Academic leaders and environmental groups say the independence and scientific credibility of New Zealand's world-renowned Cawthron Institute has been undermined by its chief executive's claims about the sustainability of the seafood industry
Cawthron Institute chief executive Volker Kuntzsch was expressing his personal opinion when he told an industry symposium that New Zealand had no future without fishing, the institute's chair says.
"I don't think he's expressed them in the way that he should have expressed them," says Meg Matthews. "I think he was challenging the status quo. I think he was hoping to shift mindsets."
It comes amid concerns from academic leaders and environmental groups that Kuntzsch has undermined the independence and scientific credibility of the institute, with his claims about the sustainability of the seafood industry, and his criticism of the carbon emissions of farming and plant-based protein.
READ MORE: * 'There can be no future without fishing' – Cawthron science boss * Cawthron leader sees oceans of opportunity
His opinion was based on 30-plus years' experience in the seafood industry, including at the head of fishing giant Sanford, she tells Newsroom, not on the research of the big independent science organisation that he now leads.
Alongside government agencies, Sanford has funded Cawthron's research into the health benefits of farmed Greenshell mussels.
At a symposium in Wellington last week, Kuntzsch mounted a robust defence of the environmental credentials of the country's fishing industry – by challenging other primary producers.
"I think that the chief executive has now compromised the scientific independence and rigour of the institute, by making these statements." – Russel Norman, Greenpeace
He acknowledges fishing does need to address its environmental impacts, but says controversial practices such as bottom-trawling pale in comparison with destroying biodiversity by ploughing land.
His was one of several voices arguing in defence of the sustainability of seafood, both for biodiversity and managing New Zealand's emissions. He was backed by Professor Stewart Ledgard, a principal scientist with AgResearch, who is set to publish research finding that seafood production has lower emissions than food production on land.
Ledgard and his colleague Andre Mazzetto previously made headlines in 2021, with research finding that the New Zealand dairy industry was the most efficient milk producer in the world, at 0.74 kg CO2-equivalent gases per kilogram of milk. That research was funded by Dairy NZ.
Now, Ledgard says, the pair's study of the carbon footprint of New Zealand's deepwater trawl fisheries shows their greenhouse gas emissions are substantially lower than those for beef, sheep, milk and pork production.
"The recent report by the PM’s Chief Science Advisor aired some pretty disturbing truths about the industry – such as the number of fish stocks either collapsed or in danger, failures to collect appropriate information to inform decision-making on catch rates, spilled by catch, and failure to promote the eco-system criterion enshrined in the legislation, among many other issues." – Professor Peter Davis, University of Auckland
Kuntzsch talked with the institute's chief science advisor, Dr Cath McLeod, before speaking to the symposium. She tells Newsroom: "I've been aware for some time that seafood is one of the better performing protein types, when you when you compare them to pork or beef or lamb. But what I would say, having been at a conference on the subject this week, is that carbon accounting is notoriously fraught and difficult.
"Having had a lot of discussions with Volker, I'm very certain that his intent is right."
Despite the cautious backing of Cawthron's chair and its chief science advisor, Kuntzsch faces severe criticism from others in academia and environmental groups.
"These comments from Volker Kuntzsch are disappointing," says Dr Peter Davis, Emeritus Professor in Population Health and Social Science and an Honorary Professor of Statistics at the University of Auckland.
"The recent report by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor aired some pretty disturbing truths about the industry – such as the number of fish stocks either collapsed or in danger, failures to collect appropriate information to inform decision-making on catch rates, spilled by catch, and failure to promote the eco-system criterion enshrined in the legislation, among many other issues."
Kuntzsch had an opportunity to use his standing, both in the industry and outside it, to progress a sustainable development agenda, Davis says. "But judging by his reported comments he failed to do so.
"From what I have seen of the comments, he has taken a risk with the credibility of the institution for which he is chief executive. His comments would have carried far more weight outside the fishing community – and maybe even within it – had they been delivered by a senior independent researcher.
"At the very least, in my view, he should have made it clear that he was speaking in a personal capacity at in industry function and that if the media are looking for any authoritative statement on the research- and evidence-based commentary on fishing then he should have directed them to people who know the research."
Professor Juliet Gerrard, the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, published a report on the sustainability of New Zealand's commercial fisheries in 2021. She referred Newsroom to its findings.
Among recommendations to agree a definition of sustainability, and better regulation of fisheries and environmental outcomes, it says: "There is no accepted single source of truth in the fisheries sector and this report does not claim to be one. Passionate debate arises from (over-)interpretation of uncertain data sets by all sides, which supports conflicting narratives of ‘what the evidence says’. We have tried to highlight where particular points of contest lie in interpreting data and were saddened by the number of incidences of ‘alternate facts’ that we navigated in this project."
The report is aligned with Kuntzsch in its concerns about land-based impacts on the marine environment, like forestry sediment, mining, plastics and population pressure.
One of her team members attended the symposium and Kuntzsch's talk, Dame Juliet says. "It was a symposium squarely focused on seafood production, rather than a holistic view of ocean management."
"As to whether the 'science is correct', that is a fraught question because so much depends on what exactly you measure, how you measure it, what you compare it to, and how much value you place on different aspects of the environment," Dame Juliet says.
"Are carbon emissions more or less important than biodiversity considerations, for example? In every calculation, someone has likely had to make a subjective decision to give some aspects more weight than others.
"Confounding all this, there is also a huge gap in data with which to understand the environmental impacts of fishing. It’s dark down there!"
Kuntzsch's comments have been criticised by Karli Thomas from the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, and Greenpeace NZ chief executive Russel Norman.
"If you are a scientist inside Cawthron now who wants to follow the evidence about the damage that's been caused by fishing, you're now in an invidious situation where the chief executive has now basically publicly come out and said it's not very much at all, and completely downplayed it," Norman says.
"So I think that the chief executive has now compromised the scientific independence and rigour of the institute, by making these statements."
