Monaco-Ville, also known as Le Rocher (the Rock), is a tiny little town tucked inside the tiny little pleasure garden that is the sovereign nation of Monaco.  Comprising about one tenth of the total area of the Riviera’s pocket Principality, this little hamlet is home to just over a thousand souls – many of them extremely rich. One resident in particular has achieved an astonishing degree of fame and fortune, merely by being the son of his equally diamond-encrusted parents: His Serene Highness Albert Grimaldi II, the Sovereign Prince of Monaco.

Albert Grimaldi’s home, the Prince’s Palace of Monaco, is a mansion of celestial stature that adorns the highest point in Monaco-Ville like a diamond tiara atop a prom queen.  It is a place of both breathtaking beauty and incalculable real estate value.  Still, despite his lavish digs and lofty title, Prince Albert and his Robin Leach-baiting lifestyle would not normally interest me (well, at least not for the purposes of this blog, but… I mean, come on, Grace Kelly was the guy’s mom.  How can my curiosity not be at least a little piqued?)  However, Prince Albert is not your everyday European kazillionaire blueblood head-of-state celebrity jet-setter.

Turns out he’s a European kazillionaire blueblood head-of-state celebrity jet-setter environmentalist.

Prince Albert is no slouch when it comes to saving the planet.  He has worked diligently to dismantle the Monaco Zoo, repatriate the animals into the wild, and transform the facility into a children’s park (although he does keep two nerpa seal pups which were presented to him by the Russian governor of Irkutsk).  He served as the patron of the Year of the Dolphin, a title given to the year 2007 (and later extened to 2008) by the United Nations.  He even took a trip to visit 26 different bases and research facilities in Antarctica to learn about the effects of climate change on the ice-clad continent.  Still, this was all just a prologue to what the Prince did about a month ago.

In June of 2009, Prince Albert co-authored a letter to the Wall Street Journal with Charles Clover, the author of The End of the Line. In the letter, the Prince openly decried the annual embarrassment that is the European Union bluefin quota.  He also acknowledged that the species is indeed endangered and that it merits legal protection rather than the unchecked over-exploitation it is suffering at present.

He concluded his regal communiqué with a masterstroke – a formal announcement that Monaco will propose to have Mediterranean bluefin listed as an endangered species under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

The challenge has been that most people are unaware of how amazing this animal really is.  Most people have never seen a bluefin tuna, as these majestic creatures spend their lives swimming in the deep blue currents of the Atlantic ocean.  Most don’t know that if you let a bluefin tuna reach full maturity, they can weigh over 1000 pounds and exceed 10 feet in length.  The actual percentage of the global population that has ever seen a living bluefin tuna up close is too small to calculate.

As such, the country of Monaco, with its population of just over 30,000, is little more than a village on the international stage, but has nevertheless set a tremendous precedent here.  Under the guidance of its monarch, Monaco stepped up and took a stand against a barbaric and unconscionable practice that is occurring just a scant few miles from its glitterati-strewn shores.  A nation that is only rarely awarded delineation on a schoolbook map had taken a position at odds with those historically espoused by its comparatively gargantuan neighbors, its most important trade partners, and nearly every other country in the world.

A month later, the world was able to see Monaco as the leader it truly is.

On July 16th, 2009, le President lui-meme, M. Nicholas Sarkozy, announced that France, too, would be seeking to list Mediterranean bluefin under CITES.  This was a tremendous blow to the bluefin industry; while Monaco is neither an EU member nor a powerful enough state to pose a threat at the Convention meetings, France is both.  To compound the impact, later in the same day – a day which could be called “Thunnus Thursday” – a similar proclamation rang out in the streets of London.  Huw Irranca-Davies, Minister of Fisheries for the United Kingdom, declared that the UK would join France and Monaco in support of this noble goal.

While it is too early to predict the full ramifications of these events, it is extremely likely that the next CITES Conference – currently scheduled to be held in Qatar in March 2010 – will be quite a pyrotechnic show.  Countries like Japan and Spain have invested tremendous amounts of money in the Mediterranean bluefin fishery, and are predicted to vociferously oppose the listing.

So what can we do as individuals to support the actions of Monaco, France, and the UK?  How can we make our voices heard above the din of the political machine that is propelling the bluefin towards utter extinction?

Action:  Sign this on-line petition to support the USA joining France, UK and Monaco.

Action:  Greenpeace for a rundown of which seafood retailers are responsible.

Action:  Practice catch and release if you fish recreationally.

Action:  Get involved, sign up and voice your concern.

Action: Check out the Tag A Giant Foundation, where you can learn about the work that’s been done by some of the world’s foremost marine scientists.  The members of this crew have dedicated their lives to bluefin research and borderline fanatical in their devotion to the animal.  A good group.

If we are to save these gentle giants, the time is now.  Monaco, France and the UK are giving the bluefin a chance, and it is up to the rest of the world to continue the momentum.  We have the power to save the mighty bluefin, but only if our voices unite to demand it.

As for Prince Albert, none of this would have happened without his insight, his courage, and the small but undeniable voice of his Lilliputian homeland.  Sometimes it really does take a village to change the world (thanks, Hillary.)

This article was co-authored by John LoGioco and Casson Trenor.

When Greenpeace's retailer analysis Carting Away the Oceans was first released in June 2008, twenty of the largest retailers in North America found their general seafood practices exposed to public scrutiny for the first time.  The original purpose of this project was to inform retailers of the impacts their seafood sales are having on marine life.  We also sought to use public awareness, shifting demand trends, and objective science to reward retailers that were willing to incorporate the principles of sustainable business into their seafood operations.

As we look back at the first year of Carting Away the Oceans, we can see a pronounced schism among the retailers that were targeted by this report.  While half of the stores have demonstrated at least some degree of progress, there remain ten retailers which have made no visible effort whatsoever to increase the sustainability of their seafood operations.  These industry laggards continue to wreak havoc on our environment, with no apparent regard for the health of our ecosystems or the values of their customers.

At this point, Greenpeace has little choice but to call out these gross offenders for who they are, and to strongly urge all consumers to avoid buying seafood from the following retailers:  A&P, Aldi, Costco, H. E. B., Meijer, Price Chopper, Publix, Supervalu, Trader Joe’s, and Winn-Dixie.

These companies have demonstrated a willful disregard for our oceans and for the growing demand among US consumers for sustainable fish and honest fish merchants.  In spite of good faith attempts of Greenpeace and other environmental and consumer groups, these retailers have failed to address the serious environmental issues which have been brought to their attention and have failed to respond to the urgency of the situation at hand. 

By contrast, Greenpeace is delighted to announce that several of the companies contained within this report have not only shown great improvement, but continue to move toward being the first large-scale “green” seafood retailer in the United States.  Interestingly, each store has found avenues within its unique business model to move towards a more sustainable way of sourcing and selling seafood.  Examples of this kind of innovation are evident in the actions of retailers like Wegmans, Whole Foods, and Target, each of which has made great strides in various areas.  While Whole Foods has increased its level of cooperation and initiative participation, Wegmans has developed a strong sustainable seafood policy, and Target has worked diligently to eliminate many unsustainable items from its inventory.

As Carting Away the Oceans moves forward, it is Greenpeace’s goal to continue to promote and reward progress among these seafood retailers.  Additionally, as we enter our second year of this work, it has become clear that some retailers simply do not respond to invitations to cooperate and positive reinforcement alone.  As has recently been made public in local and national media, Greenpeace is now engaged in a campaign directed at one of the most obstinate and egregious offenders: Trader Joe’s.

Scoring a measly one point out of ten and placing 17th out of 20 companies, Trader Joe’s is the worst national retailer appraised under Carting Away the Oceans (the three chains which somehow managed to perform even more poorly -- Meijer, HEB, and Price Chopper -- are all regional.)  In spite of an 18-month period of attempted cooperative engagement by Greenpeace, Trader Joe’s continues to operate with sickening disregard for the sanctity of our oceans.  Specifically:

•    Trader Joe's has no sustainable seafood policy and has yet to indicate that they have any interest in developing one.  This is in stark comparison to all the other national supermarket chains that recognize they have a responsibility to seafood sustainability.  Even conventional grocers like Safeway are miles beyond Trader Joe’s in this area.

•    Trader Joe's does not participate in any seafood sustainability initiatives whatsoever. Unlike many leading retailers, Trader Joe's does not partner with any scientific or environmental groups and doesn’t even bother to participate in sustainability initiatives led by industry groups, like the Food Marketing Institute.  In fact, Trader Joe’s is the only major nationwide seafood retailer that is not involved with seafood sustainability efforts in any way.

•    Trader Joe's does not label its seafood sufficiently.  This ensures that customers do not have adequate information to make educated decisions regarding their fish purchases.  Stating market names and farmed/wild is not enough – consumers deserve to know how their fish was caught or farmed so they can shop in an informed manner and not unwittingly contribute to ocean degradation.

•    Trader Joe's sells endangered red-list fish.  There are sustainable seafood items sold by Trader Joe’s as well, but only very educated seafood consumers are able to tell the difference.  Trader Joe’s needs to remove orange roughy, Chilean sea bass, and other items from their freezer so all of their customers can shop with confidence.

Trader Joe’s corporate leadership must realize that there is no future to these irresponsible business practices.  Until the company arrests their breakneck progress towards a future of empty nets and empty oceans, Greenpeace will continue to communicate our concerns directly to Trader Joe’s and to their customers in all ways possible.  Everything from public demonstrations and slapstick humor to online activism and singing telegrams will be used in this last-ditch effort to protect our planet.

Every day, our oceans suffer under the relentlessly growing demand for seafood.  Major retailers must begin to embrace environmental stewardship and sustainable business practices – not simply to safeguard the oceans, but also to ensure that they still have fish to sell in the coming decades.  And increasingly, retailers who have not adequately dealt with seafood sustainability will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage as consumers seek out retailers that share their concern about the fate of the oceans.

Still, after the last fish has been eaten and the sea has taken its last breath, it’s hardly the economics that will be weighing so heavily on our hearts.

On Friday the 19th, I was invited to participate in a short Q&A session directly following the release of The End of the Line, a new documentary about the state of our oceans, at a movie theater in the East Village.

Even though Greenpeace has been engaging in rigorous cross-promotional efforts with the producers of this film, including campaigning against Nobu restaurant and taking to the water to expose the repugnant activities of bluefin tuna pirates, this was the first time I actually saw the movie in its entirety… and I’m now more convinced than ever that it merits our unconditional support.

The End of the Line is a masterful work that details one man’s crusade to save our world’s oceans.  The author and subject of the documentary, Charles Clover, found his love of the ocean as many of us do: at the end of a line.

While fishing in Wales, Clover snagged a very lonely salmon – a salmon that turned out to be the last one ever caught in that river.  Overfishing, rampant development, pollution, and habitat loss have combined forces to annihilate a population that once made annual pilgrimages to the Welsh highlands.

After witnessing the melancholy fade-out of this salmon run, Clover began to ask that simple question that so many of us are struggling so mightily to ignore:  Why are our fish disappearing?  His quest to find an answer became an odyssey that took him from Senegal to Tokyo and a thousand points in between.

The movie is replete with dazzling imagery; shots of Almadraba, a traditional bluefin tuna hunt undertaken by Spanish fishermen in the Strait of Gibraltar capture the true vitality and power of this regal animal.  During the sequence, I overheard a woman in front of me convey her astonishment over the bluefin’s massive size to her companion in hushed expletives.

The irony is that the bluefin pictured in The End of the Line aren’t large at all… maybe 150 pounds. Just a short decade or two ago, there still were bluefin swimming about that had reached sizes closer to their true potential – upwards of 600 pounds.  That's three or four times larger than the "massive" fish in the movie.

Our baselines have shifted.  Aside from the wrinkled old seadogs that haunt the docks of towns like Gloucester, MA, no one remembers a truly gargantuan bluefin.  No one remembers that there used to be alligators in Chesapeake Bay.  No one remembers the true nature of a healthy ocean.

A number of aging fishermen appear throughout the film, underscoring this issue by weaving an old salts’s lament into the story.  With their greybeard perspective and sun-stroked skin, these old men of the sea decry the waste and rapacity of the modern fishing industry, citing our rampant overfishing as a glaring example of today’s generation cutting its own throat in search of a quick dollar.

Near the conclusion of the film, an unnamed woman sums up the problem when she smiles into the camera and candidly delivers the line, “I like to eat fish.  To me, fish are food.”

Those who have read some of my previous articles and blog entries on this subject know that I do not necessarily dispute this statement.  I don’t have a problem with the concept of a human being feeding on a fish.  The problem arises with the strange assumption that once an animal is relegated to the status of “food,” it no longer merits any kind of respectful treatment.  It does not deserve to be treated as a living thing; rather, it exists for the lone purpose of one day graduating to the status of fish finger, salmon burger, or 2-piece nigiri plate.

Speaking to this issue (albeit somewhat indirectly) is Dr. Daniel Pauly, a UBC professor who is prominently featured throughout the movie.  Pauly is one of the most well-known fisheries scientists in the world.  He speaks at conferences and symposia in cities across the globe.  The particularities of his theories are often disputed within academia, but no one would deny the man’s brilliance and devotion to the planet.

At one point during the film, Pauly offers a frighteningly simple answer to Clover’s overarching question about the fate of the world’s fish.  When Clover asks, "Where are the fish going?, Pauly responds, “We are eating them!”

Fish may be food to some, but that does not mean that they are not still fish first and foremost, living organisms with which humans have a delicate and complex relationship.  This relationship is being abused to a terrifying extreme.  Factory trawlers, dynamite fishers, bluefin tuna pirates, absurdly greedy corporations (et tu, Mitsubishi?) and corrupt politicians have stretched the ability of our oceans to nurture healthy fish populations to the breaking point.

I beseech all those who read this message to make a point of seeing The End of the Line as soon as possible.  It depicts the reality of the state of our oceans better than this blog ever could.

 

Anyone who has listened to the radio, watched television, read a newspaper, surfed the internet, or chased after celebrity gossip in the past couple of weeks has likely heard about something about a particular sushi chain getting called out for a history of nefarious behavior.

The chain in question is Nobu, the fantastically successful joint venture of reknowned chef Nobu Matsuhisa, the Raging Bull himself Robert De Niro, and three other partners. Nobu is a sushi titan, with twenty-four locations in various chic neighboorhoods throughout many of the world's most glamourous cities, not to mention a menu replete with dozens of price tags that would make the average recession-choked American both green with envy and red with rage.

Nobu is under siege from all sides for its continual disregard for the health of our planet.  The high-end chain sells a tremendous amount of bluefin tuna, much of which is critically endangered Northern bluefin (Thunnus thynnus) from the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea.  Despite repeated warnings about the looming commercial extinction of this majestic fish from a vast international amalgamation of scientists, actors, conservation organizations, foodies, activists, bloggers, aquaria, filmmakers, politicians, and even a European Prince, Nobu resolutely presses forward, offering no comment and refusing to alter its menu in the slightest.  The restaurant's response is akin to a tantrum-throwing child clapping his hands over his ears while stomping his feet, or perhaps to a yoked horse charging towards a cliff regardless of its own life or the lives of those in the stagecoach attached to it.  Nobu's arrogant denial of the reality of our mutual challenge -- the continual decline of the health of our oceans -- is a serious problem.

But this is not about just one restaurant.  Nobu is a symbol; it represents the old guard of restauranteurs whose lofty perches often distance them from the plebian masses.  Moreover, Nobu is a rallying point -- as an endangered species-slinging, celebrity-owned, stratospherically-priced haunt for the upper crust, it's a perfect target for those who are itching for a greater level of corporate responsibility within the restaurant industry.

Nobu and Greenpeace have a history.  Greenpeace has already “outed” Nobu on their unsustainable practices (this interaction is featured in the forthcoming documentary The End of the Line, based on the excellent book by Charles Clover).  Nobu promised to label bluefin as an endangered species on all of their menus, but subsequently changed tactics and cut off communications.  The one menu that reflects any change whatsoever is at the London branch, which uses a microscopic footnote to indicate that bluefin is "environmentally challenged."

This thunderous understatement aside, Nobu has done absolutely nothing to protect that very fish which has so heavily contributed to the jingling pockets of the restaurant's owners.  Our oceans cannot endure this situation any longer. 

I view direct confrontation as an avenue of last resort, only to be used when all other tactics have been exhausted.  In this case, Nobu has been stonewalling environmental entreaty for over a year while the chain contiunues to plunder the ocean for its own insatiable greed.  To expose and spotlight this edacious behaviour, John Hocevar, Greenpeace's Oceans Campaign Director, developed a mock Nobu menu -- a Swiftian satirization of Nobu's reckless quest for profit at all costs.  What is the difference, the menu suggests, between Northern bluefin and mountain gorilla, Iberian lynx, or California condor?  All of these animals are critically endangered.  Why is it acceptable to serve the former, when the presence of any of the latter three on a restaurant menu would no doubt solicit a restaurant critic's verbal equivilant of a molotov cocktail through the front window?

Over the past week, Greenpeace activists in both New York and Los Angeles have staged "dine-ins" at Nobu's TriBeCa and West Hollywood locations, festooning the restaurant with mock menus, taking up table space, and demanding to speak to the manager about Nobu's egregious disregard for our planet's welfare.

The actions were conducted in a precise manner that was aimed at sending a message to upper management without undue disruption of other restaurant patrons.  Nobu servers were generously tipped by Greenpeace activists; ownership's head-in-the-sand mentality does not justify behavior that would send the waitresses and waiters, who have no decision-making power but who do have families and livelihoods, home without the tips on which they depend.  We are, after all, in a recession.

The point of all this is to take the issue to Nobu on the restaurant's home turf.  In addition to being lambasted in the press, demonized in a documentary, and boycotted by celebrities, Nobu now must contend with activists that march directly into the restaurant to speak their minds.

Nobu is a trend-setting establishment that not only spans the globe, but wields incredible influence at the top of the sushi industry food chain. The innovative akumen and staggering talent of Nobu Matsuhisa are undeniable; he is undoubtedly capable of creating delectable dishes from both sustainable and unsustainable sources alike. Why, then, is he so resistant to use these gifts in an environmentally friendly manner?

Still, viewing this issue as "environmentalists v Nobu" is missing the point. Both groups want the same outcome: a healthy and productive ocean that can provide all the ecosystem services to foster sustainable business and healthy living. If Nobu were to drop bluefin and adopt a sustainable business model, it would be in the interest of the environmental community to promote the restaurant and encourage consumers to patronize it, rather than the unfortunate current situation.

Nobu needs to change their practices and begin to demonstrate corporate responsibility. Although environmentally rapacious and irresponsible businesses no longer have a place in this changing world, it is in everyone's interest that sustainable and wisely managed establishments thrive and succeed.