Biting the Hand that Feeds You
This week's New York Times article Europe Takes Africa's Fish and Migrants Follow raises a perplexing problem:
A vast flotilla of industrial trawlers from the European Union, China, Russia and elsewhere, together with an abundance of local boats, have so thoroughly scoured northwest Africa’s ocean floor that major fish populations are collapsing.
That has crippled coastal economies and added to the surge of illegal migrants who brave the high seas in wooden pirogues hoping to reach Europe. While reasons for immigration are as varied as fish species, Europe’s lure has clearly intensified as northwest Africa’s fish population has dwindled.
Last year roughly 31,000 Africans tried to reach the Canary Islands, a prime transit point to Europe, in more than 900 boats. About 6,000 died or disappeared, according to one estimate cited by the United Nations.
The question then arises: who bears the brunt of responsibility for these dwindling fish populations and the subsequent affect on local fishers? The foreign boats which deplete the waters and the foreign consumers which demand them to do so? The local governments, who strapped for cash, make decisions to sell resources needed by their people to fill the government coffers and/or fund state programs?


Comments
Europe's Craving for Fish
There is another article in this series called Europe’s Appetite for Seafood Propels Illegal Trade. It discusses the huge "black market" for fish consumption focused on Europe, and the lack of regulation or control to keep some semblance of order regarding how fish are caught. The most worrisome passage to me is this:
There is no way that regulations will be effective if this is the approach that is taken. Many of these fish are caught and sold illegally, and if the poachers were not able to make a profit on their illegal catch, it would act as a stimulus for them to start operating above the radar!
One of the tragedies of this situation is that much of the illegal fishing is done by European and other international fishing boats off the coast of Africa - where African fishers are actually trying to fish sustainably, recognizing from the European experience that their fish populations are vulnerable. The foreign boats don't care about this though: "large seagoing boats use practices that are dangerous to the environment, particularly the use of vast nets to trawl the sea bed. The nets destroy coral, and unsettle eggs and fish breeding grounds. They gulp up fish that cannot be sold because they are too small. Their competition decimates local fishing industries."
Ms. Hazard asks who bears the
Ms. Hazard asks who bears the brunt of responsibility for declining fish populations. I believe it takes tunnel vision to make the case that African governments are as much to blame as the demand from European markets. Like most stories of resource depletion, this is a story about power. When Western economies fuel an endless demand for timber from global sources, do we blame the Malaysian and the Brazilian individuals doing the logging? Or do we hold responsible the transnational corporations that engage in these destructive practices for their economic gain? For either the individual choosing employment for basic households needs despite recognizing the environmental consequences, or the government accepting a contract with the business for vital state revenue, the idea of taking a moral stand and saying "no" is far easier imagined than done. (When it has been done, the state has usually been met with severe consequences -- see Latin America and oil.) The reality is that local and state actors have little choice but to concede. That subistence fishermen do try, despite the prevailing winds, to fish sustainably, is admirable in and of itself. But as to the question of whether the burden of responsibility for allowing overfishing falls to European markets, or to African governments who give their nod of approval, I believe one has to take into account that the playing ground is deeply unfair. For the Western consumer, with no end to the options to feed themsleves at the end of the day, the idea of taking a moral stand with a "no" is far more practical than for the state or the household, struggling to make ends meet.
As Sid- Ahmed Ould-Abeid, who leads a Mauritanian association of small fishermen, said: “The E.U. has the money, so it has the power. It is easier to sacrifice the local fishermen.” Or take the example of Guinea-Bissau: in a country that is still trying to provide electricity and running water in its capital after civil war, is it any wonder that they will accept a multimillion dollar deal, and that few of those dollars will find their way back to enforcement? In our efforts to see both sides of the story, we should be careful not to put unfair blame on the powerless. Furthermore, Ms. VanderZanden makes the important point that much of the overfishing is currently happening through illegal operations and is sold on the black market. One can ask, is it more just for the nearest country to be responsible for this illegal fishing on basis of geography, or for the governments of destination markets to be responsible? Once you add in the layer of available resources between these two options, one begins to suspect why European governments are not doing more to control illegal fishing in international seas where the product ends up in their country.
This tragedy has been intensified by the number of young Africans attempting dangerous crossings to the Canary Islands and Spain in the past two years. Certainly, Africans have been able to fantasize about the prosperity that could await them in Europe for ages; but the number of these crossings has skyrocketed exponentially in the past two years. The only explanation is a new and previously unseen economic desperation. Against these cirmustances, who should act?
Is it fair to say, as the headline of this article implies, that Africans are biting the hand that feeds them? We need to create the economic conditions that allow African countries to weigh these types of economic deals without a sense of desperation while they make their decision. We need policy -- such as regulatory enforcement funded by the external industry, not under-resourced local bodies -- that provides some teeth to trade deals. We need local fishing communities to directly see benefits of any such programs. Then we can ask on whose shoulders we place a burden of change.
Post new comment
More information about formatting options