In a new series of articles on the relationship between Europe’s demand for fish and the world’s supply, the New York Times links EU fisheries agreements to increased illegal immigration. Trying their luck, either transporting immigrants or paying to be shipped themselves, may be the only solution that remains when there is no fish left in the sea, argues fishermen from West Africa.
The New York Times is running a series of articles – Empty Seas – on the seemingly insatiable demand for fish in Europe and its effects around the world. The article about fisheries agreements and the decline of fish stocks in Africa was the first. It has since been followed by another article looking at the sharp increase in trade with fish and seafood and how it fuels illegal activities.
According to Steve Trent at the Environmental Justice Foundation based in the UK, Europe has sought to manage its fisheries and limit fishing in European waters, but in the process we have been exporting the problem of overfishing to other parts of the world, particularly Africa. It is estimated that coastal stocks in northwest Africa are now just a quarter of their earlier size, and many species are being replaced by other lower down on the food chain, creating further ecological change.
The New York Times’ article makes clear that governments in Africa carry much of the blame for this mismanagement. The income from fisheries agreements with foreign nations or fleets is simply too large a temptation for most. For example, the latest EU agreement with Mauretania make up more almost a fifth of the Government’s national budget. NB. A debate is currently underway in the EU to terminate this agreement – it was debated at last week’s Agriculture and Fisheries Council.
It is well-known that resources for control and enforcement in most countries that the EU has agreements with are non-existing, and that widespread illegal fishing takes place, further exacerbating the problems.
Local fishermen are often powerless and have to watch what used to be their livelihood decline. The idea that local fishermen should have first priority when it comes to the fish in their waters is enshrined in the United Nations treaty on the seas that was agreed in 1994. But so far, this has had little effect.
The money from the fisheries agreements rarely reach the local communities depending on the resource, not even the funds earmarked for development of the national fishing sector. It is common for African governments to either misspend or divert the funds to address more urgent matters, forcing coastal fishermen to move on to something else.