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.