Numerous stories are crossing the wires today about the erosion of the fish population off the European and African coasts. The pace at which industrial trawlers, mostly from EU member states, where fishing – like agricultural activity – is subsidized, has put the survival of entire species at peril. In September, the European Union ordered fishers haul in their nets on bluefin tuna, citing the exaustion of quotas. Fisheries had long been one of the most contested areas of the Common Agricultural Policy, so much so, that upon enlargement a separate Directorate General was created to deal only in matters of access rights to territorial waters, fishing quotas and sustainibility levels.
Consumer economics is driving the demand for fish. As many start opting for the “chicken of the sea” and its scaly counterparts for health reasons, global turnover rises. It now amounts to more than 100 million tons each year. Europe has suddenly become the world's largest market for fish, each year worth more than €14 billion. And as appetites grow, native fish populations are declining. Europe alone is now importing half of the fish consumed on its shores, including from countries in the developing world. Still, supply cannot meet demand: Enter the flourishing black market in seafood.
What, do you ask, does any of this have to do with migration? Well, let's see: Those best equipped to compete in a shrinking market, in which the commodity at stake is a limited natural resource are leaders in their field, i.e. industrial trawling companies, not the simple dingies available to the average Mauritanian fisherman. As the industry moves South to follow the flock, African countries have been able to squeeze a tidy sum out of the European Union in negotiations on fishing deals, often disregarding the needs of their own populations. Foreign fleets now far outnumber African counterparts in coastal waters off of Senegal and Mauritania. This, in turn, has forced many African fisherman and their wares onto the thriving black market – or pushed them out of the business completely. As the International Herald Tribune's Sharon LaFraniere reports, many of these are literally abandoning ship in an attempt to carve out a better life for themselves in Europe. Indirectly, the EU is responsible for their loss of livelihood and now they are trying to recapture a life lost by attempting to cross treacherous open waters, often in hope of returning to the only profession they know:
"I could be a fisherman there," he said. "Life is better there. There are no fish in the sea here anymore," the article quotes Ale Nodye, a third generation fisherman and returned illegal immigrant from Senegal.
These stories vividly prove how the erosion of sovereignty, or renegotiation of maritime boundaries can spell economic gain for a select few and hardship for those left behind. It's a story from the globalization picture book. The European Union cannot continue to preach a commitment to combatting the “root causes” of migration in the home countries, while supporting existing policies that make economic migration the only plausible solution for many of those left without means to subsist. If the EU fails to tackle these issues simultaneously, it will again be embroiled in a viscious cycle of useless policies at an extremly high price tag.
