BLUE CHARITY BUSINESS… IN BRUSSELS 2013 - Week 7
What a week! The Global Ocean Commission, with PEW in the background and Global Ocean Legacy, Fish Fight 2.0, Bloom Association and finally Brussels Business, all just one week after the European Parliament vote on its position on the CFP reform. It has been a week of intense activity for Blue Charity Business. We would like to decode it for you, in the light of information we collected to write the Blue Charity Business report published in November 2012. Just as for the Blue Charity Business report, the aim of this note is not to condemn US charitable foundations or environmental NGOs. It aims to connect objective but scattered evidence in order to improve transparency and fairness in the CFP reform process and, most importantly, in its future implementation. Blue Charity Business report authors Thursday14 February 2013.
NOTE CONTENT AFTER THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO, PEW FOCUSSES ON THE FRENCH EEZ WITH ITS GLOBAL OCEAN LEGACY PROJECT FOCUS ON THE GLOBAL OCEAN COMMISSION PEW’S MULTIPLE PARTNERS NETWORKS BLOOM ASSOCIATION AND PEW « BRUSSELS BUSINESS » INVESTIGATION EXPOSES POWERFUL BRUSSELS LOBBIES WORRY OF MEDIA LYNCHING AND INTIMIDATION OF ELECTED PARLIAMENTARIANS? FISH FIGHT 2.0
Original text in French. Please accept our apologies regarding the quality of the translation.
The PEW1 foundation gets together with the ADESSIUM Foundation, SOMMERVILLE COLLEGE and OCEANS 5 (a coalition of charitable foundations including OAK, WAITT, MARISLA, MOORE, PLANET HERITAGE) to form the Global Ocean Commission, a private interest coalition that wants to regulate the High Seas. It has a strong presence in Europe through its own ENGO (Pew Environmental Group), other ENGOS that it has created and ENGO coalitions it has initiated and is steering. It is also active in France. The process used by Pew is a well-oiled mechanic introduced with the PEW Ocean Commission in the US in the years 2000. The Ocean Commission was private at first, later taken up by government and always piloted by high profile individuals (Leon Paneta who later became Director of the CIA under OBAMA 1 and Defence Secretary General under OBAMA 2), some linked to Pew during their career (e.g. Jane Lubchenco who became head of NOAA). AFTER THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO, PEW FOCUSSES ON THE FRENCH EEZ WITH ITS GLOBAL OCEAN LEGACY PROJECT PEW has recently widened its Global Ocean Legacy [GOL] program, which aims to create the world’s largest marine areas closed to fisheries. Today the extension of its geographical scope is targeting French Polynesia and New Caledonia. The very same program led to the creation of the Chagos Archipelago MPA. The Chagos Archipelago also know as British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) is leased to host one of the world’s largest US naval bases, the Naval Support Facility (NSF) Diego Garcia. British sovereignty over the Archipelago is contested by Mauritius where many Chagossians were evacuated after the islands were forcibly depopulated. It is important to note that the UK lease of the Chagos Archipelago to the US expires in 2016 2. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea 3 will now hear the Chagossians claim against the UK jurisdiction to proclaim the MPA and denial of their fishing rights. The case is expected to be heard in the first half of 2014.
For its project in the French outermost waters, PEW has recruited a former French military strategy specialist, JeanPaul MICHEL (CV4)
Pew’s French front man was hired for his knowledge of the workings of the French administration5. It seems to be a familiar strategy for PEW, under cover of marine protected areas closed to fishing, PEW claims to help the government. In the case of France, help to comply with pledges of the "Grenelle de la Mer" [national debate for the implementation of RIO +20 commitments regarding MPAs). By contrast the position is disturbing as it is held by a non-governmental organization that has at heart the defence of American maritime interests 1 http://www.pewtrusts.org/ 2 http://www.7lameslamer.net/Chagos-la-Grande-Bretagne-mise-en.html 3 https://sites.google.com/site/thechagosarchipelagofacts/eppz-mpa/legal-challenges-to-mpa 4https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:zYX7GDawqEEJ:www.consilium.europa.eu/Content/Others/08_05_13%2520CV%2520JP%2520MICHEL.pdf+ &hl=fr&gl=fr&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShtkp6G-ui9B36HxEyDyhxpyyA8CS3SAlfiuYNFuvQ9HDXHswtuTbTdepiqqp3PxWxXgBEdpqVp8DDtCTgdkkBFXWX6MpjfnCXcqgGfaSHyd5BlZIw6K5SiOA3wM08NO4xuif&sig=AHIEtbTHRwaMqy3zn_rtckVVRUJnyPuFvA)
(see the proof of its commitment6 in favor of the ratification of the International Convention of the Law of the Sea by the U.S., via the American Sovereignty campaign 7). Jean-Paul Michel and GOL are currently in talks with the Regional Government of French Polynesia8. He is recruiting some staff for New Caledonia and French Polynesia. See here9 for a description of this program. BACK ON THE GLOBAL OCEAN COMMISSION The 12th of February 2013 we witnessed the official launch of the Global Ocean Commission, an entirely private project. But the project was initiated some years ago. Oceans 5 launched it in 2011. Identifying among the main threats weighing upon oceans: fishing, climate exacerbated by overfishing, and the rest [which description implies that will be sustainable uses: offshore oil & gas, marine aggregate, deep mineral, and offshore wind]. Oceans without fishermen? For background and more information on this project see: The involvement of PEW10, origin of the project11 and initial partners of the project 12. The search for proximity and legitimacy with governmental officials is so strong that the French newspaper LE MONDE believed it was a process initiated by the United Nations13.
To coordinate the project, former politicians accustomed to high-level salons and circles of power have been recruited. Such as David Miliband, former British Foreign Secretary. David Miliband was in post in the Foreign Office when the Chagos Archipelago Marine Reserve was declared, with the help of the Global Ocean Legacy of PEW14. But also Jose Maria Figueres (former President of Costa Rica) and Trevor Manuel (Minister in office in South Africa), former cabinet members of the governments of Chile, Australia, Indonesia, Canada and Nigeria. All these countries either have been in relation with PEW regarding the reform of their fisheries, or have major interests in offshore oil exploitation.
6 http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_detail.aspx?id=328754 7 http://www.ratifythetreatynow.org/ 8 http://www.mrm.gov.pf/?q=node/196 9 http://www.mrm.gov.pf/sites/default/files/98676280-Global-Ocean-Legacy-Conservation-des-Milieux-Marins-pour-le-Siecle-Nouveau.pdf 10 http://www.globaloceancommission.org/about-the-commission/partners/ 11 http://www.oceans5.org/#!2011-projects/vstc1=global-ocean-commission 12 http://www.oceans5.org/#!who-we-are 13 http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2013/02/11/l-onu-se-penche-sur-la-protection-de-la-haute-mer-le-dernier-far-west_1829966_3244.html 14 http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=58257
Finally, it also involves world business leaders, and Pascal Lamy, current director of the World Trade Organization15. The link between the WTO Pascal Lamy and PEW may be that of states subsidies to the fishing industry16. This is a matter of concern both regarding the role of subsidies in the creation of overcapacity, and also some ideological views on the role and use of public aids (which exclude charitable donations, created with donations benefiting from public tax exemptions, and thus are private). To promote the formal launch of the Commission, we note again a simultaneous release of news articles in national newspapers, the French Le Monde and UK The Guardian. Normally such simultaneity is not by chance. It is the result of a single agency communication, regular customer of PEW: the company "Communications Inc." which provides simultaneous and coordinated communication programs for marine conservation in Europe 17 [it received U.S. $ 1.14 million in 2010 from PEW see p 818]. Their clients include: WWF - SHARK ALLIANCE (ENGO coalition led by PEW) - OCEAN 2012 (ENGO coalition led by PEW) - JM Kaplan Fund - IPSO (International program on the state of the Ocean promoting consistently large marine protected areas) - HIGH SEAS ALLIANCE - GREENPEACE - FRIENDS OF THE EARTH - FISH FIGHT DEEP SEA CONSERVATION COALITION (ENGO coalition led by PEW). Le Monde titled Feb. 1119: “The UN focuses on the protection of the High Seas, the last Wild West”. As The Guardian February 9 20 “David Miliband to head global fight to prevent eco-disaster in oceans. Note at the end of article list of fish that should or should not be eat.” Callum Roberts, also in THE GUARDIAN (February1021): “The High seas are too precious to be left to plunderers and polluters”. He promotes the Global Ocean Commission.
Callum Roberts of York University22 is closely linked to PEW. He was awarded a PEW Marine Science Fellowship in 2000 23. He was still an advisor to this program in 201024. He is also highly connected with regular PEW partners as indicated in his biography. His research focuses on the impact of human activities on marine ecosystems.
15 http://aquaculturedirectory.co.uk/global-ocean-commission-created-to-reverse-degradation-of-high-seas/ 16 http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/press-releases/pew-and-eu-transparency-launch-fishsubsidyorg-8589935307 17 http://communicationsinc.co.uk/clients.cfm 18 http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/562/562307147/562307147_201106_990.pdf 19 http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2013/02/11/l-onu-se-penche-sur-la-protection-de-la-haute-mer-le-dernier-far-west_1829966_3244.html 20 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/09/lawless-high-seas-threaten-the-planet 21 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/10/stop-plunder-of-the-high-seas 22 http://www.york.ac.uk/environment/our-staff/callum-roberts/ 23 http://www.pewenvironment.org/research-programs/marine-fellow/id/8589941899 24 http://fsi.stanford.edu/news/naylor_in_spain_with_the_advisory_committee_of_the_pew_fellows_program_in_marine_conservation_20100929
PEW’S MULTIPLE PARTNERS NETWORKS The Blue Charity Report [link after text] provides ample evidence of Pew’s links to other organizations, providing funds or through direct or past control. For example: - Creation of Environmental NGOs: PEW environmental group; SEAWEB (cf. Seafood Choice Alliance program, COMPASS training for European journalists), and OCEANA. - Funding of Research Groups (Program Sea Around Us University of British Columbia led by Daniel Pauly; Lenfest forage fish Task Force with M. Philippe Cury as an advisor25, 26) - Creation of Research Centers [ex Pew Institute for Ocean Science] now part of Stony Brook University, New York. - Creation and broadcast of scientific communication programs (COMPASS and Lenfest Ocean Program) - Conservation research and project fellowships funding (174 PEW Marine Fellowship) - Lobbyist think tank based in Washington DC (Pew Research Center), the third largest in the US. - PEW Ocean Commission - Environmental NGO coalitions coordinated by Pew with its staff taking on Secretariat and Communication duties: Ocean 2012, Shark Alliance, Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, fishsubsidies.org. OCEAN 2012 has a transparency declaration on the European Parliament website stating « 0 euros funding» because it is an informal coalition, with no legal status27. However PEW has spent between 1.25 and 1.5 millions euros over the twelve months 07/2011 au 06/2012 28 on lobbying in Brussels. - In total, since 1996, the Blue Charity Business report identifies more than 190 millions de US$ funding from PEW on world oceans conservation questions. PEW strategic thinkers are not alone... Check again the Blue Charity Business report by Collectif Pêche et Développement. Foundations Packard, Moore, Walton, Waitt, Adessium, Marisla etc also contribute financially, often through cross-financing. At least 70 millions de US$ were spent on lobbying in Brussels in that year, in addition to the 1.5 millions d’euros. And 90 millions US$ (most likely under-estimated) were spent to fund research largely used for lobbying (« science-based lobbying »). Pew’s network puts direct pressure on all levels of the democratic machine of government: - direct lobby of elected representatives (cf. Pew Environmental Group Brussels office), - direct lobby of European Commission officers, - network of journalists through Seaweb and Communication Inc. company - appropriation of scientific activities for lobbying purposes - campaign to mobilize poll signatories, scientists via les Pew Marine Fellowship (174) and/or ENGOs brought together inside coalitions - Use of so-called local (national) ENGOs as fronts - One-sided opinion polls based on slanted questionnaire. BLOOM ASSOCIATION AND PEW Without entering into the debate on the issue of deep-sea fishing, it is interesting to examine closer financial support given to the Bloom association. Prior to the debate on deep seas by the European Parliament 29, the association launches another media campaign, this time on 13 February 2013, targeting public funding to the
25 http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/other-resources/pew-fellows-program-in-marine-conservation-newsletter-fall-2012-85899434585 26 http://www.oceanconservationscience.org/foragefish/task/cury.html 27 http://t.co/OlblmSH2 28 http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist.do?id=46834536998-79&isListLobbyistView=true 29 http://www.lemarin.fr/articles/detail/items/peche-profonde-bloom-degaine-avant-les-auditions-au-parlement.html
Scapêche fishing company30. The aim of the campaign is to demonstrate that the fishery is unprofitable and only maintained by public subsidies. The association has 5 members according to its European declaration of interest published recently31. Membership fees amount to 13 965 € in 2011, compared with 131 601 € from other sources of gifted funds, for a total budget of 186 601€. Bloom, in an offer of internship 15 January 2013 32, writes that it is a “deliberately small structure for more efficiency”. In an older internship offer from 27 April 2010 reference 29344 posted on the emploi-environnement blog33, it added “Bloom is an NGO supported by large international Foundations”. “- Structure délibérément petite pour plus d’efficacité, BLOOM est une ONG soutenue par de grosses fondations internationales.”
Who are these “large international foundations” funding Bloom who are not listed in its European transparency declaration? Support was visibly acknowledged at the “Abysses” (The Deep) exhibition34: prestigious supporters include the French National Museum of Natural History, as well as the TOTAL foundation and the MBARI foundation– Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. On its internet site, Bloom mentions that its passion for deep oceans was triggered by a visit of the
30 http://www.bloomassociation.org/fr/intermarche-sous-perfusion 31 http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist.do?id=824008510430-67 32 http://www.planetemploi.net/stage-action-educative-conservation-marine-bloom/ 33 http://www.emploi-environnement.com/fr/gestion_offre/visu_offre.php4?reference_offre=29344 34 http://www2.mnhn.fr/abysses/data/pdf/abysses_dp.pdf
Monterey Bay Aquarium35. The aquarium was created in 1984 par the Packard family, whose foundation [The David and Lucile Packard Foundation) is repeatedly identified in the Blue Charity Business report 36. Bloom is also an active member of three coalitions piloted by PEW37: Shark Alliance38, OCEAN 201239 and the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition40. By doing so, it benefits from the collective services financed by PEW, notably communication through its “Communication Inc.” agency already mentioned. Numerous press releases refer to Ms Patricia Roy of Communications Inc. in the UK (cf. media contacts)41. Finally, one can simply mention the 150.000 US$ PEW marine Fellowship granted to Ms Nouvian42 in 2012 to work on a “project aimed at bringing transparency to subsidies granted to the fisheries in France“. This is presented as a research project that aims “to analyse the ways by which [financial aid] contribute or not to a fair and sustainable management of marine resources.” Needs to be read in reference to Bloom of 13 February 2013. Ms Nouvian is currently a “personality associated” to the French “Conseil Economique, Social et Environnemental ».43 Some ENGOs claim to represent civil society. One may wonder if they are not representatives of interest groups. « BRUSSELS BUSINESS » INVESTIGATION EXPOSES POWERFUL BRUSSELS LOBBIES An investigative film has just been released about « Brussels Business ». It describes lobbying mechanics44. The film concentrates on lobbying by large corporations. But the mechanisms described are exactly those used by ENGOs with fisheries, for which they received at least 70 millions de US$.
This type of documentary evidence clearly shows a system that lacks transparency, not a conspiracy theory. It is partly to increase transparency that the main protagonist of the film, lobbyist himself Pascal Kerneis, contributed to its production. Let us simply remember that, today, it is very difficult to identify or trace the financial flows involved: - The declaration of transparency of Pew Environment Group is very succinct. - the coalition OCEAN 2012 does not show the actual size of the support of the foundations to the coalition. 35 http://www.bloomassociation.org/fr/claire_nouvian 36 http://www.mbari.org/about/ 37 http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist.do?id=46834536998-79&isListLobbyistView=true 38 http://www.sharkalliance.org/content.asp?did=37014 39 http://ocean2012.eu/members?search=&filter=France 40 http://www.savethehighseas.org/aboutus/members.cfm 41 http://www.bloomassociation.org/download/2012_Communique_BLOOM_28%20nov_VF.pdf 42 http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/press-releases/french-conservationist-claire-nouvian-awarded-2012-pew-fellowship-in-marine-conservation85899372248/fr-FR
43 http://www.atomes-crochus.org/breve65.html 44 http://brusselsbusiness.arte.tv/fr/film
WWF does not give details of its donors 45 while the Blue Charity Business report identified between 2007 and 2010 that Oak Foundation contributed U.S. $ 8 millions on programs specifically dedicated to the reform of the CFP, and Tubney Charitable Trust also funded GBÂŁ 520,000. Greenpeace claims its funding is based solely on donations from citizens 46, while the report identifies U.S. $ 1.8 million from Oak Foundation.
Friedrich Moser, one of the authors of the film says "the EU suffers from a democratic deficit" 47. In addition to this film, The Brussels Business, in collaboration with TV channel ARTE, has launched a direct democracy initiative48. It raises a question, puts it to the vote of citizens. A bias in this approach comes from presenting the views of two opposing lobbyists, which gives the impression that answering the question amounts to plebiscite one or the other lobbyist. However, it is an initiative to move towards more transparency and against the weight of the swing lobbies whatever side they take.
Brussels Business online survey, 14 February 2013
Finally, in other fields, some specialized writers on economics are concerned with the specific weight of American interests in the formulation of European public policies. In this article translated February 11, 2013, the British author Glyn Moody takes the example of the protection of computerized data 49: "Complicity between U.S. lobbyists and MEPs behind the citizensâ€™ back". These mechanisms are extremely similar to those identified in the Blue Charity Business report, as operated by Environmental NGOs. Complicity is a strong word we do not support here regarding the CFP reform lobbying. But influence appears to be strong when comparing initial ENGO propositions and resulting amendments.
45 http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist.do?id=1414929419-24 46 http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist.do?id=9832909575-41&isListLobbyistView=true 47 http://www.presseurop.eu/fr/content/blog/3395531-friedrich-moser-l-ue-souffre-d-un-deficit-democratique 48 http://brusselsbusiness.arte.tv/en/discovery#d-0 49 http://www.a-brest.net/article12413.html
WORRY OF MEDIA LYNCHING AND INTIMIDATION OF ELECTED PARLIAMENTARIANS? FISH FIGHT 2.0 The vote Wednesday 6 February 2013 in European Parliament plenary session is very informative. 502 "for" and 137 "against" the text voted in the PECH Committee, which is very close to the proposals put forward by ENGOs. Note the major difference between this and the vote of the Parliament's Fisheries Committee, which is composed of MEPs more familiar with fisheries issues: 13 "for" and 10 "against". But MEPs in this special committee have themselves been the subject of intense lobbying activities and media pressure via social networks, such as twitter, or email. These are the famous campaigns "tell your MEP" which include floods of pre-formatted messages on electronic messaging and twitter accounts. These campaigns have been widely reported in the press including The Guardian. Funding has even been specifically by the OAK Foundation to develop pressure on public opinion and MEPS, see the project DOMINO50. Having a closer look, more specifically on votes in plenary from British MEPs: 12 abstentions out of 67, for a total of 27 European abstentions. The only country where the number of abstentions was this high. What happened? It is impossible that so many MEPs did not have an opinion on the issue, given the magnitude of fisheries articles in the media and especially the British media, such as THE GUARDIAN. One answer seems plausible, fear of displeasing Environmental NGOs.
Voting Results "fishing" of 6 February 2013 at the European Parliament plenary Always in the United Kingdom, let's especially consider the media war machine set up by the chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall (HFW), the "father" of the Fish Fight 51, supported by almost all ENGOs among which the PEW-led OCEAN 2012. Enlightened people, mediated, freethinkers advocates, chefs in the UK have a media access via Channel 4. HFW has succeeded in attracting the attention of public opinion on discards by referring any fault to the European Union and the Common Fisheries Policy. Carefully avoiding questioning about the role of the British private quotas system called FQA, and specifically their leasing. All the while excessively demonizing any person who was thinking differently from him.
50 http://www.oakfnd.org/node/3131 51 http://www.fishfight.net/
Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall is a master in the use of media pressure. In France, Le Monde published an advertisement financed by Fight-Fish and Client Earth in June 10, 2012 presented below. The Blue Charity Business report presents all the technical media pressure implemented by Fish Fight. See p 38. Note also that given the media strength of Fish-Fight, he had secured the support of virtually the most of the British political class, and all organizations including fishery representatives. What is the new workhorse of Fish Fight: Marine Conservation Zones - MCZ. English ENGOs thanks to the funding of Tubney foundation largely participated, following a national process, to define of 127 new MCZ reference no fishing zones. The government has proposed not to accept all in the absence of sufficient scientific evidences52. With the support of fishing professional organizations concerned about the size of these zones and their dogmatic designation. HFW is now lobbying for the forced recognition of these areas, changing the scope of the Fish Fight campaign and claiming the support previously gained on the discards issue 53. The method is the same: Play on citizensâ€™ emotions thanks to images taken out of context and presented as scandalous. The angle of attack is now the "scandal" of shellfish dredges and trawls destroying the seabed. The issue of 14 February 2013 on Channel 4 has provoked many reactions ... from British fishermen. We'll see how this will change supports by the fisheries sector in HFW.
Fish Fight new look [2.0]. Slight snag, these areas also relate to traditional fishing areas of other European fishing fleet. But the designation of these areas is not a European mandate. Only national. It is worth noting that in the process of reform of the European fisheries policy, immediately after the vote of the European Parliament, comes the trilogue that will mainly be negotiated between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Already the British press puts pressure on the Minister of Fisheries Benyon: February 11, 2013, on the blog of The Guardian, George Monbiot wrote54: Will EU discard ban force the hand of our disastrous Fisheries Minister? This puts pressure on the MCZ question, and also on the future of the trilogue negotiations.
52 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmsctech/uc727-vi/uc72701.htm 53 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EvgWYoxB-m4 54 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/feb/11/eu-fishing-discards-ban-richard-benyon
Pressure on ministers will also certainly continue. Lob A full page published by lobbyists in Le Monde in June 2012 targeting the French Fisheries Minister.
Blue Charity Business reports: - The first report http://www.peche-dev.org/spip.php?article685 - Follow up http://www.peche-dev.org/spip.php?article691 - The seasâ€™ eco-conquerors : http://www.peche-dev.org/spip.php?article693
The Global Ocean Commission, with PEW in the background and Global Ocean Legacy, Fish Fight 2.0, Bloom Association and finally Brussels Busi...