Rolfe, know your Zulu

February 12, 2009

Dear Sir,

I read with amusement today the comments of government appointed race agitator Rolfe Commissiong regarding his thoughts on the Governor's remarks and the specific reference to the Blood River Monument.

Rolfe's view was that such a reference was insensitive on the basis the monument commemorates a battle in which 10,000 Zulus were defeated by Dutch settlers and, in Rolfe's view, "effectively ended that (the Zulu) Nation".

Time for a fact check, Rolfe. At the Battle of Blood River, 10,000 Zulus attacked Dutch settlors numbering 470. This attack was repulsed and the Zulu army suffered 3,000 casualties. They were not, however "effectively ended as a nation".

If a result of the Battle of Blood River in 1838 was an end of the Zulu Nation, then perhaps Rolfe could explain how it is the case that, on January 22, 1879, Zulu impi numbering 20,000 fighting for King Cetshwayo, annihilated a British force under Lord Chelmsford at the foot of Isandlwana in Zululand. British casualties on the day were in excess of 1,300. For the modern British army to be defeated by an army armed only with assegais and cowhide shields at the height of the power and might of Victorian Britain was, and remains, an astonishing accomplishment. This victory is still celebrated today.

However, even after the battle for the royal kraal at Ulundi, the capital of Zululand in July the same year, when King Cetshwayo was captured by Chelmsford and the military might of the Zulu army was broken, the power and influence of the Zulu continued. They remain the single most dominant tribe in the region and, today, the president of the ANC is Jacob Zuma, a Zulu.

For someone who holds his African descent in such high regard I would have expected Rolfe to know more about it.

GREGORY W. BROWN

Isle of Man

Worthy coverage

February 12, 2009

Dear Sir,

The racial times we live in are of real interest to me. We are seeing a number of issues being played out this week and I fully approve.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Mr. Commissiong's February 9 "Monday Interview". A clear message and one I agree with wholeheartedly.

The openness of the dialogue between Mr. Commissiong and His Excellency the Governor, following the unveiling of the Sally Bassett monument was civil, refreshing and enjoyable to read. The comments by the Opposition Leader Mr. Swan were non-political. What a pleasure not to "hear" one upmanship. And last but certainly not least, the comments by Dr. Eva Hodgson were thought provoking. In my opinion, from a lady whose mission is so misrepresented by others and misunderstood.

Mr. Editor, thank you for these interviews and stories. They were pertinent and newsworthy.

RJ HILLEN

St. George's

Some long line facts

February 2, 2009

Dear Sir,

I refer to recent reports in respect of a proposal for the establishment of a facility to encourage, enhance and develop long line fishing in Bermuda and offer the following points for consideration.

1) Long line fishing has been almost universally condemned for its inefficient and destructive technique. Whether this is that the catch requires huge amounts of bait fish or the ravages of by-catch. The level of destruction is immense and affects not only large pelagic fish such as shark and marlin but also the substantial impact on certain species of sea birds, sea turtles, small whale species and dolphins. The threat to sea bird in our waters is real as we know that hundreds of thousands of shearwaters migrate past Bermuda on an annual basis. Supposed mitigation techniques have had mixed results. This is perfectly demonstrated by Bermuda's own pilot project. During this pilot several Loggerhead Turtles were released after having swallowed hooks – an almost certain death sentence. There was also significant by-catch of other species. It was erroneously reported at the time that there was no by-catch. This has since been contradicted in a recent article but no comment was made about the results of the tracking that was done on the released animals. Might be worth Government considering making the full report publicly available on a formal basis together with the tracking results.

2) In March 2006, the Hawaii long line swordfish fishing season was closed due to excessive loggerhead sea turtle by-catch after being open only a few months, despite using modified circle hooks which attempt to reduce by-catch (albeit that the ban has since been lifted). As is indicated in a report published in Marine Policy "Industrial long line fishing is a case example of a destructive fishing practice which the United Nations General Assembly, World Summit on Sustainable Development, Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report, and two consultative committees of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation in addition to about 900 scientists from 83 countries and 230 non-government organisations from 54 countries have recommended be banned."

3) It is proposed that "international quotas" be used to regulate Bermuda's catch. One wonders how such regulation can be used when there does not appear to be data available to Government on abundance of the target species in Bermuda waters or what "sustainable" take from such a population might be. Moreover, it appears from reported sources that such quotas (ICCAT for example) have been discredited. Additionally, there is significant movement to ban Blue Fin Tuna fishing altogether for several years to prevent stocks from crashing completely. Several major fishing nations (including the US and Spain) seem to be moving in this direction. It is also worth noting that in his book Act 111 in Patagonia William Conway notes – "Alas, a stabilised ocean fishery producing a constant harvest is an unrealistic dream – unless fishers and fishery managers agree to catches well below those believed to be maximum". William Conway is the Former President and Director of the Wildlife Conservation Society and former Director of the Bronx Zoo.

4) It seems fairly unlikely that such a facility will be profitable. Again as indicated in the Marine Policy report and in recent reports in the Economist few such fisheries survive without government subsidies. Indeed the proposed processing plant will be built with public funds and duty subsidies offered to users. It seems highly likely then the Bermuda – having underwritten the initial cost – will be faced with ongoing costs. If there was any real possibility that somebody thought that such a fishery was economically viable then one assumes that the private sector would already be investing. In addition to subsidies the ongoing cost of monitoring is significant. If one were to take the NOAA regulations applicable to the Hawaiian Islands long line fishery as an example it is obvious that a significant investment in oversight is required which would almost certainly make this an uneconomical project for the Bermuda government. In an environment of Government Revenue shortfalls it seems possible (as has been the case in other jurisdictions) that the oversight will be legally required but never funded thereby rendering the regulation useless. If there is a study that shows that the facility might be profitable then, given that the public purse will used to underwrite it, there is benefit in making such study available to the public. It was recently reported that the Government is not attempting to create an industry, but rather to service the potential interest of a few people. This, in and of itself, suggests that the processing plant has little or no chance of economic success.

5) If, as seems likely, that the facility will not be profitable then there will be pressure to make it so. If the proposed second facility is built this will only increase the pressure to do something about the costs. Since this is a potential scenario, Government might be tempted to seek more revenue from issuing more licenses to maximize the economic short term contribution. Thus, despite suggestions to the contrary we will indeed have established an industrial fishery. This appears to have been the case in the Falkland Islands with a devastating impact on the surrounding fish stocks as well as the once abundant other wild life that rely on the fish for food. As is indicated in a study by Dalhousie University, a significant number of industrialised fisheries reduce the biomass by 80 percent within 15 years. Thus irrespective of the likelihood that the fishery will not be profitable, it is also likely to be short lived.

6) It would also appear that the recommended consultation with interested parties has yet to be held. I quote "To this end, the Consultant fervently recommends full and frank discussion with the commercial operators to avoid any misgivings or misinterpretations…". This does not seem to have happened and yet planning permission is being sought for the support facilities. This appears to be "putting the cart before the horse".

7) Bermuda's long term economic success is inexorably linked to tourism. One of the pillars of this has to be a viable sports fishing industry. Bermuda enjoys a well deserved reputation as being a place to enjoy sports fishing as is demonstrated by the success in recent years of the International Game Fishing Tournament. Time and time again the world has demonstrated little restraint in industrialised fishing and therefore it would seem likely that the encouragement and enhancement of a long lining fishery will unnecessarily put our sports fishing industry at risk. The sports fishing industry already makes a contribution to our economy without any substantial Government financial support. One might argue the merits of fishing for sport, for marlin as an example, but it would seem to be the lesser of evils in terms of sustainable use of our oceans.

8) There is a significant body of evidence that marine protected areas are the only way to ensure long term viability of fishing. In this respect work of Callum Roberts of the University of York in the UK who recently visited Bermuda is one source of such evidence. Moreover, it is interesting to note that recently the IUCN designated the Sargasso Sea as one of ten "High Seas Gems" with a view to promoting the idea of encouraging conservation of such unique habitats. How interesting that Bermuda sits squarely within the Sargasso.

9) It would appear that Bermuda is at somewhat of a crossroad in respect of usage of our seas. One road pushes against the tide of public opinion and scientific recommendation. The other, though, offers Bermuda an opportunity to be a world leader. Imagine declaring our 200-mile EEZ as a marine protected area as the first step to joining with the IUCN and supporting the idea of the Sargasso Sea as a "High Seas Gem". We could still allow artisanal, recreational and sports fishing but what a progressive move that would be. Moreover this crossroads offers us an opportunity to go one step further and within our part of the High Seas Gem create marine reserves where there is no fishing at all. Again Callum Roberts in his book the "Unnatural History of the Sea" presents compelling evidence that such a move – that has already been taken in many places in the world – produces spectacular results. Were Bermuda to take these bold steps we would be putting ourselves on the world stage as a leader in conservation while at the same time ensuring the long term future viability of our fishing and tourism industries.

10) Finally, consider the fact that Bermuda has previously taken progressive steps in Marine conservation. The 1620 protection of Green Turtles may have been one of the Western Hemisphere's first conservation laws; Bermuda may have been the first place to protect all corals and banned the use of fish pots. The year of our 400th anniversary would seem to be an ideal time to once again take a leadership role in the world.

SCOTT IN A SHORT STREET

Southampton