I It says to a lot new: “In the end!” Finally, a major blank film revealing the spoil in our ocean. Finally, a proposed ban on the bottom trawling of so-called “Sea-protected areas“(MPA). Finally, some solid research on the carbon sea and many releases due to trawlers plowing it.
David Attenborough seas Film, made for National Geographic, is the one I’ve been waiting for all my life work. An example passed, when I worked on the natural unit of BBC history in the middle of the 1980s, some of us returned like this, without success. Since then, even programs that cleanse to discuss sea destruction carefully avoiding the principal cause: the fishing industry. The BBC’s Blue planet ii and Blue planet live series showing perennial organization failure of courage.
You can see the results of public beliefs. While the assessments have long been indicated that the main cause of Marine’s Life Life Excessive repairs, in a poll last year, people in the UK put it fourth. Eat our fish dinner while shaking our heads in the state of the ocean, we are systematically misleading by whose jobs is to inform us.
Maybe the ocean will change that. Public enthusiasm for film shows, however, that The mantra is never final narrated Through broadcasters – environmental issues turn off viewers – false. You just have to do it, as it makes this film, energy and good.
the Announcing government That trawling and scallop dredging are forbidden from half the MPA in England welcome. But it should be seen as the least it can do. The conservationists before Call for several years For protected areas, well, protected from the main cause of destruction. While notified as a good step forward, the new policy is actually a step from the Tory position: Conservatives planned “To protect all 54 English offshore MPAS from fishing activity at the end of 2024”.
It also fell away from The call last week Through the Community Community Committee Committee for full MPA protection, and the reach of “good environmental conditions” for our oceans. The statutory deadline for achieving this situation is 2020, but we have never before. Neither new policy brings us anywhere near the promise of “30×30“: The protection of 30% of our land and sea of 2030. How does the government close this gap?
Labor remains slapped and dicing the problem. New measures are intended to protect specific parts of the sea and specific species. But the fisheries industry wears everyone. A government spokesman told me that “a thorough ban on the whole MPA does not need as some MPAs are only appointed for mobile species such as birds”. But what about mobile species like fish? In fact, almost all sea animals, at some point in their life cycles, more mobile.
The spokesman says the protection is needed where specific parts occur. Why do many seabed places don’t mean parts? Because they plowed with trawlers. Most of the North Sea bed, for example, is Once covered with a biotic crust of oysters and beautiful sessile animals. Today most naked muddy, sand and gravel, and considered unworthy of protection. But if the boat stopped plowing it, the crust will recover. The good condition of the environment requires many places closed with the underlying fisheries, regardless of staying alive there.
Some of us are delayed thinking that trawling and dredging should release many carbon from the sea. But the issue data is very important to come. Now, in the end, Solid Research Beginning, and we know that this is a major problem, add more than the costs imposed by the fishery industry and the living planet.
But almost all public discussions on these issues, including the ocean, I feel that the problem has been wrong way. Almost everyone agrees we need to be carved in some sea places from the fishing industry and other harmful forces. Meaning is that the default sea condition is to exploit, where we come from make exceptions.
But as Marine Campaignigner Deborah Rowan Wright Long time arguesIt is more significant to reverse this expectation. The default position should be protected, where can we exclude certain areas (the least dangerous) where some fisheries are allowed). Such residual fishing should concentrate on the hands of local coastal communities, instead of Captured by many industrial combinations That, as shown in the ocean, seizing food from people who need it most.
This is the cause of the mother of everything “Spillen Effects“. Spillover is what happens when fish and shellfish are allowed to breed and grow undisturbed in Protected places: in many cases, as their offspring spread into surrounding waters, even though the area in which fishing is permitted has shrunk. If killing was permitted Allowed in only a minority of places, far less fishing effort would be required to catch more and bigger fish.
However, we must remember that fish are wild animals, not “seafood”. They are not put in the world for our consumption. They do not exist in “stock”, but in populations and ecosystems. There is no such thing as “bad“O”hiding“, Although these terms have long been shown in Lexicon in official bodies and following scientists.
The extraordinary thing is how small This industry is, even if the world’s ransom governments are targeted. In the last month, the British government announced that it gave £ 360m in the fishing industry “To drive to grow and raises the sector”. Why? Government numbers show that fishing is worth us more than done: It is estimated that the proposed ban on half in England Cost of UK businesses and public £ 7.8mWhile delivering “benefits from enhanced environmental protection” approximately £ 3.1bn. Why the hell should be public money, restricted from public services in need, spent fishing, the worst of all private industries?
I was watching for 40 years while governments, protected by shy broadcasters, wasting each chance to avoid ecological collapse. As they gathered in France for Un Ocean conferenceThey should suppose not to waste another day.
