Dear Sir,

We want the Government and Civil Service to understand our plight and listen to our concerns. Taking away 20 per cent of the areas that we can operate in, at a time when our earning capacity is at an all-time low and expenses are at an all-time high, tells us exactly what they think of us as an industry — one that is critical to our food supply.

They prefer to seek advice from foreigners: first Blue Halo with the Pew Foundation, now the Bermuda Ocean Prosperity Programme with the Waitt Institute and the Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences, an extension of the University of Arizona.

What is important to understand is that this is not the industry’s first go-round — a lot of damage was done in relation to trust and relationships during the Blue Halo attempt. This was compounded by the signing of the memorandum of understanding with BOPP without consulting our industry or indeed the boards responsible before doing so.

Why were we not consulted is the question. Our interpretation, considering how this was rolled out so quickly, could be based only on history and knowing our position that they did not want to give us a head start. Needless to say, these are gutter tactics — not a way to start a consultation!

They also seem to forget the outcome or conclusion of our previous go-round with Blue Halo when it was decided that there was no scientific basis or economic impact study done to justify the marine-protected areas. The same applies today.

They are charging ahead and ignoring some critical pieces.

There is no up-to-date data that justifies any of this as it relates to existing fish stocks — the draft marine spatial plan itself points this out!

There has been no economic analysis that will occur as it pertains to our industry should this move forward.

We are well aware of their motives, as they are clearly ignoring the above; 20 per cent will become 30 per cent and so on until the only place you will find a fisherman is in a heritage museum dedicated to what used to be.

None of this needs to be done pronto. What is the rush? Do your job first!

Stop illegal sales, enforce and prosecute. They are aware of the culprits, but choose to sit back and collect their guaranteed paycheque instead of dealing with the situation. It is easier to kick the can down the road.

Do your job. Get proper data, not the propaganda used so far. They have no idea what is being caught by unlicensed fishermen, so they have no way of knowing the impacts of bag limits, licences or indeed determining a sustainable level.

We have made this clear for 30 years; they hear but do not listen or act.

They say it is different this time — we have Blue Shield and Blue Bonds.

We say, “show us enforcement in action and how the Blue Bonds affect our industry”.

We say, “get proper data, do your job, then evaluate the ‘no-take’ areas”.

It would also assist to understand who is driving this BOPP process. We have had numerous meetings with Cabinet ministers, including the Premier, and I have to say there is some compassion and understanding on their side. However, when the powers that be in the Civil Service join the conversation, there is no question who wears the pants in this relationship.

It is within the minister’s power to designate different classifications of MPAs or indeed change or modify.

It’s up to him to exercise it!

Furthermore, the influencers and decision-makers seem to be exercising the precautionary principle, which basically states that decisions will be made on best-available scientific data, and if data is unavailable, they should err on the side of caution. This brings in the climate-change impetus and a host of other data that significantly compromises our ability to challenge, as the burden of proof falls on us to counter.

What is interesting with this is that in my role on the steering committee, I successfully argued against the precautionary principle as one of the goals that the science committee put forward, and it was modified to “best-available evidence”, based on the sustainability pillars of social, economic and environmental principles, which is more reflective of reality and better balance. I’m not sure how and when it crept back in there, but, equally, I’m not surprised.

No doubt, climate change is an issue that we need to plan for, but it is a very broad and complicated topic that needs to be planned and co-ordinated properly. It should not be used as a catch-all phrase when justification for other issues cannot be quantified or qualified, or as an excuse to say we are doing something good in the face of problems that are too big to be managed locally.

A prime example of this is an article on sea grass I recently read, which was written by or commented on by Sarah Manuel where she rightly points out climate change will have significant impacts on the future of our industry. However, what is not in the article is that this was identified as a potential problem in 2005. Now fast-forward to present day and we are playing catch-up. The most significant issue that caused this is no doubt the overgrazing by turtles. To a large extent, this could have been avoided by reopening our market to capture-and-sell. At Commercial Fisheries Council level, we argued it was the right thing to do, but to no avail. And here lies the disconnect: they err on the side of caution and we pay the price.

It is pretty clear that trust has been broken, but it does not have to remain that way. This constant bantering in which voices are getting louder should be the signal that change is required or at the very least allow us to breathe a bit without holding a hammer over our head. There are solutions, but it starts with listening and comprehending. You need to recognise, as it relates to our industry and others, that a failure to deliver and execute is the source of the problem. As politicians and ministers, you can have the best of intentions but they mean nothing if you cannot deliver. In my view, a review of the execution/delivery capabilities of the Civil Service is required to identify what the stumbling blocks are. We move like a tractor when we need to move like a Ferrari!

I realise that to some this could come across as contentious, but something is not right. I have witnessed it first-hand regarding enforcement. It’s no secret that if we were able to get some of these culprits successfully prosecuted, the occurrences would stop. Sounds simple and make sense; however, in my ten years on the CFC, we were unsuccessful in prosecuting anyone. Why? The main reason is the structure is very silo-based and the breakdowns or gridlock seem to occur when delivery requires multiple departments to execute — in the above case, the Department of Prosecutions.

There are many with good intentions, but over time you get worn down. The culture is not right and until that changes every government minister will struggle, no matter which party is in power.

DANNY FOX

Vice-president

Fisherman’s Association of Bermuda