Greenpeace Bluefin Tuna Campaign: FAIL.
admin | June 9, 2010
There’s action going on in the Mediterranean Sea.
Various conservation organizations are fighting to protect bluefin tuna from overfishing.
As every cause worth fighting for, confrontations will inevitably happen.
Here the chronicles of the current Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd’s tuna protection operations, and my personal opinion regarding their methods.
Crash course on Bluefin Tuna
Since the industrial fishing era began, bluefin tuna’s stocks have fallen by a dramatic 85%.
The development of hi-tech commercial fishing techniques, mixed with the economically competitive nature of the world we live in, have brought this species to the verge of depletion.
A recent proposal at CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) to list bluefin tuna as an endangered species and to ban its international trade has been beaten by Japan, Canada and other poor nations, motivated by economic interest regarding the impact that such a change would have on their fisheries.
One of the main points that motivated the ban was the lack of measures strict enough to ensure the species survival.
At the moment of writing, different organizations are taking action in the Mediterranean Sea to protect bluefin tuna from overfishing.
Operation Blue Rage
One of these organizations is Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, conducting the “Operation Blue Rage” campaign.
‘The bluefin tuna fishery in the Mediterranean opened at one minute after midnight today and will close on June 14th or earlier if the allowed quota is reached prior to that date. The legal quota is 13,500 tons, of which 7,113 tons has been allocated to European Union fishermen. Spain has been allocated 2,526.06 tons, France has been allocated 2,021.93 tons, and Italy has been allocated 1,937.50 tons.
We suspect that four times this tonnage will be taken with the illegal three quarters falling into the hands of poachers.’
‘Sea Shepherd to Focus On Responsible Intervention Against Bluefin Tuna Poachers’
As the title of that statement reads, Sea Shepherd intends to focus on responsible intervention against poachers.
The operation will target vessels that are fishing illegally, fishermen over their legal quota and poachers, with the good ‘ol aggressive and non-violent approach typical of this organization.
As they often did in the past, I expect Sea Shepherd to be able to responsibly track and confront the poachers, obstructing their illegal exploitation of sealife, while at the same time acting intelligently on the borders of legality, maintaining their high moral ground.
Greenpeace’s approach
Also Greenpeace is down in the Mediterranean.
On the 4th of June, GP’s activists had their first confrontation with some French purse seiners catching bluefin.
According to Greenpeace itself:
‘With seven small inflatables our activists set off, armed with nothing more dangerous than some Hessian bags full of sand.
The plan? Quite simply to weigh down the side of the net to let the tuna out again. And it was working really well, lowering the net, but then things turned nasty.’
The confrontation ended with an arguably justified fishermen’s reaction.
‘The fishermen reacted with a shocking level of violence and complete disregard for anyone’s safety.
They attacked our inflatable boats. As well as the barrage of verbal abuse, and throwing onions (?), they rammed the small boats with their fishing vessels, and drove repeatedly over them several times, forcing our activists into the water.
Then the fishermen in their skiffs and inflatables set about attacking our boats with knives, boat hooks, and grappling irons – oh yes and by firing distress flares straight at our activists and our helicopter.
It seems that the death threats they were shouting at us were something they thought very little of. ‘
Why arguably justified? Because these were legal fishing vessels, entitled to a documentable fishing quota and monitored by the relevant authority.
‘All of this happened, in what is supposed to be a well-policed, and well-operated fishery, conducted by a member of the EU. In the middle of the melee I was talking on radio to a patrolling French warship, there to monitor the fishery. They called us to read out a pre-prepared script about how ICCAT had everything under control, and they were monitoring the fishery closely. When I explained we were taking action precisely because ICCAT had not done enough their response was to ask us not to interfere with the fishing operations because they were legal. To that I simply replied that it didn’t matter if the fishery was legal, if it was pushing the species towards extinction and that we would continue to take action to stop the purse seining. Their response was “roger that, over and out”!’
If this is the approach that Greenpeace intends to take during their bluefin campaign, I openly condemn their conduct.
Not because I ignore the fact that this species is highly threatened by hi-tech commercial fishing, or because I think that they should ‘keep quiet and walk on’ while the economical interests of a certain group of people is depleting our seas from their sealife.
I think that what Greenpeace did here is a highly irresponsible action.
Sea Shepherd acts as an enforcer of existing regulations.
In the Blue Rage operation it will confront poachers and over quota fishermen. It does not simply go to war against any entity with a different point of view from it’s own.
Greenpeace here instead is acting on their own agenda. Even if the intention of protecting bluefin tuna is great, I believe that the organization has no right whatsoever to obstruct the living making activity of regular fishermen.
This has more to do with democracy than with activism.
If you want to live in a democratic society, you have to accept that a society has common rules.
If Greenpeace thinks that the tuna quotas allocated by governments are unrealistic (as they probably are), governments and quotas are the targets that Greenpeace should focus on.
The fact that Greenpeace is ignoring the legality of these particular fishermen and that it is acting on its own agenda instead brings me to condemn this act.
If i woke up tomorrow deciding that your lifestyle is incompatible with mine, I would have no right to shut you down, justifying my actions only with my personal views, no matter how noble and right they are.
This is exactly what GP is doing.
I think that actions like these are what build and reinforce the stereotype of ecoterrorism that many organizations are often erroneously (or lucratively) labelled with.
So, what do you think? Is this the way that Greenpeace should be making a difference?
..ah, yeah. One of their activists got injured during that confrontation, getting a grappling hook in his leg and needed evacuation to a hospital.
Be ready to assist to a massive Greenpeace flavored victimization media show.
..ah, last thing.. They did it again on the 7th of June. Again confronting legal fishermen.
