His comments followed steps taken by British supermarkets to take North Sea cod off the shelf in response to campaigns by Greenpeace and others claiming that the species was facing 'extinction'.
The ferocity of Mr Deas' outburst may have surprised many in the fishing industry, not only in the UK, but also in the rest of Europe and further afield, but surely he expressed what many if not all thought in their hearts but were afraid to say.
It was surprising that Mr Deas not only directed his comments against the violent fringe like the so-called Lobster Liberation Front that damaged lobster pots in Scotland in March as a “first warning” and threatened to sabotage boats, but against Greenpeace, normally regarded as a main stream non-government organisation (NGO).
In short Greenpeace and others had a “disproportionate and negative influence” on the general public through their friends in the media using “flimsy evidence” and “simplistic distortions” of the science leading to an “irresponsible and unethical” approach to environmental matters. In fact, Mr Deas said that they were pursing a hidden, vegan, agenda of stopping people eating fish.
Praise for some
In contrast he praised cooperation with other main stream NGOs like Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), World Wide Fund for nature (WWF) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) in, for instance, the new Regional Advisory Councils (RAC) set up in the EU.
Far fetched? Perhaps not! In the Netherlands the environmental movement succeeded in completely closing the mechanical cockle fishery in the Wadden Zee, with only raking by hand allowed, while the shrimpers, often small family owned single vessels, fear that they are the next in line and try to save their fishery by applying for MSC certification as a sustainable fishery.
Also under threat is the importation from Ireland and Britain of live mussels and mussel seed to replace stocks in the Netherlands because they constitute a threat to eco systems. Maybe it is not question of a hidden vegan agenda, but a certain arrogance from self appointed people who as 'NGOs' know better than the general public and certainly better than the industry that cannot be trusted.
The term NGO has more or less become synonymous with something that stands for the 'common good', nearly of saintly quality equal to Mother Theresa, certainly in comparison with governments, politicians and multinational corporations, which are regarded as synonymous with corruption and repression.
Privatised policy making
This is certainly the way that the main stream media often treat NGOs – a body or a person that can, nay must, be believed rather than the politician or businessman. Or a choice between a hairy, rapacious and often unsophisticated fisherman and a cute, furry seal? No chance!
But the interesting and rather strange thing is that certainly western governments have, as it were, privatised many functions of policy making and policy implementing, leaving it to non-elected, co-opting bodies of 'stakeholders' like RACs in the EU rather than to elected politicians whom one can remove in elections.
But what does that modern buzzword 'stakeholder' really stand for? A person who makes a living from fishing or marine tourism like angling, or somebody who has merely an 'interest' in seabirds or seals, and should they have equal rights, asked Luc van Hoof, manager business development sustainable fisheries of the Dutch Institute for Fisheries Research (RIVO).
The question is bedevilling the industry answer as to how far they want or should work with NGOs or which ones.
Pierre-Georges Dachicourt, chairman of CNPMEM, France's National Fisheries Committee, warned that if the industry did not put its full weight behind RACs it would be taken over by 'green' NGOs, anglers and EU officials.
A new marine bill in the UK would enshrine the ill defined 'stakeholder principle in statutory law and as such establish “a heaven sent opportunity” for environmentalists to take control of the sea, warned Scottish White Fish Producers' Association (SWFPA) secretary George MacRae. His colleague Jim Portus, of South West Fish Producers Organisation (SWFPO), expressed similar sentiments.
Accountability
What further frustrates the industry is the question of accountability by many NGOs that all have charity status and in fact often have no members but subscribers, and therefore other rules of accountability apply.
By comparison all the above-mentioned industry organisations are as open and democratic as any membership organisation like a trade union or residents association. Maybe not a perfect democracy, but at least more accountable than NGOs like Greenpeace that has admittedly no internal democracy but is run by boards of management.
A Greenpeace spokesperson made no apologies saying that there was no such thing as 'the industry' as they were big corporations and small artisanal fishermen and that as such it could not speak with one voice. By putting pressure on the supermarket through consumer campaigns fishermen had to change their ways, she said.
No chance of reaching a mutual understanding? Outspoken Irish industry leader Lorcan Ni Cinneide of the Irish Fish Producers Organisation (IFPO) said that while he would not go as far as 'eco-fascists' there were “clearly some lunatics” among NGOs as much as there were among fishermen. But he was still hopeful that the industry could and should work together with the more reasonable and responsible NGOs.
