A VERY large American philanthropic organisation based in Philadelphia, PEW, has a few projects on at the moment. In Washington DC it’s renovating and refurbishing a building in what it describes as “the heart of the nation’s capital”. According to its website seven floors will be for its staff and three floors for other NGOs (non-government, non-business organisations). That’s a lot of lobbying. Meanwhile in Australia its employed well known activist Imogen Zethoven to manage its “Coral Sea Campaign” which aims to close down fishing along the north eastern coast of Australia.
The previous Australian government [the Howard government] handed out hundreds of millions of dollars to compensate commercial fishing interests following the last campaign Ms Zethoven ran. That was when she worked for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
The fishing industry of north Queensland has been gutted over the last decade, but still environment groups come back for more – this time with money from Philadelphia in the US.
Last week they announced success:
“Conservation Groups Welcome Government’s ‘First Big Step’ to Protect the Coral Sea: Sydney, Australia – 05/19/2009 – Conservation groups today welcomed the announcement by Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett to establish a Conservation Zone over the entire Coral Sea within Australian waters and called on the Minister to ensure sufficient resources for his Department to carry out a full and prompt assessment of the area.”
In fact, according to Jim Turnour, the federal member for Leichhardt, all that the Minister announced was the need for tourism operators to get permits, no businesses have been closed down and no new bans on fishing have been enforced or planned as demanded by PEW. At his blog yesterday he wrote:
“The Coral Sea Conservation Zone was announced by Minister Garrett and the debate about World Heritage listing of Cape York came back into focus following a meeting of Environment Ministers in Tasmania…
“Prior to the Coral Sea Conservation Zone being established the PEW Environmental Foundation had released a report and been campaigning for a no take zone in the region. There was rightly a lot of anger from local fishers who would have been completely excluded from the region. The PEW proposal and angry fishers had received much media attention in the lead up to the Minister declaring the Conservation Zone, so when it was announced I know that many fishers assumed that PEW had won in their campaign to have the Coral Sea become a no-take zone.
“What was announced however has not impacted on recreational or commercial fishers in the Coral Sea. PEW have not got their no- take zone and I will continue to fight any such proposal. Existing tourism operators and other commercial users of the area will have to obtain free permits to continue operating, but nobody’s business is being closed down by a no-take zone as proposed by PEW.
A month ago Mr Turnour wrote:
“Wherever I go at the moment whether it is getting out and about in the community, listening to the radio or reading the newspaper, an issue that has people talking is a proposal by the PEW Environmental Group to establish a Marine Park covering the entire Coral Sea.
“They want to establish a no-take zone, effectively banning fishing in an area bounded by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and our maritime border with PNG, Solomon Islands and New Caledonia. This is an area of more than one million square kilometres of sea.
“In the past few weeks I have had the recreational fishing industry, commercial fishing industry, marine tourism operators, Super Yacht Group and CAFNEC all meet with me and discuss the issue. And last night I attended a meeting of more than 600 fishers opposed to the plan.
“I’ve told them all the same thing. I don’t support the PEW proposal and that I have made my views clear to the Minister for the Environment Peter Garrett.
“Given the level of community concern and the amount of misinformation this campaign has created, I will be raising the matter with the Prime Minister when I return to Parliament for budget sittings.
“At the meeting last night, it was pointed out that the PEW document proposing the marine park had a letter from the Prime Minister within it. The letter doesn’t endorse the proposal and is in fact a letter to commemorate the 66th anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea. PEW argues that the heritage significance of the Coral Sea battle is one reason to create the park and have included the letter from the PM to highlight its significance. PEW clearly, through quoting the PM and other Ministers in relation to the Coral Sea battle, are seeking to imply broader support for their proposal than they have.
“I need to make it clear the PEW proposal is not endorsed by the Rudd Government…
“I don’t believe that the evidence put forward by PEW makes sense. The arguments from the conservation groups in support of their proposal are quite confusing. On the one hand they say that the region is in pristine condition because there is not a lot of fishing activity, yet on the other hand they argue that the region is under threat. The Battle of the Coral Sea is a significant war time event worth commemorating but you don’t need to create a marine park of 1 million square kilometres.”
*********************
Notes and Links
http://www.jimturnour.com.au/jims-blog/159-opposition-to-pews-coral-sea-plans-strengthens.html
http://www.jimturnour.com.au/jims-blog/177-environmental-debate.html
http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=52166
The picture, taken from a public meeting in Cairns opposing the PEW proposal, is republished from the Fishing World website, http://www.fishingworldmag.com.au/news/garrett-govt-committed-to-mbpp-no-favours-for-pew
Jim Turnour, the member for Leichhardt in the Australian parliament, is Jennifer Marohasy’s younger brother.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
First, some comments on these American foundations as I understand them. Unlike Australia, the US has death taxes, (what we used to call estate duties). To avoid these taxes, wealthy people have been putting much of their money into trusts, for charitable purposes. Eg Teresa Heinz Kerry (baked beans), the Pew family (oil ) Rockefeller (oil) Buffet (share market), Gates (IT), etc etc.
In Australia the kids can inherit the money without paying pobate, or death duties. I would suggest that the US should seriously consider abolishing its death taxes. Would prevent future fortunes becoming trusts becoming tempting targets for activist to use for political influence, rather than charitable purposes.
I think it is a good idea that the kids get the money. If the kids are not as astute as their parents, the cash will end up in the pockets of others, stimulating businesses and jobs as it circulates. If deposited in banks it will still stimulate business as loans.
There is something decidedly agressive about US trusts using their fortunes to undermine the sovereign rights of other nations both by territorial attack, and occupational attack on minorities. And something decidedly cowardly with Governements which let them, without protecting their own territories and people.
Some of our US contributors should be able to fill us on about these foundations.
The PEW foundation is also a quite a major partner in the whaling discussions, THE PEW WHALES COMMISSION, under leadership by former Greenpeace International’s political advisor Remi Parmentier.
Remi is quite a reasonable man with contacts as well with the Japanese and quite moderate.
Helen, I reckon the founder of Sun Oil, Mr Pew, would be turning in his grave as the fortune he created from exploiting oil from wilderness and the marine environment is being used to oppose fishing, farming and even forestry. The Pew Environmental Trust even opposes the Sun Oil ( the Pew family company) vision of the use of oil (http://www.pewglobalwarming.org/resources/dirty_fuels.html) – American tar and shale oil. In Australia they fund a full range of wilderness programs see http://wildaustralia.org/ Perhaps the only good thing is that they seem to have left Tassie of the map, despite the alliance with the Wilderness Society that was started in green Senator Brown’s lounge room.
LOL! The PEW foundation and WWF recently condemned the Australian Gov’t for its hardcore position on whaling, such as they sabotaged the discussions ” that whales eat too much fish”.
Otherwise they would have reached a deal , that would eventually lead to that fewer whales were killed in the future.
Helen,
US policy makers specifically use the death tax dodge of charitable trusts to provide themselves with jobs post-government.
They specifically want successful capitalists to leave behind large sacks of cash for lefty extremists to highjack and pilfer.
Sen. Heinz, a Republican, left a large foundation. His widow, and her gigolo, Sen Kerry, use Sen. Heinz’ legacy to help fund AGW promoters like Hansen.
The examples get worse.
hunter,
So Mrs Heinz is a liberal and the decedent Senator was a Republican? I always find it intersting when Republicans marry Liberals – or as in Australia, Liberals/conservatives marrying lefties or socialists.
I wonder if brains were engaged during the courting period.
Hunter, are you trying to tell me that the Kerry idiots financing of hansen isn’t the worst example that we could find?
I mean surely AGW has to be the greatest fraud over the last 100 years and could concievably wreck the chances of first world countries climbing out of this recession for many a long year.
Afterall the krudd govt has already saddled us with 315 billion dollars of long term debt in the last 12 months after starting with a 20+ billion surpus.
If they can do this and have a current budget debt of 58 billion what will they accomplish following this idiot mania to introduce an ETS.
Thanks for filling in, Ann too. Comments are revealing. The big problem I have with so called ‘no take zones’ is that Australia is proliferating marine parks all around its coastline, yet, according to govt reports, our fisheries are amongst the most best run and sustainable in the world. With a small population, and a huge coastline, we are catching less fish than we eat. Due to ‘no take’ and regulatory burden. Wem are actually exporting our fishing footprint, and importing from vastly more over fished and less regulated fisheries. That is NOT SUSTAINABLE. Doing the same with our timber industries too.
As Ms Imogen Zethoven has already successfully campaigned to closed down a fishery – and to pass compensation costs, hundreds of millions, onto the Australian people (taxpayers), I suggest we reverse the rules. The PEW foundation foots the compensation bill for livelihoods lost – or rack off. Put their money where their mouth is, instead of our money where their mouth is.
Or don’t these wealthy, powerful foundations have enough money to pay for their demands? Shopping lists too big?
Helen, Jennifer and the fishos are upset that the rich yanks come to Australia to promote marine protection areas…
Well, in 2006 , Australian Campbell came to Scandinavia to preach to Scandinavians not to whale. Greenpeace , WWF etc admit that Norwegian whaling is totally sustainable ( what ever you think about whaling) , the minkes are downlisted , the last week the whalers reported that the minke whale population was on the rise etc etc.
According to WWF, ” in a world where the biodiversity decreases , the increase of minke whale population is a light in the dark tunnel”.
So basically why don’t people mind their own business?
I have read a scientific report re marine reserves and MPAs , they seem to make a benefit for the fisheries as well in the near future , as fish populations will increase and bigger fish will migrate out from the protected areas.
Activists shoud focus on their own countries, there are lots of environmental and animal problems in their own countries.
Now I see that many NGOs in Scandinavia deal with sheep in Australia , Australians deal with whales in the Nordic countries etc.
Ann,
Scandinavians have just as much right as anyone else to tell interfering, offensive, illinformed, harranguing moralisers of whatever ilk, to stick their head(s) in a bucket.
Same with well funded activists – local or foreighn – targeting democratic, hospitable, law abiding societies like Australia, as easy marks. Most of us in Australian farming, fishing or timber have learned the hard way that it is a waste of time trying to placate the implaccable. We are never at the table with these people, we are on the menu. As are the North Qld fishermen now.
T
As far as whaling goes, I really have no strong views either way. They are no longer beng hunted for their oil, (thank John D Rockerfeller) which has guaranteed the survival of most species, which is fine by me. So I figure the ‘save the whales’ fuss has more emotion, spin and antics than facts.
As, apparently, has this latest Coral Sea ‘no take’ campaign, funded by the PEW foundation.
Until last year the GBR was the world’s largest marine protected area.Then Kiribati expanded their Phoenix Islands Marine Protected Area and it became the world’s largest at 410,500 km². It constitutes about 12% of their EEZ area , however, some 99% of it is open ocean with abyssal depths. The reef and lagoon area for all of Kiribati is only 7523 Km², or about 2% of the GBR park area (344,400 km²).
Currently MPA’s constitute about 10% of Australia’s EEZ area; but, the Coral Sea and other planned and proposed MPAs would put us well ahead of any other nation in percentage of protected area. In absolute area we still lead the world with what we already have.
It is interesting to note that Kiribati also has the the world’s highest harvest rate for reef fisheries at about 63,000 Kg/Km² while we have the lowest at 9 Kg/Km² on the GBR. Their’s is about 7000 times higher than our rate. Maybe some of their reefs could use some protection.
We have a much higher percentage of protected marine area than any other continental nation. We also have the world’s lowest fishery harvest rate at only 1/30 the global average. In other words, we have the most protection where it is needed the least and we put 2/3 of our seafood demand on heavily exploited resources elsewhere by importing it. This is unconscionable. Worse yet, we sell off non-renewable mineral resources to pay for $1.8 billion in imports of a renewable resource we have in abundance. Then, as final assertion of idiocy, this is called “sustainable management”.
As for memorialising the Battle of the Coral Sea, that took place farther northeast, in international waters closer to PNG and Solomon Is. than to Australia.
The GBR marine park already protects the biologically richest part of the Coral Sea in the world’s largest coral reef park. There is no habitat nor any threatened, endangered or overexploited species in the Coral Sea which is not already well protected by the existing GBR park. Why do we need another one? And, why at this time, when government is faced with exploding deficits and trying desperately to stimulate economic activity do we need to be taking on additional millions in expenditure to address a problem which does not exist and to further curtail productive activity and employment?
Thanks, Walter. I was hoping someone could come up with the figures. Appalling, aren’t they?
I think Walter and Helen are strictly looking at this issue from an Aussie economic nationalistic viewpoint.
The idea with MPAs is to cover the whole world with marine reserves and MPAs that are connected to each other so that highly migratory species have a place for breeding , mating, spawning etc.
” A 2001 statement signed by 161 leading marine scientists called for urgent action to create the global network of marine reserves. The signatories noted how quickly sea life improves once the reserves are established. Within a year or two of establishing a marine reserve, population densities increased 91 per cent, average fish size went up 31 per cent, and species diversity rose 20 per cent.
While the creation of marine reserves is clearly the overriding priority in the long-standing effort to protect marine ecosystems, other measures are also required. One is to reduce the nutrient flows from fertilizer runoff and untreated sewage that create the world’s 200 or so dead zones.
In the end, governments need to eliminate fishery subsidies. There are now so many fishing trawlers that their catch potential is nearly double any yield the oceans can sustain. Restoring fisheries by spending $12-14 billion on managing a network of marine reserves is far less than the $22 billion in harmful subsidies that governments dole out today to fishers to empty our oceans.”
To see a summary of the 2008 World Resources Report click here
I fear the Enviro Fascists will get everything they want…. They have the time, the money, the welfare dependant footsoldiers and the deep seated hatred necessary for their long term push for a world of Green Socialism.
They’ll just keep at it, because we keep letting them get to first base every time.
To my way of thinking, we need to abolish all parks and wildlife refuges and put the land and sea to work. Geology doesn’t rest, evolution doesn’t rest, so why should we try to go against nature and attempt to preserve what time will ultimately wipe away?
I am utterly against this modern day environmental elite excluding land and sea from the enterprising and industrious. It is just plain wrong.
Anne Novak.
In regards to Australian trawling, there are less trawlers not more. So you lie in that respect.
As for “Fishing Subsidies”…. In Australia the only subsidy fishers got was a fuel subsidy on diesel fuel which every Primary producer is entitled too…. or rather did. I think that scheme is now changed…..
Actually all fishing operators in Australian waters have to PAY in order to gain access rights to fisheries. There are no government subsidies Anne.
You typically misrepresent and exaggerate your case…. There is no honour in you.
J. Hansford:
” Fish and ships
— Orange roughy are thought to live for 150 years
— Japan subsidises deep-sea fishing by $35 million (£18 million) a year. The industry also
receives subsidies from: Russia ($30m), South Korea ($27m), Spain ($20m), Faroe Islands
($15m), Australia ($10m), Ukraine ($7m), Estonia ($5m) and Iceland ($2m). France, Lithuania
and Latvia each give less than $1m a year.
Source: University of British Columbia”
So who is the lier! In this case not the Greens. You have not done your homework and you guys are just posting nonsense.
Fishing subsidies country by country ( note Australia) :
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_fis_sub-economy-fishing-subsidies
dear Anon,
got eye troubles have we? or is it comprehension we are struggling with? read the post ….no subsidies for Australian fishers….not Japanese, not Russian, not south Korean….Australian!
Ann,
You rightly expressed indignation at some Aussie Campbell preaching big picture whaling issues at Scandinavians in feigned or real ingnorace of the local picture. There are plenty of types happy to dump in other nests and keep their own clean. This Campbell strikes me as one of these. Another variation is those on overseas holidays, who behave in ways they would not dream of doing at home.
Then go into using his behaviour as justification for others to behave the same way and return the compliment. Two wrongs do not make a right Ann.
Then, with Walter Stark’s post on the GBR and reef fisheries, you sidestep the local facts and restate your case behind the big picture. Like this Campbell you correctly despise.
Walter just might know a bit about coral reefs and fisheries, Ann.
http://www.goldendolphin.com/wstarck.htm
I find it interesting that you dismiss myself (and Walter) as looking at this strictly from an Aussie economic nationalistic viewpoint.
I cannot answer for Walter, but on consideration, there are merits in taking that view point. First, like the vast majority of people in the world, I have to make ends meet by my own efforts. Sadly, I have neither the conacts or influece to make a living by looting the charitable estates of well meaning donors. Economics rules.
So what is wrong with some national pride? Perhaps Australia does not have enough?
Looking at the list of claimed fishing subsidies posted by Anon, I am struck with how highly the Japanese value and support their fishers, and how far they will go to protect them from [moral, economic, and in the Southern Ocean, physical] assault from foreigners. No wonder Japan’s fisheries are such a hard nut for activists to crack. The national pride of the Japanese is commendable.