several years, for those who wished to look with unbiased eyes.
The motives for Pew to publish misleading and untrue statements, remain obscure
but this is not a matter of misinterpretation of data or different opinion.
These statements are clearly part of an organized coherent campaign to
influence legislators. But they are untruths and Pew must know that they are
untruths.
We all have our different opinions and different constituents to please. But it
is becoming increasingly difficult to accept that Pew acts in good faith when
it publishes deliberately misleading reports like this. Neither should it have
escaped your notice that the scientific community at a recent conference on MSY
in Athens, also expressed concern about the lack of transparency in NGOs’ use
of science.
For the record, we firmly believe that eNGOs have a legitimate and important
role to play in fisheries. It is healthy for the industry and fisheries
managers to be held to account for their actions and practices. There is always
room for improvement and there is a legitimate role for NGOs to suggest where
improvements could be made.
However, even if you are openly contemptuous of the opinion of the fishing
industry, we urge you to examine your own motives, tactics and reputation and
ask yourselves what is achieved by these publishing deliberately misleading
statements. It goes without saying that organisations publishing so far beyond
obvious realities and scientific facts are losing out to more serious and
rational NGOs and are undoubtedly relinquishing all impact and credibility in
influential fora such as the Advisory Councils.
Yours sincerely,
Javier Garat
Pim
Visser
President of Europêche
President of EAPO