What if we treated our oceans like they matter?
During my time as an oceans campaigner at Greenpeace, I’ve sat in a tiny boat in the middle of the Indian Ocean, watching a fishing boat pull in miles of drift nets. The nets were full of tuna, but there were also dead spinner dolphins, manta rays, thresher sharks and more – a grim demonstration of devastation at sea. I’ve been right up close with some of the biggest fishing vessels in the world, watching as they haul out incomprehensible numbers of fish.
But I’ve also sat in rooms with representatives from fishing communities, people who rely on fish for their food and livelihoods, who are struggling to scratch together a living and are looking ahead at a bleak future. There’s no simple solution to fix both.
Seeing the destruction of the natural world, both on land and at sea, has moved more and more people to become vegan. This is a hugely positive thing: the more people that turn to a plant based diet, the better it will be for the planet. But although it might be part of the puzzle, veganism isn’t the silver bullet for our oceans. A campaign that focuses only on veganism ignores the billions of people that depend on the oceans for survival. And without finding a lasting solution that looks after people and planet, our oceans don’t stand a chance. Greenpeace has joined with scientists, civil society and many governments around the world to propose that at least 30% of the world’s oceans are protected by 2030 and the remainder is managed sustainably and in the public interest. Finding this balance between the two is a route to restoring the health of our oceans that also builds solidarity with frontline communities and safeguards livelihoods and human dignity.
Across the world, the climate is changing and nature is under pressure. Perhaps nowhere is this felt more acutely than along the world’s coastlines. More than three billion people depend on the ocean for their primary source of food and for their livelihoods and many of these communities are finding the fish they have caught for generations are disappearing. We need an ambitious Global Ocean Treaty to help put at least 30% of the world’s oceans off limits to most human activity, creating oceans sanctuaries for fish and other ocean wildlife to recover and thrive. That would ensure the oceans recover, are more resilient to threats like climate change and that communities everywhere continue to live in harmony with them.
The other side to campaigning for ocean protection is standing up to the global industrial fishing industry, which remains one of the greatest threats to ocean health and to communities dependent on low impact, more sustainable fishing. Greenpeace has been campaigning against destructive fishing for decades and we’re not stopping now. In just the last few years we’ve taken on the world’s biggest tinned tuna company; we’ve dropped boulders to prevent harmful bottom trawling inside protected areas, and we’ve put our bodies in the way of unregulated fishing in the South-West Atlantic. We are an organisation of passionate and dedicated people willing to put themselves on the line for nature. Over the last decade we’ve also stood alongside local fishing communities in court cases supporting their right to fish over multinational companies and we’ve advocated on behalf of migrant fishers for better working conditions onboard the world’s distant water fishing vessels. A campaign for ocean protection has to have the rights of those who depend on the ocean at its centre.
There are many dietary lifestyles, including veganism, that offer a better way forward for protecting the planet. We are proud to work alongside our allies in animal rights organisations towards our common goal: ending the disastrous expansion of industrial meat and dairy, and reducing meat, dairy and fish consumption and production worldwide.
For years, Greenpeace has been telling our supporters that eating less fish and eating a more plant-based diet is key for ocean health. But campaigning for a blanket ban on fishing would undermine the rights of people worldwide who depend on the oceans for their food and livelihoods and who are in desperate need of allies prepared to speak up on their behalf. Many coastal communities live in harmony with nature, not taking more from the ocean than it can give. Many, especially in the Global South, are amongst the most vulnerable in the world, fighting multiple threats including climate change and overfishing – both catastrophes that have been largely caused by the privileged Global North. We need these communities’ collective power to help pressure governments to agree a strong Global Ocean Treaty – we see throughout history that change happens when we work together.
I know it’s not a simple solution and it’s definitely not easy – and I know from watching first-hand the wanton destruction of marine life, it’s a devastating situation. But it is the right thing to do. And if we get it right, it could mean I never have to watch another shark pulled out of the ocean by a factory ship, or to meet with another fishing community that’s seen their way of life destroyed by big business.
Will McCallum is head of oceans at Greenpeace UK.
Discussion
I'm happy
Killing sentient beings isn't sustainable sorry but you cant protect only 30% of the oceans and say screw the rest because people eat fish you should be advocating everyone to be vegan otherwise your missing the point
Why can't we go further than 30%?We care about our planet. We care a lot. So why only 30% ?
Thanks for your comment, it is clear you do care a lot! Currently, 30% is considered a minimum by the scientific community, as the level of protection in the seas today is 1%. Scientists tell us that we need full protection of at least 30% of the ocean to reverse existing adverse impacts, increase resilience to climate change, and sustain long-term ocean health.
If the rescue plan goes ahead, it’ll be one of the biggest conservation efforts in human history, creating millions of square kilometres of new protected areas. In the report 30x30: A Blueprint For Ocean Protection, we explore both 30% and 50% protection. Read more here > http://www.greenpeace.org/30x30blueprint
What is Greenpeace's current policy on food provided to personnel on their ships?
Hi, while it's not always easy especially with the pandemic, we try source as much plant-based, local, organic foods as possible.
This article is rubbish!
How can you suggest that plant-based isn't the solution?
I'm going to make a fairly accurate assumption that a big chunk of your funding comes from fishing companies.
Instead of saying poor small fisherman, find an alternative solution to the fishermen, that don't involve murder!
This is such a prehistoric mentality used in this article, you should be ashamed of yourselves for calling yourselves "Greenpeace".
When the car was invented, would you have written an article about poor horse carriage riders that depend on a horse and carriage? And offer that only 30% of the population ride cars while 70% continued to ride their horse and buggy to save that industry?
This is total rubbish, and you should be ashamed of yourselves for publishing such a terribly insensitive article.
Truly terrible!
We don’t take money from governments or companies. Never have. Never will. And we will continue to campaign for a Global Ocean Treaty that cares for people and planet, not business and profit. This means we are driven to protect and conserve the environment, and that there are many dietary lifestyles, including veganism, that offer a way forward in doing so.
Sam,
Why not direct your anger at the real protagonists, rather than at Greenpeace? It’s pretty clear that they are they are the good guys in this equation. Would you rather they do nothing?
And yes, radical change is necessary, but its not going to be possible to persuade the entire human population to go Vegan, or plant-based, overnight. Humans are natural omnivores and not all of us are going to give up all fish or meat willingly. It is more realistic to aim for a better balance. LESS fish rather than NO fish is achievable. 30% protection is a more realistic target than trying to ban all fishing.
It is difficult to contain frustration in the face of so much destruction. But don’t give in to extremism, because extremism is counter-productive. Wise opinions voiced calmly are better received than a rant. Evolution is always more effective than revolution.
Your careful description of damage done to local small-scale fishing, as well as catastrophic industrial fishing, is convincing. Also, your images demand a response. I hope that pressure on oligarchic governments helps.
So true! We can't save this place unless ALL are included in the solution🌄
People that rely on fishing for an income need to come to a change of heart. If they feel that they are part of the problem, they are more likely to switch to a sustainable way of making a living.
At any point livelihood is thrown into the mix, one is fishing more than necessary to put food on the table. Which in turn harms the ocean...how does one tackle the mindset that any of us NEED anything other than food, water, shelter and love to be at peace with ourselves and the planet? That's really the issue.
You cannot destroy the oceans sustainably, I don't care what you think you might know, there are better ways to serve the needs of these people, fishing must come to a FULL STOP PERIOD
Thanks for your thoughts. Respectfully, we believe a blanket ban on all fishing would undermine the rights of people worldwide who depend on the oceans for their food and livelihoods. Many coastal communities have lived in harmony with nature for centuries; not taking more from the ocean than it can give. It is essential we stand alongside them. Additionally, we have been campaigning for people to dramatically reduce their fish consumption, just as we campaign against the industrial food system that uses fish as feed for livestock and fertilizer, profiting from the destruction of nature.
Breaks my heart to see how destructive humans can be 💔
It sooo does mine, too. Especially harming/killing Precious Animals, and/or People seemingly, in many instances,
without heart, compassion, conscious. 😥💔
People surely know what it's like to feel pain, loss, do, WHY
Bollocks.... The best way to save fish is to stop killing them.
After years of giving a month worth of salary to Greenpeace in donations surprised at the spinelessness.
Maybe it's the i started giving to other organizations who have a spine.
Please ignore. This wasn't a reply to your comment.
Still does not disprove anything about Veganism... Do YOU rely on the Ocean as your primary source of food? My guess is everyone reading this that answer is no. So why don't YOU go Vegan? You can only be helping those people who rely on our oceans for food, and why we are on the topic let's talk about how much our global food supply would increase on a Vegan diet. I don't necessarily disagree with you but all this does is promote and reinforce bad behavior. All the fish you will ever consume will come from a giant polluting dolphin filled mess. So please cut it with the "This makes me feel GOOD about eating fish article". You are clearly referring to your own principles and if YOU want to help the Ocean why aren't YOU Vegan? Again your referring to people in the western world who CAN go Vegan so why are you against it?
I agree. Veganism is as far the best and only way to significantly reduce your impact :) GO VEGAN PEOPLE (or at least try).
Dramatically reducing seafood consumption in countries where that is possible is one of the most effective ways individuals can help protect the oceans. While recognizing that it is not the only answer to ocean protection, we do encourage people to go plant-based as the best way to ensure our food system is more just, healthy, and sustainable. While confronting the industrial food production system, we also want to work to promote systemic change that allows for more people to have access to a healthy diet that respects our planet.
So why publish an article saying it's "not the solution" if you support it?
That's a pretty negative headline with regards to veganism.
The title suggests veganism is simply not the only answer to the ocean protection movement. We did not say it was "not the solution" or take on a new negative stance. It is still our belief a plant based diet is the key to ocean health as well as just and sustainable food systems. When possible, we will always support and encourage people to go vegan. The ocean protection movement is not made up solely of those who have an easy choice to go vegan but also the rights of people worldwide who depend on the oceans for their food and livelihoods and it is essential we fight for ocean protection together.
If we can make plant based clothes, why can't we make nets? If we can listen to dolphins, why can't we reverse the devices and tell them it's not safe?
I have read the article and I understand the argument that small fishermen with low incomes may depend on fishing for their livelihood.
However I find the timing of this article and the headline bizarre. An impactful documentary this week was released to millions of people on Netflix saying by simply going vegan your negative impact on the ocean is reduced massively and this is the day greenoeace choose to release an article headlined "why turning vegan can't be the only answer". On a day when many people will have watched the documentary and researching the Internet looking to greenpeace for further information. This article seems highly counter productive and almost negligent of the responsibility of greenpeace to help the ocean environment.
Totally agree! Fish stocks, from whales to small fish, are down by over 90%. What are we waiting for?
Dweling around this subject its not just a waste of time, its criminal! We know who the culprits are and we have solutions.
I don't understand why this subject, land life included, is not the ONLY thing we talk about from the moment we wake up to the moment we go back to sleep.
I want to shout, scream, act and stop crying...
Thanks for your commentary. Greenpeace has been campaigning on destructive fishing for decades - one of our biggest campaigns of the past five years has seen activists take direct action against destructive fishing vessels and campaign for at least 30% of the world’s oceans to be put off limits to such extractive activities.
We released this blog because we want to contribute to the debate on the different ways to protect the oceans, and to make sure that the governments and corporations causing huge amounts of harm to our oceans aren’t allowed to get away with it by putting the blame on the actions of individuals. We need governments to act to protect the oceans, and that’s only going to happen if environmentalists and the coastal communities that depend on the oceans come together to stand up against industrial fishing.
It’s really great to see more people getting engaged with the issue of how fishing can harm our oceans - we hope that this awareness will lead to action, to ensure the protection of our oceans for generations to come.
I'm sorry but how is this headline productive to helping the oceans
It feels to me that this article has been published in direct response to the release of the documentary "seaspiracy". Green peace should have this week published a positive article about the effects of cutting fish from your diet instead we have this.
I am hugely disappointed at what could have been a great opportunity for greenpeace to ride on the wave of positivity from the documentary.
No one is promoting low income fishermen to be banned from fishing.
Seaspiracy - cut fish from your diet for biggest effect on oceanlife
Greenpeace - stop using plastic straws and keep eating fish from low income fishermen to sustain them.
It's as if you are funded by the fishing industry.
Sorry to hear you were disappointed. We think Seaspiracy raises important questions about the state of our oceans, and it’s got a lot of people asking questions about industrial fishing and what they can do to stop it. That’s absolutely incredible. We also believe part of ocean protection includes campaigning for the rights of local communities and small-scale fisherman who rely on the oceans to survive and will continue to stand alongside them. For the record, we don’t accept funding, donations or payments from companies or governments, including any fishing company anywhere in the world, which allows us to maintain our campaigning independence.
Thank you Will! So glad you are doing what you are doing, for all of us. Big hug, Bibi
Greenpeace. While I support your article in some way. I think you should change the title. Going vegan will save the ocean. Not necessarily the cultures who depend on fishing for income. Economic sustainability can be given to these nations in the form of true food security. Which is giving the food that would be fed to livestock and giving it back to the people. They are starving due to the displacement of water and plant food sources. Most of which are fed to livestock. So veganism can change the world. Change culture, change food distribution, etc... We can go vegan in the developed world and actually solve the problems in developing countries around infectious disease, war, poverty.(source of food and fresh water tied to these).
Thanks for your feedback, it's noted. We definitely agree and actively campaign that a plant-based diet is the best way to ensure food systems are healthy and sustainable while recognizing that there are many dietary lifestyles, including veganism, that offer a way forward in protecting the planet. We also believe that working to promote systemic change is what allows for more people to have access to a healthy diet that respects our planet. Thanks for sharing again, we appreciate hearing from readers!
Its vital we find a balance soon! For preservation of marine life for our furture generations. Keep pressing the issue Greenpeace !
Well, duh, ought implies can. But everyone not DEPENDENT on fishing (including the author of this article) has zero excuses. The fact that certain groups have no choice doesn't change the ethical obligation for other groups who DO have a choice.
This is, ironically, a total red herring.
Not implying otherwise. We know dramatically reducing seafood consumption where possible is one of the most effective ways individuals can help protect the oceans. We’ve said for years for those able to, eating less fish and having a plant-based diet is key to ocean health and we will continue fighting against an industrial food system that profits from the destruction of nature.
I need a really good picture of the mole wife plastic island to shoe people template ognorsmt about the plogjy ofnplastivs and other trash on the ocean
What a hypocritical article! Has anyone ever suggested that local communities who depend on fishing should stop eating fish and just starve to death?!
The point is that you writing this stupid article from your comfy office somewhere in a privileged country can make the choice and choose something from the hundreds and thousands of plant-based alternatives, instead of supporting factory farming/industrial fishing. Shame on you, "eco activists"!
Thanks for letting me know, I’m vegan for 6 years and I’m so happy because this is the best decision I make in my life.
Good article that makes perfect sense.
Fish are friends, not food. Humans don't have the right to take a life for food when there's more than enough plant based foods in the world to feed everyone.
Animals are part of the ecosystem, don't mess with the ecosystem if you want the planet to survive.
The earth is our home, always respect your home...
It makes absolutely no sense or maybe just explains that Greenpeace changed from NGO to Profit organization or worse bribary-based organization. If the "Head" in green oriented organization comments on disencouraging people go vegan that means they very well know it is wrong and they have other target than protecting natur, they became part of the problem hiding the truth, it is sad!!!
Its also the large amounts of microplastics making their way to the oceans, by humans throwing things made with plastic, or other harmful things including now our disposable billions of dangerous chemical and human germ cotten masks! Fish mistake these for food! Extra idea only. Thanks for all your decades of hard work. I am almost a vegan, but DO EAT FISH, not much salmon because they are dissapearing!
The best way to save fish is to stop killing them.
After a decade of giving a month worth of salary to Greenpeace in donations, I'm surprised at the spinelessness of the organization.
Here you won't speak about giving up fish.
I'm India they will not speak about giving up meat.
And when i talk to the person who calls me up every year to take me donation, he agrees that we should be giving up meat and fish to save the planet, but they don't really want to come up with any unpopular ideas even though it may be the right one.
Maybe it's the i started giving to other organizations who have a spine.
I have been a vegan for over 10 years now, and I contribute to Greenpeace monthly.
Keep up the good work.
We see a water emergency before us. Use of fish oil to save human pain, the reason for human pain. Again, deal with your own pain not at the expense of the most formidable reason to ruin. Go plant based.
Sustainable fishing is realistic, vegans. Just because you are vegan doesn’t mean you do t eg have 3 children, use fossil fuels, drive a petrol car or fly, she/he who is without sin, cast the first stone. I know many vegans who are complete hypocrites. For those who aren’t, I salute you, but you try telling an elderly German/Argentinian/American/Spaniard/Japanese person to go vegan. Meat is a major part of some nationalities gastronomic culture.
While I see the point that the author is trying to make make, it has to be said that the message of the article is NEGLIGENT. First, it's implying that we should continue destroying the oceans –just a little bit less– so the fishing industry doesn't collapse leaving many people without jobs. This argument is so disingenuous. As if the switch to a vegan world would happen overnight. Moreover, this idea ignores that there are already on the table many plans to help the animal industry to make the transition to the plant-based industry, so jobs don't disappear. We don't want people to lose their jobs, we want to switch to a plant-based world without leaving anyone behind. THIS is a balanced and effective solution that takes into account all positions, not this wishful-thinking plan of "protecting the 30% of our oceans". Second, if the author is suggesting that we should keep eating fish because there are communities that have nothing else to eat other than fish, this says how much the author is aware of the scale and the data of the animal industry. We are already producing enough food to feed the world! The problem is that we're giving most of it to the animals that we eat. The solution can't be distracting people from going vegan! The solution is to GO VEGAN, so if you really care about the oceans, the best thing you can do is to promote a global plant-based transition. So disappointing to see this from Greenpeace...
Thanks for the feedback and taking the time to share. To be clear, we are not advocating or attempting to imply simply less - or any - ocean destruction. From the beginning, protecting the oceans has been at the heart of what we do, full stop. But there can be no environmental justice without social justice. That’s why for us campaigning for ocean protection also includes campaigning for the rights of local communities and small-scale fisherman who rely on the oceans to survive. Where and when possible, we encourage less fish consumption and a plant-based diet as the best way to ensure a more just, healthy, and sustainable food system and ocean health. We will also continue to challenge industrial food production systems that destroy nature and oppress people, while maintaining a firm commitment to ensuring human dignity and access to a healthy diet.
Completely agree with this! I only gave up fish in Jan and I feel really embarrassed for not realising the extent of what I was doing . I’m glad I’m aware now but think greenpeace need a clear stance. Many people turn to this to find the facts about the environmental damage we cause. Plus if western fishing stopped it would allow small fishermen to actually fish who are actually losing their jobs due to depleted stocks so ironically the fears you have of people losing their jobs is how small local fishermen feel
I want to put even a grain of sand to help our planet, save our seas, rivers, lakes and everything.
But, those three BILLION people will quickly become four BILLION and then five BILLION and then,... There will never be enough sustainably caught fish (seafood) to feed those people even if the rest of the world eats a plant-based diet and 30% of the ocean is not fished for eternity. It's not a solution. People in those communities must be taught about a plant-based diet, about how to grow nutrient rich food, and there needs to be a GLOBAL shift away from all consumption of animal products. The pollution from animal (including fish farm) production is not sustainable. Greenpeace - you need to be a leader, not a follower.
Having watched seaspiracy it’s clear this isn’t enough! The film suggested the so called sustainable tuna brands you describe are not actually good at all and are taking the labels of sustainable whilst trashing the sea and killing wildlife. If fish stocks have depleted 95+ percent for tuna, halibut etc then a ban is the only thing to replenish. I appreciate your small fisherman in the global south depend on it but why not ask people in the global north to stop eating fish? I only gave up fish in January and was completely shocked by the recent seaspiracy documentary and feel if I’d have been more aware of how bad it was I would have stopped eating it earlier but I’d always been told eat less fish bought sustainably would be fine when it’s not.
I can't believe what I am reading here. Promoting veganism is not the answer?
Eat some fish to support people's livelihoods?
Even if you promote veganism not everybody follows and for every vegan there are many more pescetarians and omnivores. The oceans are collapsing. And its EXACTLY as with factory farming. People oppose activism against it saying "what about the farmer in Subsaharan Africa with a goat?"
What a joke! That s not even 1% of the problem. Neither factory farming nor industrial fishing see any actions from governments so changing demand by increasing veganism in both cases is the most vital tool at the moment.
I would also point out that being vegan in winter can be very negative for the planet.
Many vegan foods have to be transported long distances often by road, which is the most poluting form of transportation.
But on the whole I like your article I think it shows balance, too many people, just see one thing and think BAD without thinking through the consequences of their actions.
If you are to change the world you have to take people with you on the journey, otherwise you will achieve nothing. The person that wrote critisizing the article and calling it rubbish, obviously has a one track mind and thinks the world is a very simple place, but people who do not pay attention to the complexities achieve nothing, in fact they often send other people in the opposite direction.
We thought it was cruel to watch recently on tv an scared octopus caged as bait on an ocean bed with a shark trying to eat it.
The Amazon Forest should have been protected a long time ago.
if we stopped fishing all together the population of the different types of fish would get out of balance. But fishing just for sport of it is cruel throwing dying fish back into the sea for nothing. Its difficult subject this one.