The Group's high-tech fleet has the largest ships and is just the most recent example of
commercial trawling in Mauritania. The fact that it could be paid to exploit one of the
last and potentially richest fishing spots on the planet also reflects a European policy
that has led to the fisheries crisis. Between 1985 and 1996, EU support to its fishing
industry rose from ECU 175 million to ECU 875Call while fish stocks consistently dropped. In
1996, the EU's total budget for distant water fleet agreements was ECU 280 million.
The Dutch aren't the only ones commercially trawling Mauritania's waters. Between 1972
and 1991, Russian Federation ships led the pack, taking 17.8 million tons of fish off
Mauritania and Senegal. Japan, South Korea and Spain take a heavy toll as well. While these
governments legalize and promote intensive fishing, they fail to take responsibility for
monitoring and enforcement to ensure the sustainability of the fish stocks.
The current EU-Mauritania agreement not only involves the pelagic trawlers, but also
17 vessels for longliners and canners of tuna, 40 tuna freezer seiners, and fisheries for
langouste and other crustaceans, squid and demersal species. The total compensation is
ECU 266 million over five years and includes ECU 55 million a year for a scientific research
programme.
The fisheries crisis is an intricate web of politics, economics, environmental policy and
the plain old struggle of day-to-day survivalCa tangle as complex as the marine food chain
that the fishing industry depends on. The power struggle between Spain's Canary Islands,
Mauritania, artisanal fishermen from both countries, and The Group encapsulates the
situation worldwide.
As part of its operation, The Group has created a subsidiary called Spanish Pelagic to
build a freezer plant at Puerto de la LuzCand it wants the Spanish government to subsidize
it to the tune of 4,500 million pesetas (US$30.6 million). Where would the money come from?
The European Commission's Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) allocates funds
to countries to improve their fisheries or processing facilities. Even though Spanish
Pelagic's proposed freezer plant would almost surely put Puerto de la Luz's existing six
locally owned plants (which already are only 40 percent full) out of business, the vice
president of the Canary Island government, Lorenzo Olarte, pushed hard to have almost all of
the islands' FIFG funds go to the Dutch company. Gabriel Mato, fisheries counsellor of the
Canary Islands government, wants the money to go to local artisanal fishermen and fought
Olarte's proposal. With WWF and Greenpeace lobbying the European Commission, Mato won.
However, Olarte has vowed to find the money from elsewhere within the government. Why would
he support a plan that would cost more jobs than it created, as well as literally take the
food out of islanders' (and Mauritanians') mouths?