Latest news with #FalklandIslands
Associated Press
22-07-2025
- Science
- Associated Press
Oil Seismic Explorations and Their Impact on the Loligo Squid in the South Atlantic
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina, July 21, 2025 (SEND2PRESS NEWSWIRE) — In recent years, there has been a concerning decline in catches of Loligo gahi squid in the waters around the Falkland Islands, says Fundacion Agustina Lerena. This species, essential to Spanish fishing (particularly for Galician vessel owners), represents a key resource whose collapse is having serious economic consequences. Beyond the already high costs of operating in the Falklands, there is growing uncertainty about the root causes of this decline. Various hypotheses have been suggested: overfishing, climate change, and, increasingly, the possible impact of offshore seismic explorations linked to the oil industry. These explorations, which involve the use of seismic waves to detect underground oil deposits, could be affecting the larval and juvenile stages of squid, altering their biological cycle. In 2024, the situation was so critical that authorities decided not to open the second fishing season for Loligo in the Falklands due to the low biomass available, marking the lowest catch volume since 2016. This measure did not affect other species, reinforcing the hypothesis of a specific impact on Loligo. In this context, interviewed by SeafoodMediaGroup-FIS, Dr. César Lerena ( ) —expert on South Atlantic resources and president of the Agustina Lerena Foundation and the Latin American Fisheries Study Center (CESPEL)— has led a critical review of the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) conducted by consulting firms such as Serman y Asociados for companies like Shell and Equinor. The conclusion is clear: these studies, for the most part, fail to adequately ensure that seismic activities do not negatively impact species like the Loligo squid. One of the main concerns is that these EIAs are financed by the very companies that benefit from them, compromising their independence. In Argentina, INIDEP (the main technical body for fisheries issues) has not had a leading role or the necessary resources to guide these studies. Furthermore, the resulting reports lack in situ evaluations, rely on outdated references, show methodological deficiencies, and fail to include prevention, mitigation, or compensation measures. In essence, they are seen as theoretical and superficial, designed more to fulfill bureaucratic requirements than to truly protect the marine ecosystem. Internationally, similar concerns have been raised regarding seismic exploration. In countries such as Norway, South Africa, Mexico, and Namibia, environmental studies have been criticized for lacking scientific rigor and for ignoring cumulative effects on vulnerable species. The practice of hiring 'tailored' consulting firms that produce predictable and accommodating reports has been documented in several jurisdictions. Some of these cases have even reached the courts, reflecting growing concern about the validity and usefulness of such studies. In terms of direct impact on marine species, the effects of seismic waves are varied and severe: behavioral changes, disorientation, stress, reduced feeding and reproductive capacity. Specifically for Loligo squid, it has been demonstrated that they are especially sensitive to acoustic vibrations due to their nervous system and sensory organs (such as the statocyst). These disturbances can alter their distribution, reduce their feeding efficiency, interfere with spawning, and cause them to abandon breeding areas. The sustained decline in squid catches in the Falklands since seismic prospecting began in the region coincides with these observed changes, reinforcing the hypothesis of a causal link. In addition to Loligo, other species such as hake, cod, and tuna have also shown adverse responses to seismic surveys: auditory organ damage, larval mortality, and changes in migratory patterns. Documented cases in Norway, the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, and Australia have reported reductions of up to 80% in some catches following seismic activities. Drops of up to 60% have also been observed in zooplankton, which forms the base of the marine food chain. Dr. Lerena warns of a possible scenario of environmental fraud if oil exploration licenses continue to be approved without rigorous evaluations. He notes that in many cases, studies are conducted after the licensing of exploration areas, without first considering the presence of fishery resources, their migratory cycles, or the impact on coastal communities. This is not only a technical omission but also an ethical and legal failure. Precautionary measures are scarce or nonexistent, and although countries like Norway have begun to implement economic compensation for affected fishermen, these are considered insufficient. From a responsible management perspective, the Agustina Lerena Foundation proposes a model of continuous and adaptive environmental assessment. Impact studies should not be a one-time 'snapshot' but a dynamic process allowing real-time monitoring and corrective action. This is especially important for migratory species whose distribution and behavior vary in response to multiple factors. Harmonization between oil development and fishing activity is possible, but it requires political will, scientific resources, and an integrated approach. The Norwegian model, which includes compensation and coordination between industries, can serve as a reference. Though imperfect, it provides a starting point for understanding that no productive activity should be developed at the expense of another — especially when dealing with natural resources that support regional economies, employment, and food sovereignty. In this regard, the Agustina Lerena Foundation does not oppose offshore oil activity, but demands that it be carried out under strict sustainability standards. The organization has already begun working to ensure that all companies operating in the Southwest Atlantic respect existing environmental laws, both national and international. This includes not only monitoring submitted EIAs but also promoting corrective and legal action when necessary. In conclusion, the drop in Loligo gahi squid catches in the Falklands should be viewed as a warning sign. Oil seismic explorations must not continue without serious evaluation of their impacts. Urgent measures are needed: strengthening INIDEP's role, conducting a thorough review of existing studies, implementing real-time monitoring, applying the precautionary principle, and designing compensation and restoration mechanisms. Only then can a true balance between energy development and marine ecosystem conservation be achieved — for the benefit of all stakeholders involved. MORE INFORMATION: Learn more about Dr. César Lerena and Fundacion Agustina Lerena at: Web: Email: [email protected] The full article can be found here: NEWS SOURCE: Fundacion Agustina Lerena Keywords: Environment and Ecology, Fundacion Agustina Lerena, Environmental Fraud, Seismic Explorations, Loligo Squid, Environmental Impact, Falkland Islands, Marine Ecosystem, Acoustic Vibrations, Fishery Decline, Oil Industry, Precautionary Principle, Sustainability, BUENOS AIRES, Argentina This press release was issued on behalf of the news source (Fundacion Agustina Lerena) who is solely responsibile for its accuracy, by Send2Press® Newswire. Information is believed accurate but not guaranteed. Story ID: S2P127897 APNF0325A To view the original version, visit: © 2025 Send2Press® Newswire, a press release distribution service, Calif., USA. RIGHTS GRANTED FOR REPRODUCTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY LEGITIMATE MEDIA OUTLET - SUCH AS NEWSPAPER, BROADCAST OR TRADE PERIODICAL. MAY NOT BE USED ON ANY NON-MEDIA WEBSITE PROMOTING PR OR MARKETING SERVICES OR CONTENT DEVELOPMENT. Disclaimer: This press release content was not created by nor issued by the Associated Press (AP). Content below is unrelated to this news story.
RNZ News
13-06-2025
- General
- RNZ News
Ian Urbina: The Outlaw Ocean
Chinese squid ships, which make up the largest distant water fleet in the world, fishing near the Falkland Islands. The Chinese squid fleet uses bright lights to draw squid up from the depths. Photo: Ed Ou The Outlaw Ocean Project Photo: Eric T White Pulitzer-prize winning investigative journalist and author of New York Times bestseller The Outlaw Ocean, Ian Urbina is director of non-profit The Outlaw Ocean Project based in Washington D.C., investigating human rights, environment and labour concerns. Urbina's award-winning podcast The Outlaw Ocean Season 2 casts light on secretive Libyan prisons swallowing up sea-faring migrants, flagrant human rights abuses in China's massive off-shore fleet and the horrors of a shrimp processing plant in India. Ian speaks with Susie. A view of the Geo Barents, a rescue vessel operated by Doctors Without Borders in the Central Mediterranean off the coast of Libya on June 6, 2021. As the world felt like it was emerging from Covid in early 2021, there was a new surge in migration across the Central Mediterranean. At the same time, European countries locked down their borders, and the EU border agency began to increasingly rely on and collaborate with the Libyan Coast Guard (LCG) to keep the migrants from European shores, giving the LCG assistance in intercepting migrant boats. As a result, this year has seen a dramatic increase in the deadliness of these crossings. Amid these pressures, humanitarian ships have slowly begun resuming their operations. (Ed Ou/The Outlaw Ocean Project) Photo: Ed Ou The Outlaw Ocean Project
Telegraph
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
British Airways criticised for using Falklands capital's Argentinian name
British Airways has been criticised for using the Argentinian name of the Falkland Islands' capital on its in-flight screens. Port Stanley is shown as 'Puerto Argentino', with the British name in brackets underneath. The move by the airline has been described as 'disgraceful' and 'disrespectful' to soldiers who fought to liberate the islands in the South Atlantic in the Falklands War. British Airways said it was now reviewing the incident with the provider of its in-flight map service. 'Unforgivable' Admiral Lord West, the former head of the Royal Navy, who won the Distinguished Service Cross during the war, told The Sun: 'It's disgraceful. The Falklands are a British overseas territory, and 99.9 per cent of islanders want to stay British. 'We have said very clearly there will be no discussions about sovereignty. For the flag carrier airline to give Port Stanley another name is unforgivable. 'Everyone on the Falkland Islands calls it Port Stanley. They should change it back as soon as possible. This is insulting to the population of Port Stanley.' A British Airways spokesman said: 'We're grateful this has been brought to our attention, and we are reviewing it with the third party supplier that provides the in-flight map service.' In April 1982, hundreds of Argentinian troops invaded the Falklands, forcing the vastly outnumbered garrison of just 57 Royal Marines to surrender. The move was seen as an act of war, and Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister, sent a task force to the South Atlantic to reclaim the islands. The conflict ended with the surrender of Argentine forces on June 14. More than 250 British military personnel were killed in the 74-day mission. Saturday marks the 43rd anniversary of Britain's victory, but Argentina continues to claim sovereignty over the Falklands.
Daily Mail
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Outrage as British Airways uses Argentinian name for Falkland Islands capital in 'disgraceful' move
British Airways has caused outrage after using the Argentinian name for the capital of the Falkland Islands on its in-flight entertainment systems. Veterans of the Falklands war have branded the decision 'disgraceful' after BA's screens displayed the name 'Puerto Argentino', despite the islands being in British hands since 1833. The UK's flagship carrier, which is owned by Spanish firm International Airlines Group, put the name in English in brackets underneath - something the airline is now urgently investigating. Argentina has long claimed sovereignty over the islands and famously invaded them in 1982 in a bid to end British rule. On the instruction of then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, British troops were deployed to the other side of the world to defend the islands, which are still classed as a British Overseas Territory today. Falklands veterans said the fact the British name was not displayed was 'ludicrous' and 'disrespectful'. Former head of the Royal Navy Admiral Lord West, who won the Distinguished Service Cross during the conflict, told the Sun: 'It's disgraceful. The Falklands are a British overseas territory and 99.9 per cent of islanders want to stay British. 'We have said very clearly there will be no discussions about sovereignty. 'For the flag carrier airline to give Port Stanley another name is unforgivable.' And Lord West, whose HMS Ardent was sunk during the conflict, added: 'They should change it back as soon as possible. This is insulting to the population of Port Stanley.' Argentina has long disputed the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, which have been in British hands for almost 200 years. On April 2, 1982 a surprise raid on the capital, Port Stanley, saw Argentinian forces invade the territories and capture the city. It was the beginning of a 74-day war that would see 255 British personnel lose their lives defending the islands. The UK came out on top in the conflict, but Argentina still protests its ownership of the islands. In the light of continued calls from the south American nation, a referendum was held in March 2013 in which 99.8 percent of islanders voted to remain a British territory. In 2017, the county's senate voted to rename Stanley Port to Puerto Argentino and pledged to celebrate 'Sovereignty Day' there should they ever retake them. The British military has maintained a presence on the islands since the end of the war, with a 2,000-strong garrison of troops and transport aircraft based at Mount Pleasant. Last year, Argentina's President Javier Milei, an ally of Mr Trump, has said he will not relinquish the claim to sovereignty over the Falklands, but will not seek conflict with the UK. Claims from the country's government have increased once again since the UK agreed to give up the Chagos Islands. The Argentinian Foreign Minister Diana Mondino said in October: 'With concrete actions and not empty rhetoric, we will recover full sovereignty over our Malvinas Islands. 'The Malvinas [Falklands] were, are and will always be Argentine.' The UN has also called on the UK and Argentina to resume talks about the future of the islands, led by the Special Committee on Decolonization. A British Airways spokesperson told MailOnline: 'We're grateful this has been brought to our attention, and we are reviewing it with the third party supplier that provides the in-flight map service.'
Telegraph
02-06-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Starmer is still not serious about defeating Putin
Democratic politicians would prefer not to prepare for war. This is understandable. There are always huge pressures on public spending. Peace – anyway an obviously desirable state of affairs – provides a financial dividend that our leaders do not want to lose. They only really change their minds when a threat stares them in the face. Since Winston Churchill, our least war-averse prime minister was Margaret Thatcher, but even she, after first coming into office, initiated defence cuts. Determined to fulfil Nato obligations to defend against the Soviet Union (three per cent of annual GDP), she tried to cut everything else in the defence budget. Then Argentina suddenly invaded the Falkland Islands in April 1982, just before Mrs Thatcher had implemented her proposed navy cuts. Within about three days, she reversed the policy. Our armed forces were still – just – capable of fighting serious battles 8,000 miles away. We won the war, and she won the next election. Even Ukraine itself, the object of direct threat and actual Russian violence since 2014, was not unanimous about resistance until Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022. Western policymakers tended to think that President Zelensky would accept their invitation to escape and Vladimir Putin would install his puppets. Ever since then, with infinitely smaller resources than the Nato alliance, Ukraine has fought on because it is fighting for its life. Necessity is the mother of their great invention, as we were reminded this weekend by Ukraine's stunningly bold and successful attacks on several Russian airfields. I hope that the authors of our latest strategic defence review, published yesterday, note the raid's lesson, not only about courage, but about the way drones, costing only tens of thousands of pounds, can cut their way through steel which costs many millions. It is clear from the review and from the way that Sir Keir Starmer talks about it that he does not seriously believe there will be war with Russia in the foreseeable future. He is anxious, yes, and supportive of Ukraine, but firmer in tone about the need not to make big spending promises than he is about the need to confront Putin. His is not a wicked position: it remains unlikely that Russia will directly attack the United Kingdom. But the sobering fact is that those Nato countries which border Russia do quite definitely fear Russian attack and most of them are preparing accordingly. We should pay attention because these are the nations which know the Russians best. Militarily, we are helping countries like Estonia and Lithuania, but are we learning enough from them about the reality of the threat? As Nato members, we are bound to treat an attack on them as an attack on all and therefore to come to their aid. Could we? They – and Ukraine itself – should now become our teachers, rather than the other way round. The history of Russian behaviour stretching back to Stalin and even to Tsarist times, and also what Putin has done already, should instruct us in the danger. It is a very, very big thing to try to change the borders of Europe by force. Putin did not content himself with the 'minor incursions' which President Biden foolishly said, early on in proceedings, might be all right. His attack on Ukraine is an absolute and deliberate defiance of the basis of the post-1945 peace. One of the terrifying things is that President Trump seems not to understand this. We think we do, but we are still not facing the hard military realities. Currently, Russia recruits about 40,000 men a month. We struggle to recruit 7,000 in a year. We are still not serious. I do not doubt that Sir Keir wants to stop Putin's progress, but the Review does not suggest he knows how. Junior doctors dislike being so-called because, they say, the name makes them sound inferior. So they are now officially called 'resident' doctors, reflecting their base in one hospital. I notice that the new name has not taken on. Headlines still use the word 'junior'. Perhaps neither name is satisfactory. I have another suggestion. How about calling them 'striking doctors'? It is true that there have been one or two past incidents of 'industrial action' (1975, 2016) by junior doctors, but it is only in the past two years that this has become endemic, arriving in wave after wave. Now the doctors threaten another strike, despite winning a 22.3 per cent rise last year. They want another 28 per cent. The traditional doctors' taboo against striking is fading. That means that striking doctors are ceasing to be professionals. The privileges of being in a profession and the respect in which a profession is held depend on self-restraint and self-imposed standards which are higher than those of the ordinary worker. If a doctor strikes, he or she is breaking their sacred duty to patients. This is true whether or not the particular pay claim is justified. A doctor who refuses to do his duty thereby forfeits respect. In the longer term, this means that NHS doctors will also do less well financially. If they behave just like any old grumpy public-sector interest group, they will be treated accordingly, both by government and by the public. The decline of respect for doctors is the natural consequence of the way the NHS is constructed. From its inception, it has put the interests of the bureaucracy above those of the patient and of the profession. Since Covid-19, the demoralisation, which has been building for 80 years, has become pervasive.
