---

Fishing and Logging Policies

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on introducing this debate. Current government policies, commercial pressures, population growth and urban development around the world are leading to disastrous degradation of vital natural areas, the loss of animals, plants and biodiversity generally, with serious consequences for the world climate and worse effects in particular regions. This is already damaging local economies, people’s livelihoods and their health. In other words, the world’s development is becoming less rather than more sustainable. I declare interests as president of the NGO ACOPS and as a professor at University College London. Articles in the scientific and popular press, and on the web, have emphasised all of the above points. Organisations such as the Natural History Museum, the BBC and CNN now report that only 10 per cent of the big ocean fish remain; that is just one statistic and one could make a whole speech of statistics. Sometimes who says things is equally important. Perhaps the most alarming statement that I have heard was made by David Balton, who should not be confused with Mr Bolton, America’s UN ambassador. Mr Balton is the ambassador for the US State Department with special responsibility for fisheries and oceans. Incidentally, I note that the new Secretary of State for the Foreign Office has a special adviser for climate change. Maybe we are moving to the US idea of having ambassadors for particular areas. I strongly commend that. Mr Balton remarked that some parts of the ocean are now biologically dead or dying. He drew attention to strips of the Gulf of Mexico—so it is happening in both developing and developed countries. Parts of east China and other coastlines are equally at risk, including the Mediterranean, the Black Sea and the African coast. The main causes are fertiliser nitrogen pollution down the rivers, which ends up along the coasts. That demonstrates that integrated sustainable solutions require the bringing together of agriculture, urban development, fisheries and energy policy. As we know, all governments find integrated policies very difficult. The solutions to this and other environmental problems require three parallel actions—scientific explanations, acceptance and solutions. First, it is essential that one should have scientific monitoring, the prediction of future trends and the scientific understanding of the complex interactions that I have mentioned. It is not tenable simply to argue that every acre of forest should be conserved. That would be an extreme application of the precautionary principle. Those areas can be developed to provide food, sugar and fuel. Only rational studies will enable countries to establish what the limits are and the most appropriate methods. An extreme precautionary approach by the developed world is not acceptable to the developing world. As the noble Lord, Lord Eden, pointed out, the dangers of excessive fishing are very serious. I ask the Minister whether the UK monitoring of oceans and fishing is adequate and expanding. At the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, experts from Defra reported that UK research tends to focus on new research topics and is downgrading its role in monitoring. Monitoring is essential if we are to make proper decisions about these critical issues. The second element of policy is that the existence of environmental problems needs to be accepted—by the Government, by non-governmental organisations, by society as a whole and by business. As other noble Lords have mentioned, that is critical. Perhaps the Minister would consider the role of schools. Links between institutions in different countries are helpful. A conference in Ghana was organised by ACOPS and that country’s Government in November, which discussed an interesting programme involving connections between schools in the UK and Ghana, talking about social and environmental issues. If such practices were more widespread, that would be very effective. We have discussed that in this House and perhaps there is some further news to report, which I would welcome. Clearly such attitudinal changes must start at the lowest level in all the countries of the world. Finally, the essential features of practical solutions are that they first have to be found, then promoted and funded. How is that to be done? Much of DfID’s current development policy, which has great merit, is carried out by funding national governments. As Ministers have explained, that has been effective in raising standards of education and health. But from what I have experienced, it is questionable whether the money given to finance ministries ever gets through to many of the environmental projects. Economists generally seem temperamentally opposed to demonstration projects. It is only through demonstration projects that people will learn, be stimulated and inspired. For example, Mr Sachs, who advised the United Nations on the millennium report, particularly emphasises his millennium villages around the world, where people learn about new methods of agriculture, in matters of fertilisation, planting trees, saving water, and so on. Those are the kinds of projects that are necessary. Now we have a chief scientist in DfID, perhaps he will be participating in those programmes. I know that DfID supports the Earth Resources Institute in New York. Maybe this will be one of the outcomes. This is essential, and I hope that we shall hear more about it. I commend the resolution to the House.