DocMartin

From Brian Darvell:

two more emails from Brian Darvell:

Disney green only in the US? We are deeply disappointed by Disney’s ill-advised decision to keep shark’s fin on its menu ("Disney seeks WWF’s green light for shark’s fin suppliers", June 8, and "Shark fin at Disney will come with a sermon", June 10). Disney has lost an excellent opportunity to take the lead as a proponent of sustainable consumption, the only solution available to mankind to preserve valuable marine resources.

In a teleconference with World Wide Fund for Nature Hong Kong and WWF USA last week, Disney USA agreed not to serve shark’s fin, either on the general menu or by request, until such time as WWF and Disney are able to identify a certified sustainable source. We were in the process of drafting a joint press release to reflect these discussions. The announcement by Disney Hong Kong comes as a surprise. Is Disney in control of its subsidiary? Disney does not say how its "responsible and reliable" source of supply will be monitored to avoid sharks slaughtered through finning and uncontrolled fishing practices.

We have to wonder which criterion is more important: responsible or reliable? In the context of Disney’s commitment to youth and its public pronouncements of concern for the environment, easily accessible from its website, this decision smacks of the grossest hypocrisy.

Does Disney’s environmentalism apply only in America? Outside America, do "different cultures" make environmentally unsound practices acceptable? For Disney to offer leaflets to those ordering shark’s fin, explaining "environmental concerns", can be compared to a pharmacy offering rhino horn tablets and saying: "We would like to point out that rhino are endangered, but the choice is yours". We strongly urge Disney to reconsider this abhorrent decision.

E. A. BOHM, CEO, WWF Hong Kong

I think Mr Bohm is upset, don’t you? So much for trust. This certainly confirms the impression that the HK appendage of Disney has a mind of its own and lacks the Enviromentality bump.

Of course, we should be reassured by Esther Wong, who said that selling the fins wasn’t a business issue, as if anyone could believe that! Disney not do something for profit with Mr Eisner at the helm? Maybe I have a solution… Matthew 5:30 advises: "And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." Nurse, no anaesthetic …

Collusion There is a dreadful rumour today that Green Power, who have been called quite a few names elsewhere for "assisting" Disney with their explanatory leaflet, have received one million HK dollars in return. This conflicts with an earlier statement. I hope to be able to report a definitive denial very soon. One can imagine the temptation, but it’s that word again. [see below]

Cultural Card

Various reasons why playing the cultural card is morally depauperate have been advanced, but there is a precedent to contradict the claim that it is necessary: ivory. When this was banned, except for local sale of existing stocks, with no export, more or less overnight a huge traditional industry was destroyed. Ivory has long had images of prestige associated with it, and certainly has been part of Chinese culture for a long time – many classical images exist. However, our fearless government (then!), in the face of international pressure, shut it all down. This was managed through various measures, including retraining of the craftsmen, and alternative materials. This was a remarkable, laudable precedent. They had no difficulty then in coping with the defence of people’s livelihood by making alternative arrangements.

Now, Esther Wong and Rita Chan, explain to me again why it is essential to promote shark fin soup and environmental destruction? Costa Rican Corruption In principle, some have it right, but are thwarted by higher powers

Just look at the range of the ocean that is being destroyed and weep. Disney, HKTB, HKSAR government – your complicity is culpable. The OED2 has complicity 1. The being an accomplice; partnership in an evil action. I can say no more. Cassandra There have been claims from the trade that there is no problem, despite the evidence. Can we dare to hope that we are not going to suffer here in the same was as is described so well in this: http://www.seashepherd.org

Communication Breakdown

Naively, one would imagine government officers to have a duty of care.

Yet Dr Wong Fook Yee , Assistant Director of AFCD, has made it very plain to a correspondent that e-mails that are longer than a page would not be read on the grounds that only bullet points should be given, and then only four of them, as people only spend 4 seconds reading an e-mail. Now, if this is the fate of all of our careful attempts to explain, it is no wonder the world is in a dire state.

I am sorry, Dr Wong, but life is more complicated than that. If we need to explain the self-evident to those who will not see, it necessarily takes more space than that. If we take the trouble, do you not think we are owed the courtesy of a reading? But then, you haven’t got this far, have you? Coverage A few more hits: http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Metro/GF13Ak08.html http://www.mickeynews.com/News/DisplayPressRelease.asp_Q_id_E_6125Friendly which is remarkable because now a political party has joined in. http://www.mickeynews.com/News/DisplayPressRelease.asp_Q_id_E_695Shark confirms that Disney takes this seriously. Right. A succinct summary of the present position: http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Front_Page/GF13Aa01.html BWD

Yet, this same morning the following was sent to a correspondent: "No, Green Power is not responsible for or has not [been] invited to design the leaflet." – L.K. Cheng This followed: "Green Power has not received and will not receive any money from Disney for the production of leaflet. We give them the information of conservation of sharks and shark fins for free. We will not [be] involve[d] in the following production of leaflet." – L.K. Cheng

The confusion is worrying. I have now received clarification as follows: "Yes, we are against the serving of the shark fin soup under any conditions whatsoever at Disney. The issuing of the leaflet is not our focus because our goal is to stop Disney providing shark fins in their service. This is the main point. The information we gave [was] also aiming at this goal. We are not prepared to compromise on this goal. We are against the serving of shark fin soup, whatever issuing of the leaflet or not, or whatever it says.

Our position was clearly stated in South China Morning Post and other international news agency in these few days. That is why I cannot understand the rumour." – CHENG Luk-ki Division Head, Scientific Research and Conservation Green Power This seems clear enough. Remember: "Disney will work with the Hong Kong environmental group Green Power to produce leaflets about the topic, said spokeswoman Irene Chan."

In addition to the media errors, this seems to be another misrepresentation by the fully-autonomous HK element of the Disney organism. Not only do they rat on WWF HK, they attempt to subvert Green Power’s advice in an attempted "divide and conquer" manoeuvre. How despicable can you get? Ms. Chan, do us and Disney a favour – resign, and take Esther Wong with you. Campaign Intensification The calls for action are getting louder: http://www.seashepherd.org More background: http://www.seashepherd.org

Dr Wong Fook Yee, Assistant Director of AFCD, has written to apologize for a misunderstanding. His "4 bullets in 4 seconds" remarks in the last Update came from theory promulgated by a management and communication consultant! Evidently this theory was not taken to heart, fortunately, as Dr Wong did read the whole Update – for which effort, my thanks. It just goes to show that ill-considered repetition of trendy formulae can be dangerous. Think for yourself, is all we can suggest.

Dr Wong says: "This does not mean we will not pay attention to long emails. I am sorry for the confusion. Please be assured that we do pay attention to details." I take this to mean that whenever any of us write to him with local marine conservation concerns he will treat it all seriously. I have asked Dr Wong to see if efforts to prevent illegally-obtained shark fins being sold here can be improved. BWD

Disney is among backers of a project to try and solve Africa’s bushmeat crisis, which is surely based on local traditions (albeit much now illegal): http://www.bushmeat.org Then, says Disney’s website:

Disney is also among sponsors of World Widlife Fund (in US) Windows on the Wild education program;

Disney is a co-sponsor of Project Shark Awareness at the Florida Museum of Natural History.

Maybe can expand this project, to Hong Kong? If so, can include info from the scheme, such as:

Post edited by: Martin, at: 2005/06/09 15:06

from Brian Darvell:

Likewise, we have created the Shark Fin Hall of Shame http://www.scdc.org.hk/hongkong/sharkfin_shame.html whose members will no doubt increase with time as well, but who deserve our attention in an attempt to change their ways. Nominations for either are invited, properly documented. Grapevine A friend of a friend in New York reports that Michael Eisner is receiving our emails (despite the bouncing messages), much to his chagrin. So, Mr Eisner, what exactly is the problem? Have you no courage, no moral responsibility to your own environmental PR? Please take the time to read the next item and follow the link. Requiem Just in case you had any doubt about what is happening, read this: [missing, from finns online?] – and notice the inset item: "The Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Islands in the Pacific Ocean has just adopted a resolution seeking to hunt sharks. The resolution reads in part, “Shark meat and fins are very popular, delicious and expensive food products in Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, China and other areas. (We) could be used as a processing and transshipment station for countries in need of shark meat and fins.”

In need of? Again, pure profit is the motivation. Just like you, Mr Eisner. Moral high ground A caller on RTHK Radio 3 today claimed that it was hypocrisy to go after Disney and ignore the big hotels that serve the soup. I think it is simply an example that strikes a chord with many people, as has has been shown, and thus serves pour encourager les autres. Worry not, they are not being overlooked, but we have to start somewhere. If one is wrong, they are all wrong. Note that the OED has for hypocrisy: The assuming of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, with dissimulation of real character or inclinations,… Does that not characterize Disney to a T? I cannot see that it applies to us, here. Local view

A Cantonese correspondent tells me that, a far as he knows, the problem with shark fin soup has become prominent only since the 1980s. Certainly, it has been on menus before that, but only for the seriously rich; ordinary folks simply could not afford it. Now, with both increasing affluence generally in Hong Kong, and falling prices because the "fishery" effort has increased to profit from the market that has been created, it has been accessible to more. Hence the promotion of the soup as an indicator of wealth and prestige, of conspicuous extravagance. However, he is very clear that he cannot accept the claim by Tommy Cheung and Disney PR people that "A Chinese banquet without shark’s fin soup is no banquet." He went on to say that in much of China the attraction of shark fin soup is incomprehensible, but he is concerned that the Cantonese as a whole do not take the blame for a minority problem.

We need to be careful, therefore, that we do not falsely accuse the majority. Naturally, we would not want to do that. Our focus is simply those consumers that drive the market, the organizations that offer it and thus support the market, and the short-term profit motive of those who would drive species to extinction for immediate cash. The majority can do much to help.

BWD http://www.scdc.org.hk/hongkong/sharkfin.html

from Brian Darvell:

IUCN Resolution 3.116 refers to the practice of shark finning and recommends means to promote the sustainable management of shark fisheries; encouraging diners to question the sustainability of fin harvest for soup; and to encouraging consumers to make responsible dining choices. The US accepted this resolution.

The HK Government … has been remarkably quiet. This is not a surprise since it has yet to work out where it stands on such issues. On the one hand, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department has a number of roles, including: Nature Conservation and Country Parks Aim The aim is to conserve flora, fauna and natural habitats, including marine habitats; to manage country parks, special areas, marine parks and marine reserves; and to control the international trade in endangered species of animals and plants in Hong Kong. But then, they have "a view to maximising yields" as part of their primary function.

Curiously, the "Endangered Species Advisory Committee" has as a "Non-official Member", one Mr. CHIU Ching-cheung, who is – Chairman, Sharks Fin Trade Merchants Association – Committee Member, Sharkfin and Marine Products Association Ltd – Proprietor, Kwong Cheung (Shark’s Fin) Does he have specialist knowledge about endangered species? I wonder whether we can expect impartial, unbiased advice from him. Are there no rules about conflict of interest?

On the other hand, the HK Tourist Board promotes the consumption of shark fin soup at every opportunity, denies that advertising in this way is promotion, and refuses to accept that it is instrumental in contributing to this destructive fishery. http://www.scdc.org.hk/hongkong/sharkfin.html The Funnies http://www.mickeynews.com/News/DisplayPressRelease.asp_Q_id_E_5295Soup A legislator for the catering industry and the president of a restaurant trade group have backed Disney, saying it is being unfairly pilloried and would be a "laughing stock" if it did not offer the dish. Tommy Cheung, the legislator representing Hong Kong’s catering sector, said: "I don’t believe sharks are an endangered species. Some species of shark may be, but not all shark’s fin comes from certain species. There are a lot of species that are plentiful. I am not aware why people are making so much fuss about Disney.

Many restaurants are serving shark’s fin, so why pick on Disney?" Cheung said it was unreasonable to expect the theme park to offer Chinese banquets without offering the dish. "Chinese tradition is that you put shark’s fin on the table," he said. "If you don’t, you are not respecting the guests you invite. It is a matter of face." David Ng, president of the Hong Kong Federation of Restaurants and Related Trades, said that people holding wedding banquets could be made to seem a "laughing stock" if they did not offer shark’s fin. "This is the traditional culture of Chinese people, and you can’t say it is right or it is wrong," he said. "No Chinese banquet would be complete without shark’s fin soup. It is a dish that dates back maybe hundreds of years. You must treat your guests properly," he said. There are several issues here that require a response.

So, both Disney and wedding couples would be a "laughing stock" if shark fin was not available? Not only are you to be decried for failing to serve the chicken soup with bits in, you are to be laughed at as being seriously out of touch with the economic and cultural reality of Hong Kong. The logic of this is difficult to follow. The point seems to be that if one professes care for the environment and conservation one is somehow not reasonable or respectful. I was under the impression it was the reverse. One is meant therefore to uphold an iconic dish as showing respect when the icon stands for mutilation, suffering, waste, failure to propagate, conspicuous consumption, profiteering and crime – without even mentioning conservation. If this is the icon for the marriage that is being celebrated, it will be a sad life indeed. Surely, it is showing more respect for one’s guests not to serve endangered species and avoid causing them embarassment? Surely, Disney and wedding parties will be applauded warmly and gain face for standing firm on principles in the face of irrational exhortations to be otherwise.

A further point is the long-established Chinese respect for and seeking after balance with nature. Is that not the point of Feng Shui, of Yin and Yang and cosmic harmony? Is this to be discarded like the shark’s body for the sake of a few moments of enjoyment of chicken soup and vinegar? Oh, and it is unfair to single out Disney? Of course, how careless of me. The point is that this example was so egregious that it could not be ignored, but that does not mean we do not sicken every time we see these fins displayed or the menu so embellished. Perhaps we should start a collection of names of hotels, restaurants, cruise liners, banks, clubs, philanthropic organizations, schools, Universities, airlines, conferences, trade dinners, parties…

To me, please, by email, whenever and wherever you find them. If you can do the research and find the principal contacts (email), and any other relevant data, I will collate the information and post it on the SCDC website and circulate it to you all as well. In fact, if you were to write yourself in the first instance, seeking a small menu correction, and report the reponse to me, it would be even better. There, as even-handed as they come. Tommy Cheung’s argument in part rests on his belief about the species that are taken and their abundance. However, mere belief in the face of data is difficult to sustain with a straight face.

Why let a good story be spoiled by the truth? Mr Cheung, could I suggest that you refer to the many sources of reliable information before making such absurd remarks. Perhaps you ought to talk to Mr Chiu Ching-cheung, who plainly is an authority in such things – after all, the government of Hong Kong relies on him. Mr Cheung does not understand the fuss. Does he not see contradiction in Disney’s apparent stance? Does he not see inconsistency? I can only assume that he has not actually read any of the relevant material, or given thought to what it all means. Sadly, he belittles Chinese intellect by such remarks. "Chinese tradition" in Mr Cheung’s and Mr Ng’s view is driven by the need for restaurants to make a profit. The last part we cannot disagree with, but the premise is faulty. Is it really the case that consideration for restaurateurs’ profits overrides all others? Can he seriously be arguing that something that was acceptable in the past is valid now? Could I therefore suggest that he introduce bills into the Legislative Council for slaves to be employed in restaurant kitchens as they are much cheaper to run; that pigs be permitted to be slaughtered on the pavement outside to ensure that the meat is fresh; and that traditional fertilization of green vegetables be allowed as this will lower costs?

We look forward to cheaper, fresher, healthier meals. On the other hand, I do not hear much of a clamour for the serving of bear paws, live monkey brains, turtles and other such "delicacies". Do our trade representatives not think that these should be reintroduced on cultural grounds? By the way, I am thinking of reintroducing human sacrifice…

Basically, there is no evidence in their remarks, presumably meant to shame Disney into being respectful of the trade’s primary drive – profit (and shark fin soup profits are huge!) – of a balanced rational view, respectful of current knowledge, respectful of current attitudes, respectful of learned bodies’ resolutions, respectful of the environment, respectful of the need for conservation, respectful of the idea of a sustainable trade. Please, do not talk to me about respect. [/url]

Wonder what the Disney execs make of all the emails; another here: