Greenpeace UK Blog

Failing to corral support for conservation

Willie — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:03:18 +0000

CITES agreed to protect a salamander at the weekend. I'm very happy for the salamander. But in the great scheme of things this meeting is hardly turning out to be a ringing endorsement of global conservation in action.

We're still reeling from the disastrous result for Atlantic bluefin; heads are being scratched over the failure to be bothered about the polar bears; spiny dogfish are still being ruthlessly battered as we speak, and; in another resounding blow to effectiveness, the proposal to protect red and pink corals was also resoundingly ditched by our collective governments meeting in Doha yesterday.

There's a pattern here. The marine proposals that have failed have done so because of adverse socio-economic impacts, that seems to be the main argument. Just to clarify in my best irony - the representatives of our governments, discussing limits of trade in endangered species, are effectively rejecting the protection of the endangered species because it will adversely affect the people who make money from that trade.

You know, the people who are like, making them endangered.

So we should definitely be nice to those guys!

Corals are in big trouble the world over. From the coldwater corals of the North Atlantic at risk from destructive fishing, to the warm water corals of the tropics at risk from climate change, and the associated problems of ocean acidification and coral bleaching. Then there is the wanton destruction that happens by destructive fishing (using dynamite in some cases, yes, really), and collection for trade in souvenirs. But for red and pink corals, their real problem is that they are fashion victims. These precious corals are made into expensive jewellery and sold around the world. Even showy celebrities who should know better (I'm looking at you, Beyonce Knowles) are seen to flaunt gaudy coral necklaces. This of course makes them even more desirable for the masses - just like celebrities falling out of bluefin-peddlers Nobu makes their sushi seem glamorous. Indeed, a quick online search will no doubt turn up a plethora of options for any unscrupulous jewellery purchaser.

So, our governments in Doha have failed on the corals (just adding to that growing list). What that means for the rest of us is that more than ever we need to take action ourselves to help save these species. Crucially we have to reduce demand. If there is no demand for bluefin sushi, or coral necklaces, or dogfish and chips, then there won't be a trade in them. But as well as not buying them ourselves, we have to do what we can to make it unacceptable for anyone to be buying.

And for Beyonce, this is definitely one occasion where ‘if you like it, you shouldn't make a ring of it'.

PS - there are still some shark proposals up for discussion at CITES. Probably tomorrow. Don't hold your breath.

PPS - Here's Charles Clover on an Al Jazeera news programme talking about CITES and the need to protect endangered species like bluefin.

Saving polar bears

Willie — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:39:50 +0000

As iconic species go, the polar bear is quite literally up there. They are emblematic of the top-most chunk of the planet, as well as the emotive symbol of the effects of catastrophic climate change.

Polar bears are quite impressive. They are the world’s largest land predator, and undoubted 'rulers' of their ice kingdom. In popular culture they exist as cuddly toys, heroic fighters, and fashion accessories for Lady GaGa (don’t worry, I checked, it’s fake).

Those of you watching the proceedings at Doha this week may have noticed that yesterday a proposal to list the Polar Bear on Appendix I, and thereby banning international trade in it, was unsuccessful. The proposal had been championed by the US, but failed to get the support it needed from other governments.

There is, of course, an irony there. The biggest threat to polar bears is undoubtedly the disappearance of the ecosystem they depend upon. Their habitat is effectively melting from under their feet, as a result of human-induced climate change.

I saw a polar bear last month, in Scotland. There is only one, she’s called Mercedes and lives at the Highland Wildlife Park, near Aviemore. She was enjoying the unusually heavy snowfall in the Cairngorms. In front of us a group of schoolchildren eager to see the bear were given a talk not only about the bears themselves, but also the impact that climate change is having on them and their ecosystem. There is little doubt that polar bears are now intrinsically linked with the damage we are doing to the planet.

Sure, other species are affected, and other habitats like coral reefs are also at the forefront of the problem, albeit on the entirely different end of the spectrum. But Arctic species from krill, to cod, to seals, to narwhals are being literally pushed to the very ends of the earth by rising temperatures.

These areas are also affected by pollution emanating from far, far away. Polar bears and orcas, being at the top of their food chains, accumulate huge quantities of toxins, despite living in apparently pristine part of the planet.

And it adds insult to injury that the melting Arctic ice is not viewed by governments as a problem, but as an opportunity. They are falling over themselves to lay claim to mineral and fishing rights to areas that will become accessible when the ice sheet retreats, like vultures waiting on the spring thaw to uncover a carcass.

But the stark truth is that a trade ban alone can’t save the polar bear, what we need is urgent, concerted action by world leaders to tackle and minimise climate change. And the country who championed the CITES listing for polar bears, the US, is of course one of the biggest blocks to that effective action.

I’m glad that the US seems to be getting serious about saving the polar bear, and I hope we can now look forward to them getting serious about protecting the Arctic and minimising climate change too.

Now it looks like Néstle are blocking messages from our supporters

christian — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:16:23 +0000

Well, we know that Nestle doesn't seem to like criticism. The debacle on their Facebook page makes that pretty obvious.

But it looks like they're actively blocking reasonable, informed criticism of their unsustainable business practices.

Since Wednesday, we've been asking our supporters to email Paul Bulcke, the CEO of the company, politely asking him to clean up Nestle's business practices and stop using unsustainable palm oil that's contributing to the destruction of Indonesia's rainforests.

But from what we can tell, Nestle have been blocking the IP address of our mail delivery software since Werdnesday afternoon. Rather than engage with people's concerns, they decided to try and censor them. Just like they did with comments on their facebook page - just like they tried to do with our Kitkat subvert.

So, we've now changed the recipient of messages to the corporate email address of one of their international board members. And, we've got all the emails that haven't got through stored on our system - and we're going to find a fun way to deliver them to the company.

So now's the time to write to the company's international board and politely tell it that it needs to do better.

And check out the bounceback message here, showing that our IP address was blocked:

Nestle bounced email

CITES - reality bites. Or rather, reality sucks

Willie — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:55:47 +0000

A Steller's sea cow skeleton - first spotted by Europeans in 1741, they were driven to extinction within 30 years © CC Funkmonk

International co-operation is vital if we want to protect the plants and (particularly) animals that we share the planet with. They don't all have a very quantifiable value, and often those most at risk live in countries in the developing world where it is hard to balance the growing needs of the population with effective conservation measures. It's also, of course, rather rich to be lectured by the developed West/North on how to look after your flora and fauna when we have been so remiss ourselves.

When we dip a toe into the marine world things get even more complicated. Even more so than on land, many of the animals that we see/care about/want to protect/want to continue to eat roam far and wide in our seas. They don't recognise our territorial or political boundaries. They can't see what areas are protected and which they should perhaps avoid. For the most part they are following their own natural urges and needs, time-old migration patterns, or seeking out mates, or following food.

When we add us ever-resourceful non-marine apes into this equation, things get very messy. And we know it. We know we have decimated populations of whales, dolphins, sealions, walruses, seabirds across the world over the years. We have feasted on a glut of food wherever we found it, Steller's sea cows, Galapagos tortoises, dodos, Atlantic cod… and we've gone ever further in our pursuit of food and profit as we've developed better tools to hunt with.

Of course, like climate change, extinction happens naturally. But like climate change, what we are doing to the world now is making it a whole lot worse. We are having an unprecedented impact in making species extinct - changing the climate, trashing entire ecosystems, and fundamentally altering the world to suit ourselves.

So it must be the right thing to do to take steps to protect the species that we know we are putting at risk. That’s surely why bodies like CITES, the UN organisation responsible for protecting species at risk, exist at all. You’d think, wouldn’t you, that this august body would prize scientific advice and the precautionary principle, and be keen to not repeat the excesses of the past. We’ll never get the baiji or the passenger pigeon back, but we should be able, in this enlightened age, a time when we know that causing extinctions is a bad thing, to take all the steps we can to at least minimise, if not stop, human impact.

But, as so often happens in real-life politics, reality bites. Or rather, reality sucks. This CITES meeting in Doha has dealt with (already) many of the most iconic species in the world. It has been chastised for not doing enough to protect tigers, and it has thrown out plans to ban international trade in polar bears and Atlantic bluefin tuna. For every one of these headline species there are countless dozens of unsexy, un-cared for ones that don't ever get mentioned in the press. If we can’t get it right for the glamorous pin-up animals, what chance is there for us to get it right for the rest?

It is with a heavy heart that I see the way the CITES meeting is going. We all know that there was always going to be a huge resistance from some quarters on a trade ban for Atlantic bluefin. But what exactly happened?

Well, basically the interests of continued trade trumped the interests of protecting the species. It’s a tautology to say that a trade ban would have adverse socio-economic impacts. It’s a bit like saying omelette-making would have an adverse impact on eggshells. But it is entirely missing the point – the now-vested socio-economic concerns in the continued trade are generally what have got the species in trouble in the first place.

So why, oh why, do these interests get listened to and given credibility? Is it simply that fishermen, coral traders and hunters vote? Is there a presumption that the rest of us sit on our hands, keep schtum, and defer to them in their greater knowledge and involvement with ‘the issues’? Or is it simply that we think the best way to ensure the security of the chicken coop is to leave it to the foxes?

Let's not be too chicken to stand up for our fellow species, and let's not assume someone else will do it for us.

Governments fail bluefin in Doha

Willie — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:13:05 +0000

The breaking news today is that governments at the CITES meeting at Doha have voted AGAINST a trade ban on Atlantic bluefin.

Words cannot express how frustrating this is. The science and scientific backing is incontrovertible. The public will and pressure is immense. The species could be commercially extinct within just a few years. The managing body for the species is an international joke.

Yet here we are. It's business as usual after the proposal by Monaco, and the ‘compromise' proposal by the EU to list Atlantic bluefin on CITES Appendix I have been defeated. A vote was no certainty today, and it was pushed forward by Libya, one of the Mediterranean bluefin fishing nations.

You should be angry about this, you are not being represented, and the interests of a small number of fishing interests are calling the shots on species of international importance.

Seriously, if we can't get it right on a species as unarguably in need of protection as Atlantic bluefin - what chance have we got for the rest of them?

We now need to find other ways to protect Atlantic bluefin, by stopping demand, stopping fishing, and protecting spawning grounds.

Today is a huge setback for Atlantic bluefin, but it's proof - if we needed it - that we need to do more to make the people making decisions make the right decisions.

For Atlantic bluefin, this may have been the last chance.

'Banned' Kit Kat video struck down, becomes more powerful

jamie — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:31:07 +0000

Where to begin?

There's been so much going here over the last 18 hours that I've only now found the time to write an update. Since the last post here, the Kit Kat video which was pulled from Youtube (following a complaint from Nestlé about copyright infringement) was resurrected on Vimeo and has been racking up views like there's no tomorrow - 78,500 as of this moment. Not the shrewdest move Nestlé could have made, and I liked how Canada's Globe & Mail referred to it as "a global game of whack-a-mole".

Didn't Obi-Wan Kenobi say something about being struck down and coming back more powerful than before?

Our supporters - that's you - have done us proud and I've been constantly amazed at the level of response we've seen. Tweets have been flying about and Nestlé's Facebook page has been swamped with comments asking about their shoddy palm oil policies.

We also offered up a copy of the video for anyone to download and post hither and thither. Over 2,000 people have done just that and it's appearing all over the place, such as Eco-tube. Even more amazing are the customised versions or completely original creations. Here are my two favourites:

As we left the office last night, our baton was being passed on to other timezones, and my fellow Kit Kat ninjas in the US, China, New Zealand, Indonesia, and Australia set to work. Japan and Mexico are also joining in as well, along with many other Greenpeace offices, and most of the tweets appearing last night were in Portuguese as Brazil got into the game.

And even the Sun ran a piece on our campaign today with contender for headline of the year: KitKatastrophe.

Where to now? Nestlé executives have agreed to a meet with our campaigners in a couple of weeks' time which is a positive step, but until they cut the notorious Sinar Mas out of their supply chain, our video will remain and we'll keep pushing.

Nestle try to censor our advert, get it pulled from Youtube

christian — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:31:56 +0000

Oops! Pulled from youtube after a 'copyright' complaint from Nestle.

Update: Want to put your own copy of our video on your favourite video sharing site? Download the file now and be our guest! The more copies out there, the more interesting it will be for Nestle.

Dear Nestle's PR department,

Hey! How are you doing? I know that when we highlight the damaging effect your business is having on the Indonesian rainforests, it must be a bit annoying. I hope you understand that we're only trying to get your attention because using unsustainable palm oil in your products is such a very bad thing. You see, we just can't afford to let the Indonesian rainforests go up in smoke to provide land for palm oil plantations.

When you told us that you cared about the problem just as much as us, sure, we had a few reservations.

For one thing, although you said that you'd no longer buy direct from Sinar Mas - the suppliers of unsustainable palm oil from deforested areas of Indonesian rainforest - you made no such promises about buying from people like Cargill who buy palm oil from the same company. Really, if you're buying the same stuff, but via an intermediary, and you're not able to rule out supplies from APP, that’s not enough progress is it?

I started to wonder if you really cared about this issue in the way that you claim to.

But I guess what made me really wonder about whether you really cared was when you had our video pulled off youtube, citing ‘copyright infringement'. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I reckon that maybe the terms ‘fair use' and ‘parody' might be relevant here.

Hmm, actually now that I think about it for a moment, I don't think you really care about copyright at all. I think you just wanted to stop people seeing the video! That's pretty lame. Seriously, censorship is just so... last century.

I might also point out that we've already been flooded with offers to host the video elsewhere, and that your move has generated even more interest in the issue on the blogosphere and on twitter.

To me, trying to censor our criticism doesn't seem like such a smart PR move. But then, what do I know!

Anyway, hope you're all well!

All the best,

Christian
GPUK Web Team

Watch the ad here: (We stuck it on Vimeo)

Quick response from Nestle, but not much to report

jamie — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:57:32 +0000

You have to hand it to Nestle - they're quick off the mark when it comes to launching a PR offensive, and with orang-utans hanging around (and sometimes off) their premises around the UK and Europe, they've released a statement saying they're dropping contracts with one of the worst palm oil suppliers, Sinar Mas. However, there's a lot they're not talking about and would probably prefer not to talk about.

Where, for instance, is their commitment to cutting out Sinar Mas completely from their supply chain? They may now be cancelling direct contracts with forest trasher Sinar Mas, but SM palm oil will still end up in Nestle factories. Nestle also buys palm oil from third party suppliers like Cargill, and Sinar Mas palm oil still flows through their pipes. Until Nestle can guarantee that none of its other suppliers are buying from Sinar Mas, we're still on.

And there's no mention of their dealings with Asia Pulp and Paper (APP), one Sinar Mas' many subsidiaries. Their pulp and paper for instance, which is used in things like packaging, is also grown in areas of destroyed rainforest, and Nestle have been less than forthcoming about their relationship with APP. Categorical denials of any dealings with APP have suddenly today been replaced with a commitment to an investigation of their supply chain.

So, full marks for being quick off the PR block, but very few points for effort. In the meantime, enjoy our own Kit Kat advert and write to Nestle's CEO to demand a better response. And follow the fun we're having on Twitter.

Update: A few of the eagle-eyed among you spotted an error in the above. I’d said there was no mention of the Sinar Mas subsidiary APP in Nestlé's new statement yesterday, but there was - a claim that they are not buying from this company. However, at the same time as sending us this statement, Nestlé told us in private that they are "investigating" links to APP through their supply chain.

So it was right that company has been less than forthcoming about their relations with APP, but amid the excitement of yesterday, I missed the claim on this issue in Nestlé's statement - sorry for that!

100 year old spiny dogfish with your chips, anyone?

Willie — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:01:01 +0000

In the UK fish and chips is an institution. We have other institutions too, of course, like the Royal family, and in Britain if you make it to your 100th birthday, the momentous occasion is marked by getting a telegram from the Queen.

But how would you feel if the fish in your fish and chips was eligible for such a telegram?

Because, it just might be.

No, I’m not talking about long-frozen fish fillets, but rather exploiting slow-growing, long-living species of fish, which frankly, can’t take it.

One such fish, which has been a regular feature of UK chip shops, is the spiny dogfish. That's a rather unpalatable name, so it was rebranded as 'rock salmon'. Spiny dogfish are actually small sharks, just a few feet in length, and they are one of the species up for discussion at the CITES meeting currently underway in Doha. Bluefin, elephants and polar bears may get the headlines, and spiny dogfish may even be overshadowed by their bigger shark cousins at this meeting, but they deserve a bit of our attention.

Globally shark populations are in dire trouble. An estimated 90% of big fish species have been fished out of our oceans in the past few decades and the sharks (and skates and rays) are more susceptible than most. They grow slowly, mature late, and have few babies. And yes, individual spiny dogfish have been known to live as long as 100 years! In short, they are very easy to overfish. And guess what? That’s exactly what we have done.

Spiny dogfish were once the most common shark on earth, but their numbers have crashed by a whopping 95%. As well as being fished for their meat, and their fins, they have also been turned into liver oil, fertiliser and pet food. They are fished around the world, in the US, Canada, Chile, Europe, and New Zealand… but mostly they are eaten in Europe. The Continental alarm bells have already been rung for spiny dogfish, and in for 2010 the EU fishing quota for the species has been slashed by 90% accordingly (the remaining 10% being a quota for bycatch). But on internationally-traded sp`ecies, there needs to be effective international control too which is why the EU and Palau want to have the species listed on CITES.

Increased protection for this species is urgently needed, and the governments at CITES now have a collective responsibility to do that.

In the meantime, do avoid having the rock salmon.

Fishy focus at CITES meeting in Doha

Willie — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:44:58 +0000

The CITES meeting is now well underway in Doha, Qatar. Greenpeace is there, as are many other NGOs, and it’s clear that there is a very fishy focus for this meeting. As well as proposals to protect sharks and corals, Atlantic bluefin is the species on everyone’s mind. For a meeting concerned with the international trade in endangered species, it’s amazing how much of it could boil down to simple horse-trading.

This meeting, of course, is the chance to get an international trade ban on Atlantic bluefin, a measure that should protect the species from imminent commercial extinction.

Make no mistake though. This is not a ‘done deal’. It’s not just conservation-minded folks assembled in Doha for two weeks and there are seriously-resourced efforts to oppose the listing of fish species generally, and bluefin tuna in particular. Just to put that in context, the Japanese delegation at this meeting is rumoured to be ten times bigger than it normally is. They, clearly, are on a mission. And that mission is evident already, they are trying to undermine the bluefin proposal at every opportunity: scaremongering lobbying of developing nations; proposing a ‘compromise’ of Appendix II listing (which is pretty much pointless), and; some angst about the impending end of sushi and Japanese culture as we know it.

There’s a huge irony staring Japan in the face of course, if bluefin truly is a fish you want to continue to be able to eat, why would you fish it to extinction?

The meeting in Doha runs until 25th March, and it could well be close to the end that we know whether the campaign to achieve an international trade ban on Atlantic bluefin has been successful. In the meantime we have seen a number of countries nailing their colours to the mast. The main fishing nations, US and EU support a trade ban, as do the proposers Monaco, and Norway (much to Japan’s displeasure). Lined up in opposition are Japan, China, Korea, Canada and Australia. As with many of these international meetings though, there is frantic lobbying underway, and equally-frantic tallying of numbers happening on an hourly basis by both sides. So far, not all the party countries have turned up. When it comes down to voting, who is ‘in the room’ can make a crucial difference.

Given that it’s the survival of species that’s at stake – there truly is all to play for.

We’ll keep you up to date with the news from Doha, and if you want to check out the blogs from journalist Charles Clover and others at the meeting – then keep an eye out here.

Click here to read Greenpeace's While Stocks Last CITES briefing on the key marine species proposals.