Fishermen using the
sustainable "pole
and line" fishing method to catch skipjack
tuna
It was a huge disappointment
to see industrial fishing nations beat down
small Pacific island countries today- the
nations struggling to save tuna- a fish
they need for their very survival.
Pacific islanders are
here at the Western and Central Pacific
Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) meeting in
Hawaii this week working to establish marine
reserves to save their fish and therefore
their future. The main task here is to close
another 3.5 million square kilometres of
high seas making the protected areas here
4.5 million in total – an area they had
unilaterally closed but are asking for agreement
by all nations here to the closure- to ensure
all nations are playing- and fishing- on
a level field.
Pacific countries, led
by big brother Australia, are here to also
get fishing countries to stop purse seine
fishing that catch whale sharks, just like
in the picture below.
In a mighty blow to
Pacific island countries the mighty fishing
nations of China, Japan, Taiwan and Korea
blatantly refused to these important conservation
efforts. As a Pacific islander attending
this meeting, I was proud to see my community
standing firmly together to ensure that
conservation of the tuna fisheries in the
region is put squarely on the table.
We as Pacific islanders
understand that tuna fishing in our waters
is one of our only means of earning a living
and putting food on the table. We depend
on our oceans, which sustain not only our
people but our entire planet. We have a
moral responsibility as the ones who rely
on the oceans that international law recognises
as being part of our territory, to conserve
what is above, within and below our seas.
What many people don’t
know is that the Pacific tuna fishery is
dominated by foreign fishing nation: the
US, China, Korea, Taiwan and Japan. In a
sense, we control the rights to the fish
that swim within our waters and because
our watery borders connect with each other,
we therefore control some of the most productive
tuna-rich areas of ocean on the planet.
Fishing for tuna happens
to take place near our borders, but usually
not by Pacific island countries. We are
too poor to afford sophisticated fishing
vessels and foreign governments love to
dangle promises of aid (in the form of a
nylon fishing string from a tuna net) thus
ensuring that we will never develop our
fishery for ourselves. Foreign fishing powers
want us Pacific island communities to always
be obliged to ‘rent’ out our rights to fish
at disgustingly low rates: neo-colonialism
wrapped up in sushi roll and forced down
our throats! It reminds me of those lines
from the Godfather movies: once you’re in,
you’re in for life… even if you know that
its not good for you.
Foreign fishing fleets
have fished the resources at incredibly
unsustainable levels. Try this on for size
– in the last 3 years, non-Pacific island
countries have taken over 2 million metric
tonnes of fish from our waters! 2 million
container loads of fish- that’s a lot of
sushi and canned tuna! Additionally, for
every kilo of tuna caught, several kilos
of other marine life are caught in the lines/nets-
endangered sharks, turtles, rays, dolphins
and small fish. So, the whole thing is not
only unfair, it’s down-right unhealthy for
our planet, our islands, our beautiful Pacific,
our children and our future!
I felt extremely proud
of the Pacific island countries that are
here working to make fishing sustainable
as well as fair and equitable. As a Pacific
Islander, I am here to voice my support
for their efforts to create marine reserves
by closing off large sections of the Pacific
to purse seine fishing where greedy distant
fishers roam without restraint!
Based on what’s happening
here in Hawaii- fishing nations are not
here to negotiate. They don’t want Pacific
island countries to improve their ability
to fish or give us a fair deal because this
would jeopardise their investments. One
large purse seine vessel costs USD$20 million
to build- so a fleet of 25 would amount
to half a billion dollars. There are slightly
more than 250 of these wandering around
the Pacific, capable of netting around 5000
– 7000 tonnes of tuna per fishing trip.
So, how can we change
this? The answer lies in the water…or in
this case the TUNA. Pacific islanders now
understand that by asserting their control
over this billion-dollar industry- and making
it more sustainable- will the region be
in a much better situation. And they are
not alone on this unfamiliar road, challenging
mighty fishing nations and greedy industrialist
– something we know all too well about and
is why we are here – to stand in solidarity
with our Pacific family and help secure
a future of plentiful fish and healthy oceans!
+ More
COP16 Report: Cisco
Brings Solutions to Cancun
Cisco is turning the
climate crisis into an opportunity. As the
reigning champ of our Cool IT Leaderboard,
the company has shown that investing in
innovative product solutions not only has
business potential, but can help to slow
emissions and thus address climate change.
Cisco’s commitment to
building and calculating the real-word potential
of its solutions to create both energy and
cost savings in other sectors is perhaps
best exhibited by the company’s own experience
using them. Cisco’s remote collaboration
and virtual office tools have dramatically
cut travel at the company and perhaps also
foreshadow the work habits of a low-carbon
future. But for these projections to reach
the scale necessary to make a dent in global
emissions, Cisco must push for regulatory
and policy frameworks that hasten the pace
of development.
It has taken a while
for IT companies to acknowledge their role
in solving the climate crisis. Cisco is
certainly a leader, but like most, it is
compensating for a late start to its political
engagement on climate. The company needs
to stay in the game, push aggressively to
promote IT solutions, and crystallize its
policy asks, not only in preparation for
the next COP, but in key national and regional
policy debates throughout the year.
I spoke with Monique
Meche, Director of Global Environmental
Policy at Cisco, about her goals here in
Cancun and in the months to come:
Jodie Van Horn: Why
are you at the climate negotiations in Cancun?
Monique Meche: We were
technology sponsors last year and this year
we’re meeting with policy makers to talk
about ICT and stress the benefits that the
ICT sector can bring in reducing overall
carbon emissions.
The ICT industry was
never that involved in the negotiations
until last year in Copenhagen. Sometimes
delegates mistook us for the help desk,
but we were actually there to show how ICT
can enable energy efficiency and savings.
This year we are much more present. Cisco
has several announcements going on, including
the Planetary Skin initiative (http://www.planetaryskin.org/).
We are also working with governments through
the World Economic Forum to show that business
is supportive of a global deal and reducing
emissions. That’s why were here.
JVH: What does the IT
sector need to do to have its solutions
better understood and be looked to by governments
as an essential part of the policy making
process?
MM: We need to be very
concrete about what we’re offering, the
solutions that are available today, and
their benefits to businesses and organizations.
Cisco is using many of the technology solutions
available today its own business — Webex,
Cisco Telepresence and virtual office solutions—
we’re using them to reduce our own company
emissions and achieve a goal of 25% absolute
reduction by 2012 (2007 baseline).
Our business savings
have enabled efficiency, productivity and
employee satisfaction. We’ve transformed
the way we work and we’re transforming other
organizations as well.
We need to show [policy
makers] how simple it is to use remote working
solutions. We could save so much more even
in these negotiations. About ninety-five
Telepresence sessions are equal to the carbon
emissions of a single trip from SF to Tokyo.
We need to simplify the message and demonstrate
which technologies are available today,
how they are reducing our own emissions,
and ask governments to try these technologies
in their own operations and to promote the
use of these technologies to reduce carbon
emissions. The UN has used Cisco Telepresence
in the lead up to the negotiations. It is
installed in several different UN offices,
and we have offered our Cisco offices to
enable officials to use it for the negotiations.
It has to make business
sense as well. For Cisco, using these solutions
has resulted in significant business savings
and made us much more productive, innovative
and efficient.
JVH: What activities
are you doing while you’re here? Are you
meeting directly with delegates?
MM: Yes, I’ve been spending
time with different delegates from developed
and developing countries, and I’ve attended
several workshops with the World Economic
Forum. It’s encouraging to see ICT in the
text for the first time. This is positive
and something we have supported as part
of GeSI. I think the mandate of the proposed
Technical Executive Committee and Climate
Technology Centre, whose focus will be to
advise and accelerate ICT and broadband
adoption globally, remove barriers and stimulate
public-private sector cooperation to reduce
emissions, is still to be determined. But
we think the additional visibility is an
accomplishment, and it’s why we’ve been
so engaged with governments here.
The overall message
is that ICT can and should be considered
as part of GHG reduction and adaptation
strategies and to show our support for a
global agreement. For smart grid to be deployed,
we need a regulatory framework with open
interoperable standards that will break
down the technology silos that exist in
today’s electrical grid systems and to provide
real-time, two-way communications. Cost
recovery is probably the most significant
regulatory barrier that governments must
address for smart grid to be deployed. Utilities
need to invest in smart grid assets and
they need to recover the cost of those investments;
however, often utilities make a profit on
the amount of electricity they sell, not
on the amount they save. So, governments
need to make sure the utilities can recover
the costs for their smart grid investment
in a way that incentivizes utilities to
improve their energy efficiency and generate
fewer emissions, as well as in a way that
incentivizes customers to use less electricity.
We support a reduction
in global GHG emissions and hope that we
can achieve a legally binding UN agreement
soon. We also support market mechanisms
such as cap and trade accompanied by measures
such as promotion of energy efficiency initiatives.
We support policies that promote adoption
of ICT as means of driving energy efficiency
throughout more carbon-intensive sectors
of the economy via smart grids, smart buildings,
smart transportation and travel substitution.
We will continue to
show that we have solutions to enable more
efficiencies and lower overall emissions.
We have calculators to show the savings.
We have our own targets and we’re doing
a lot of work to reduce our own emissions,
showing what’s possible and the benefits
of ICT solutions. We’re increasing the functionalities
of all of our products, but lowering the
power use.
JVH: What do you see
as the biggest hurdle to the adoption of
IT solutions?
MM: The politics of
reaching a global agreement and acknowledging
the business opportunities. China, India
and Europe are leading in terms of green
tech investments, and I believe the US will
become more active in terms of green tech
investments. Many countries see green investment
as an opportunity to grow their economies
with green jobs and to recover from the
recession. I think it’s a matter of time,
continuous investment and evolving regulatory
regimes for there to be incentives to invest.
JVH: The corporate lobby
against this process is well funded and
set on blocking progress. Is Cisco working
with other clean tech partners to drive
a bigger, united policy ask that can stand
up against dirty energy interests?
MM: We had that discussion
at the World Economic Forum gathering here
that we need to form a positive lobby group
across the ICT, renewables, consumer, energy
and financial sectors. John Chambers is
a Climate Change Ambassador to the World
Economic Forum. We’ve involved with the
ICT4EE group in Europe to come together
to establish a standardized way of measuring
and reporting our own emission reductions
(which account for 2-3%)and how we can support
the other 98%. In Europe the Commission
comes to the meetings, so we have a leadership
model where industry is working with policy
makers and different industry partners on
how we can reduce emissions in other sectors.
We report our own emissions through the
Carbon Disclosure Project and are supportive
of their work.
JVH: Why isn’t Cisco
doing more on advocacy in the U.S.?
MM: We have someone
in Washington, who is active in different
industry groups and focused at the moment
on smart grid standards with the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
and the Grid Wise alliance. The U.S. environment
is tough. We need to continue to raise awareness
across industry sectors and in government,
and hopefully you’ll see us becoming more
engaged. We all have a lot of work to do
in terms of raising awareness about climate
change generally.
We are active in California,
and had a strong message in opposition to
Prop 23. We rarely take positions on ballot
issues, but this was very important. John
Chambers was very supportive. As an organization,
this takes commitment from the top, and
John Chambers is committed to our sustainability
focus. You’ll likely see more activity in
the U.S. at the state level. The Climate
Group has been very supportive of state
and regional activity on this issue, and
Cisco is an active member.
JVH: What is Cisco going
to do in the coming year to drive stronger
government leadership and enable the low
carbon economy, getting solutions out there
further?
MM: In the lead up to
Durban, policy makers need to engage and
work with supportive business, the ones
that are asking for a global agreement to
fulfill investment needs and create market
predictability. The problem we’ve had is
that policy makers have not really engaged
with our industry, and the “positive lobby”
has not been as vocal in the past but that
is changing.
We will continue to
be actively engaged and ask governments
to start working immediately on reaching
a deal in Durban. We should set high expectations
of what we can achieve at COP17, and the
policy leaders seem optimistic. We’ll continue
involvement and activities around the world
to ensure that ICT is considered as part
of the solution, and we will be part of
the positive lobby to support reaching a
comprehensive global deal at COP 17.
