Foreign overfishing in Senegal fuels migration to Spain, a report finds
Overfishing by foreign vessels is decimating fish stocks in the West African country of Senegal, which is in turn fueling migration to Spain, according to a report released Tuesday.
The Environmental Justice Foundation, a London-based group specializing in environmental and human rights issues, said illegal overfishing and destructive practices by foreign vessels are responsible for increased irregular migration to Spain. It based its conclusions on interviews with fishermen in Spain and Senegal and its prior research on foreign overfishing.
The group found that 57% of fish stocks in Senegal are in a 'state of collapse,' with foreign vessels playing a significant role in declining numbers. Its analysis showed 43.7% of licensed vessels in Senegal are foreign-controlled, predominantly of Spanish and Chinese origin.
As fish populations dwindle, local fishermen are facing income loss, and many have turned to migration as a last resort. Fishing is an important economic sector in Senegal that employs 3% of the workforce.
Irregular migration to the Canary Islands almost doubled in 2024, according to the Spanish Interior Ministry, reaching 46,843. While exact figures aren't known due to a lack of information on departures from West Africa, Senegal is one of the top three nationalities of arrivals to the Spanish islands.
The Atlantic route from West Africa to the Canary Islands is one of the deadliest in the world. The Spanish migrant rights group Walking Borders estimates the victims were in the thousands last year.
Migrants and former fishermen in the Canary Islands told the Environmental Justice Foundation that the treacherous journey to Spain was a last resort, a way to provide for families when fishing in Senegal could no longer put food on the table.
'If I was able to gain enough money in fishing, I would never have come to Europe,' said Memedou Racine Seck.
Local activists in Senegal have voiced their frustration with foreign overfishing and its contribution to the migration crisis. Karim Sall, President of AGIRE, a Senegalese organization operating in the Joal-Fadiouth marine protected area, condemned foreign nations for their role in the crisis.
'I get so angry when (foreign nations) complain about immigration because they are the real pirates and what they did is worse than clandestine immigration. It's theft, plundering our resources to feed their own inhabitants while we suffer,' said Sall.
Industrial foreign fleets, many of which use bottom trawling techniques, are exacerbating the crisis. These vessels drag heavy nets across the seafloor, indiscriminately catching young fish and destroying marine ecosystems like seagrass and coral reefs, which are vital for fish reproduction. As a result, fish stocks are unable to recover, deepening the hardships of local fishing communities and eaters. Fish plays an important role in food security in Senegal, especially for protein consumption. Due to declining fish stocks, consumption per capita in Senegal has fallen from 29 kilograms per year to 17.8 kilograms per person.
The report also pointed to a lack of transparency in fishing licenses and inadequate government management of fisheries as contributing factors. Despite efforts by the Senegalese government to address the crisis, experts warn that without stricter regulations on industrial foreign fleets, the situation will worsen.
Migrant and former fisherman Souleymane Sady, who arrived in the Canary Islands in 2020, summed up the situation fishermen in Senegal face: 'Since the government cannot regulate the boats and we cannot work normally, we choose to run away from the country to come for stability,' he said.
____
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
13 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on riots in Northern Ireland: racist violence does not express ‘legitimate grievance'
A reputation for political violence is one reason Northern Ireland has historically attracted fewer immigrants than the rest of the UK. In that context, increasing diversity could be read as a measure of progress; a peace dividend after the Troubles. That isn't how it has felt to families cowering in fear of racist mobs this week. The riots started in Ballymena, ostensibly triggered by the arrest of two boys, reported to be of Romanian origin, accused of sexually assaulting a teenage girl. A community vigil mutated into a racist rampage. Masked thugs targeted the local migrant population. When police came to quell the pogrom, officers were attacked with bricks, fireworks, petrol bombs. There was contagion. Windows were smashed and a fire started at a leisure centre in nearby Larne that had been used as a temporary refuge for those fleeing the Ballymena violence. There were outbreaks of disorder in other towns. Leaders from across Northern Ireland's political spectrum have condemned the violence. But on the unionist side in particular, there has also been much leavening of opprobrium with reference to 'legitimate' underlying grievances. Judiciously expressed, the complaint is that migration has been poorly managed, putting a strain on local services. In its more pungent iteration, it is the insinuation that new arrivals get preferential treatment, especially regarding housing. On the street, that degenerates into a miasma of hatred – a generalised accusation of parasitism and criminality imported by the foreigners. Rumour and disinformation, propagated online, accelerates collective movement through the gears from inchoate frustration to vigilante rampage. Northern Ireland is the least diverse part of the UK. Immigrants make up about 3.4% of the population, compared with 18.3% in England and Wales, and 12.9% in Scotland. But that comparison belies relatively rapid and concentrated demographic change in places such as Ballymena. And while sectarian violence is no longer endemic, the Troubles cast a shadow of intercommunal suspicion that makes it harder for outsiders to integrate. There is also a developed infrastructure of far-right extremism that evolved through close ties to loyalist paramilitaries. Those are distinct Northern Irish inflections on a problem that is far from unique to the region. The escalation from a single spark to a conflagration of violent bigotry is grimly familiar from the rioting that erupted across the UK last summer. Then it was the murder of three young girls in Southport that became the pretext for a malevolent carnival of xenophobic rage. Then, too, it was possible to excavate a kernel of socioeconomic grievance from the ashes. It is always worth tracking the underlying forces that lead to public disorder. But that analysis can also be used to sanitise and normalise the kind of political rhetoric that makes scapegoats of migrants and inflames the grievances it purports to address. There is no justifiable pathway from a complaint about inadequate public service provision and fear of crime to terrorising innocent people, destroying public amenities and attacking the police. There are places across the UK where deprivation and social alienation, simmering for years, can be mobilised as racist violence. There is a line between acknowledging the social conditions that make such a danger possible and narrating those conditions in ways that make violence more likely. The boundary is not hard to see, which brings all the more shame on the politicians who routinely cross it.
The Guardian
21 hours ago
- The Guardian
Attenborough's Ocean is the film I've been waiting my whole career for – now the world must act on its message
I have been saying this a lot recently: 'At last!' At last, a mainstream film bluntly revealing the plunder of our seas. At last, a proposed ban on bottom trawling in so-called 'marine protected areas' (MPAs). At last, some solid research on seabed carbon and the vast releases caused by the trawlers ploughing it up. But still I feel that almost everyone is missing the point. David Attenborough's Ocean film, made for National Geographic, is the one I've been waiting for all my working life. An epoch ago, when I worked in the BBC's Natural History Unit in the mid-1980s, some of us lobbied repeatedly for films like this, without success. Since then, even programmes that purport to discuss marine destruction have carefully avoided the principal cause: the fishing industry. The BBC's Blue Planet II and Blue Planet Live series exemplified the organisation's perennial failure of courage. You can see the results in public beliefs. While assessments have long shown that the primary reason for the destruction of marine life is overfishing, in a poll last year, people in the UK placed it fourth. Eating our fish dinners while shaking our heads at the state of the oceans, we have been systematically misled by those whose job is to inform us. Maybe Ocean will change that. The great public enthusiasm for the film shows, yet again, that the mantra endlessly recited by broadcasters – environmental issues turn away viewers – is false. You just have to do it, as this film does, powerfully and well. The government's announcement that trawling and scallop dredging will be banned from half of England's MPAs is welcome. But this should be seen as the very least it could do. Conservationists have been calling for years for these protected areas to be, well, protected from the major cause of destruction. While heralded as a great step forward, the new policy is actually a step back from the Tory position: the Conservatives planned 'to protect all 54 English offshore MPAs from fishing activity by the end of 2024'. It also falls far short of the call last week by the House of Commons environmental audit committee for full protection of MPAs, and the achievement of 'good environmental status' for our seas. The statutory deadline for reaching this status was 2020, but we are still nowhere near. Nor does the new policy take us anywhere close to the promise of '30x30': the protection of 30% of our land and sea by 2030. How will the government close this gap? Labour keeps slicing and dicing the problem. The new measures are intended to protect particular seabed features and particular species. But the fishing industry trashes everything. A government spokesperson told me 'a full ban across MPAs is not needed as some MPAs are designated solely for highly mobile species such as birds'. But what about mobile species such as fish? In fact, almost all marine animals, at some point in their life cycles, are highly mobile. The spokesperson said protection was needed only where particular features occurred. Why might large areas of seabed possess no valuable features? Because they have been ploughed out by trawlers. Much of the bed of the North Sea, for example, was once covered with a biotic crust of oysters and beautiful sessile animals. Now it's mostly bare mud, sand and gravel, and deemed unworthy of protection. But if boats stopped ploughing it, the crust would recover. Good environmental status requires very large areas closed to destructive fishing techniques, regardless of what currently survives there. Some of us had long speculated that trawling and dredging must release large amounts of carbon from the seabed. But data on the issue was remarkably slow in coming. Now, at last, solid research has begun, and we find that it is indeed a major problem, adding even more to the costs that the fishing industry imposes on society and the living planet. But in almost all public discussion of these issues, including Ocean, I feel the problem has been framed the wrong way round. Nearly everyone seems to agree that we should carve out some areas of sea from the fishing industry and other destructive forces. The implication is that the default state of the seas is exploitation, from which we should make exceptions. But as the marine campaigner Deborah Rowan Wright has long argued, it makes more sense to reverse this presumption. The default position should be protection, from which we might exclude some places (the least fragile) where some fishing activities (the least damaging) are permitted. Such residual fishing should be concentrated in the hands of local coastal communities, rather than captured by the huge industrial combines that, as Ocean showed, are snatching food from the people who need it most. This would cause the mother of all 'spillover effects'. Spillover is what happens when fish and shellfish are allowed to breed and grow undisturbed in protected places: in many cases, as their offspring spread into surrounding waters, total fish catches increase, even though the area in which fishing is permitted has shrunk. If killing were allowed in only a minority of places, far less fishing effort would be required to catch more and bigger fish. Even then, we should remember that fish are wildlife, not 'seafood'. They are not put on Earth for our consumption. They do not exist in 'stocks', but in populations and ecosystems. There is no such thing as 'underexploited' or 'underfished', though these terms have long featured in the lexicon of official bodies and compliant scientists. The extraordinary thing is just how tiny this industry is, yet it seems to hold the world's governments to ransom. Last month, the British government announced that it was giving £360m to the fishing industry 'to drive growth and boost the sector'. Why? The government's own figures show that fishing costs us far more than it makes: it estimates that the proposed ban on trawling in half of England's MPAs will cost UK businesses and public bodies £7.8m, while delivering 'benefits from enhanced environmental protection' of approximately £3.1bn. Why the hell should public money, withheld from public services in desperate need, be spent on fishing, the most destructive of all private industries? I've watched for 40 years as governments, protected by timid broadcasters, have wasted every opportunity to prevent ecological collapse. As they assemble in France for the UN Ocean Conference, they should pledge not to waste another day. George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist
The Independent
2 days ago
- The Independent
Barron Trump's friend Bo Loudon claims he got ICE to detain TikTok star Khaby Lame
Bo Loudon, the purported 'best friend' of Barron Trump, has claimed he is responsible for the arrest of the world's most famous TikToker who was detained by ICE and later forced to leave the U.S. The MAGA, Gen-Z influencer, who has been pictured numerous times with the president and his son, said he had 'personally taken action' to have Khaby Lame deported. 'No one is above the law!' he wrote in a series of posts on X, later adding: 'I've been working with the patriots at President Trump's DHS to make this happen. He was just ARRESTED in Vegas and is in ICE CUSTODY!' Despite a community note on the post calling Loudon out for false information, ICE confirmed that Lame had been detained at the Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas for violating the terms of his visa on June 6. The 25-year-old star had entered the U.S. on April 30 on a temporary visa. A spokesperson for ICE said he had been granted 'voluntary departure' following his arrest and had since left the country. 'No one works faster than President Trump's administration!' Loudon wrote, following news of Lame's departure. ICE has not confirmed Loudon's involvement publicly, and did not provide further information when contacted by The Independent. Lame, whose real name is Serigne Khabane Lame, is a Senegalese-Italian TikToker known for his deadpan reactions to other videos. His viral videos have earned him a following of more than 162 million. While in the country, Lame attended the Met Gala in New York City on May 5. He has not commented publicly on the allegations that he overstayed his visa. It is also unclear if Lame returned to Italy immediately and posted an Instagram Story of himself in São Paulo, Brazil, after leaving the U.S. Despite barely being old enough to vote, Loudon and Barron Trump were unofficially recruited to help the oldest presidential candidate in history tap into the manosphere and capture the 'bro vote' in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election. Loudon, from Palm Beach, Florida, is the son of Dr Gina Loudon, the conservative television pundit and former co-chair of Women for Trump in 2020, and John Loudon, a former Missouri state senator.
