THE End of the Line is the first major documentary to tackle the devastating impact of over fishing on the world’s oceans. It concludes that if fishing at the current rate continues, the world’s oceans could be without fish in the next 50 years. Blue fin tuna is already close to collapse.

Author Charles Clover and director Rupert Murray talk to us about some of the issues raised…

Q. How easy was it to get The End of the Line made?
Rupert Murray: Well, I believe in a certain amount of synchronicity… at the beginning of a project you have an idea, or you speak to someone else and they have the same idea, and then you go from there. So, we were quite fortunate. I contacted Charles [Clover] after reading his book and he was looking for someone to make his book into a film.

Charles Clover: I don’t trust film and television people as a rule because I’ve been turned over so often. I’ve had people pinch my ideas, I’ve had people make Panorama documentaries out of proposals I’ve sent to the BBC… I’m one very, very media adverse person unless I can sort of control the process. So, what was marvellous here was that you had a group of people who all got together for different reasons with our producer trying to find somebody who could make this film. And then we kept hearing about this bloke who’d been ringing us up, and who’d been calling for weeks, and it turned out to be Rupert [Murray].

Initially, we had to tell him to calm down because he was so enthusiastic, but then we thought: “Hang on a minute, he’s really passionate… let’s let Rupert do it.” So that’s how it happened. He was mad keen to do it, as we all were. Everybody who wanted to do this project wanted to do it really badly, which meant that even when we ran out of money everybody continued working because they wanted this very important project done.

Q. You also had support from a lot of organisations such as Greenpeace and the Marine Conservation Society…
Rupert Murray: Yes, having support from the British Documentary Film Foundation, certain NGOs and lots of private individuals who donated money as well meant that we were quite well funded in terms of a theatrical documentary.

Charles Clover: It really was this film’s time and this issue’s time. People got it.

Q. As opposed to when you first published your book?
Charles Clover: Yes, can you believe that Waterstone’s filed it under business and computing! I thought: “What the f**k?” I went into Waterstone’s and couldn’t find it. When I asked, they told me: “We’re going to do a real promotion on this. For six weeks we’re going to push this and we’re the only people that are going to promote your book.” But when I asked where it was, they replied: “Oh, it’s up in business and computing.” And that was because there were no other books on commercial fishing and there was nowhere they could put it on the shelf. I just went ape-shit but there was nothing I could do about it. Only when it got the best reviews I’ve ever seen for a book of this nature did people start looking for the thing. And they it was the customers who started saying: “Don’t you think it should be somewhere other than in business and computing because we’ve spent all blasted morning looking for this book!”

Q. Do you think the success of documentaries such as An Inconvenient Truth paved the way for films like this, and to make people realise they can actually do something about issues such as these?
Rupert Murray: I think it does. I’d been thinking about how to make documentaries about massive great subjects like this that affect everyone throughout the entire globe… but I think what An Inconvenient Truth did – which, to me, was actually about what Al Gore did after not becoming President of the United States [laughs] – was break new ground and it did open the door for other people. There have been a whole load of food-based films and environmental films that have followed it. So, it did have a big impact.

I think these feature documentaries have a very powerful message in a way that a TV series and other media outlets don’t. There’s something hopefully that the message of the film will carry on beyond the 90 minutes of its playing time, beyond the people who actually get to see it, through the poeple who don’t but will hear about it. I think feature docs have a great role to play to fit into those odd gaps in the broadcasting or viewing spectrum. It’s a bit of a square peg in a round hole situation because the message crosses several genres. But they have a vital job to do in broadcasting messages that slip through the gaps in the traditional mainstream media.

Q. Charles, what did Rupert bring as director?
Charles Clover: Rupert shouldn’t under-estimate his courage in this film because this is actually a film that should have been made years ago by wildlife filmmakers and wasn’t. The Blue Planet wasn’t this film. The Blue Planet is, in a sense, mendacious because it doesn’t show you what the major influence upon the world’s oceans is, which is the people going in and pulling out the animals that exist there on a daily basis. And that’s happening everywhere – almost 99.4% of the ocean can be fished. So, there was a big genre problem here because the wildlife filmmakers have decided that certain things make money, they have to look pretty and you cannot possibly discuss issues. But Rupert, to his credit, decided that it had got to be done anyway.

Can you talk a little bit about the scientific element of the findings of your documentary and the role that scientists have played in raising awareness of this problem?
Rupert Murray: What I loved about the scientists we feature in this film was they looked at man as a predator. They studied man, from the consumer, to the manager, to the scientist to the fisherman, to the fish wholesaler. How does that predator behave in an eco-system? I thought that was a fascinating way to look at the issue. So, this is a natural history film that doesn’t exclude the main predator in the system. Natural history films traditionally talk about predators but there’s one massive great predator that’s just excluded for some reason.

Charles Clover: So, this is also a film about science because these kinds of scientists did not exist until the early ’90s. It took the cod crash and it took some very big American foundations to start getting worried about what was happening in the sea and to start commissioning scientists for themselves. They went outside the usual government-funded science, which was basically “how many of these fish can we kill next year?”

Rupert Murray: This issue is behind climate science. Climate science goes back to the ’60s and probably further back than that. We’re not reaping the rewards of the beginnings of climate science. But fisheries is 10, 15, 20 years behind it.

Charles Clover: Scientists wouldn’t see it at first. Their hypothesis was that commercial fishing activity was a good thing. Well, in certain circumstances it isn’t but they wouldn’t see that. They worked for the UNFAO which is dedicated to providing science for the managers of the world’s fisheries with the assumption they will go on managing to provide lots of food.

Rupert Murray: The general idea was that if you fish a population down, then it grows up quicker. But you alter evolution. However, the problem with it was that the species don’t exist as a single entity. They inter-act with all the other species and so it didn’t factor in that holistic eco-system approach. That’s where they fell down.

Charles Clover: If you over-fish the cod in Newfoundland you get lobster, shrimp and crab back, and they’ll eat all the little cod. So, it will never come back again.

Q. There are encouraging signs at the end of the documentary that people are beginning to take notice and change their ways. Post-documentary it’s emerged that Waitrose, for instance, has come on board. Do you find this is happening more and more? Are people seeking out your advice?
Rupert Murray: Well, the amazing thing about Waitrose is that they had a sustainable seafood sourcing policy of some kind or other in place since 1996 when the buyers heard reports about illegally caught fish in the media, rang up his suppliers and asked: “Can you guarantee that the fish you’re selling me isn’t illegally caught?” His supplier said: “No, I’m afraid I can’t.” So Waitrose then put in place a set of guidelines to make sure that they weren’t selling illegally caught fish. They were way ahead of the game. But on the other hand, we went to restaurants all over central London where sustainability is not a word they like to use or hear. They’re selling highly endangered, large predators like the blue fin tuna. So, there’s a huge difference.

Charles Clover: I rang Nobu’s secretary in Beverly Hills and said: “I’d like to ask a few questions about blue fin tuna and where you get it from…” She said: “Is that about mercury?” And I said: “No, it’s about sustainability.” But she replied: “Oh, Nobu doesn’t like those questions…” And we’ve never got more out of them than that.

Q. How close is the blue fin tuna to being fished out?
Charles Clover: Some scientists say that it’s already collapsed. It just takes a while to catch up with the scientific data. But it’s that close to collapsing.

Rupert Murray: It’s not just blue fin tuna. Blue fin is the poster boy for over-fishing. Beyond that, there’s a whole pyramid or cascade of smaller species – less beautiful, more obscure but in more trouble than even the blue fin. We used the blue fin as an iconic fish because it’s such an incredible predator. But for example, Charles was on the phone to Nobu and they told him: “Anyway Charles, the majority of tuna we sell isn’t blue fin, it’s big eye.” And Charles replied: “Well, that’s been endangered since 1996 too!” So, it’s the tip of the iceberg.

And it’s not just restaurants. The fishermen I met never took responsibility for what was happening in their fishery. They’d say: “We’re doing the right thing. What do the scientists know?” They sort of skirted around it. There’s a sort of culture of not tackling this issue head-on. And that’s part of the reason why a lot of people are in trouble. We’ve got to look at this head-on and take the bit between the teeth and deal with it. By dealing with it, you ensure the economic sustainability of restaurants like Nobu and the economic sustainability of fishing businesses. If you look at The Times graph of declines, the fishing industry decline is exactly the same as the fish stock decline. They mirror each other. So, by avoiding it, it gets you nowhere.

Q. One of the most shocking things to emerge about the blue fin tuna is that Japan is freezing it and stock-piling it for the future to make more money. Is anything being done since that’s been exposed to stop that?
Rupert Murray: I was in Japan and spoke to the top official for the Fisheries Ministry. We asked: “Why are Mitsubishi not at this meeting?” It was the final meeting where ICAT were going to say to the industry: “Please abide by the rules in order for this organisation to be credible.” Mitsubishi didn’t turn up. They sent two observers. There was a sense that that section of the industry – the blue fin tuna purchasing and trading – will just do whatever they want to do, irrespective of international objections and the objections of their government. They seem to be out of reach of all of that influence.

Charles Clover: I’m not sure of the answer to that question. In Europe, that’s because it’s linked to organised crime. There’s no doubt that the Neapolitan Mafias are involved in blue fin tuna – everybody in Italy writes about it. Whether that’s what has happened in Japan, with their Mafia, I’m not sure.

Rupert Murray: The thing is that the fishing industry, and the whaling industry, is linked to the far right and linked to the extreme nationalists in Japan because they see it as a matter of national pride that they continue doing these things and flying in the face of international objections. I don’t know about the blue fin tuna industry but it could be the same thing. I just felt that how you gain access to that, and to the people who take decisions in Japan, is anyone’s guess.

Find out more about The End of the Line – World Ocean Day screenings

• Delicious
• Digg
• Reddit
• Facebook
• Stumbleupon