Fishing for development: A question for social work

Introduction

The collapse of the ‘real socialism’ in Eastern Europe in the early 1990s entailed a ‘liberal vision’ which celebrated the ‘end of history’, in Fukuyama’s term, claiming that the globalization of capitalism would create a more peaceful and wealthy world (e.g. Calhoun, 2007). However, increasing ethnic conflicts, wars and environmental crises indicate almost the opposite. Economic globalization (Beck, 1999) and the dominance of neo-liberalism, together with the retreat of welfare states, have reinforced and increased global inequalities and social problems (Dominelli, 2010; Ferguson et al., 2005 ; Lyons et al., 2006; Sewpaul, 2006). Such transformations have resulted in many negative consequences for many people and their living conditions around the world (McMichael, 2008). However, people in disadvantaged countries are much more harmed by recent structural transformations and their local consequences, such as the destruction of traditional living conditions in local communities. This is one of the major reasons behind increasing migration of people from local communities either to major cities in their own countries or to Europe (Adepoju, 2004). One of the major agents behind structural transformations in many non-European countries in general and in African countries in particular is the European Union (EU), which has launched many development projects in those countries. For example, fishing agreements with African countries are argued to be based on mutual interests and important for African countries’ development. This is based on a linear understanding of modernity and development. Such understanding of a single and European modernity and development is one of the most controversial claims of our century, which recently has been highly challenged and criticized (Kamali, 1998, 2006; Eisenstadt, 2002; Mohan, 1992). The multiplicities of developmental patterns formed by local conditions are mainly ignored in agreements and development projects launched by the EU and other international agents (Eriksson Baaz, 2005). This results in the reproduction of European countries’ privileges and often does not lead to major improvements of the condition of lives of the ‘others’ (Kamali, 2006, 2008; Goudge, 2003; Mohan, 2008).

In addition, most development initiatives and interventions are bound to national borders, focusing on geographical areas, and aim to have an impact on the lives of people within the programme area, that is, the nation, the region, the district, the city or the village. Such ‘nationalist’ bias, embedded in the argumentation that a successful development programme will help to create better living conditions and enable people to stay in their local communities, has also been criticized (Bakewell, 2008; Wimmer and Schiller, 2002). Many development projects, which are often designed in, and funded by, Western countries and bear the burden of the Enlightenment epistemologies, are Eurocentric and have proven ineffective in addressing the real needs of local communities in many non-Western countries (Jönsson, 2010; Crush, 2003; Eriksson Baaz, 2005; Escobar, 1995). Such projects entail a discourse of development based on ‘imagined geographies’ of the so-called ‘third world’, which normally frames the ‘underdeveloped world’ as inferior and in need of developmental interventions and the ‘first world’ as superior and development agents (Goudge, 2003; Power, 2001, 2003).

Real consequences of many development projects for local communities should be the major concern of social work, as social work is in many cases excluded from theoretical discussions and debates about policy-making. It is normally reduced to presenting the field of social intervention in order to identify ‘vulnerable groups’, often labelled as ‘victims’, and work for their treatment, rehabilitation and education (Chambon, 2007; Hayes and Humphries, 2004; Matthies, 2009). Increasing migration to Europe and the displacement of millions of people from non-Western countries force us to re-evaluate the theories and policies of development as well as the practices of social work in an era of increasing global inequalities, where Western institutions continue to exercise their power by ‘knowing what is best’ in a postcolonial era (Appadurai, 1996).

Development discourse and social work

The concept of development arising from the ‘modernist ideology’ can be traced back to the Enlightenment philosophers, as well as social scientists, such as Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. Modernization understood as ‘European civilization’, social progress, instrumental rationality and Western cultural domination is taken as an explanation of the growing gap between the industrialized countries of the ‘West’ and the ‘underdeveloped’ non-Western countries. Therefore the Western developmental ‘blueprints’, including modern education, should be followed by all other countries in the world (Kamali, 2006). The global education of social work is also affected by such understanding (Jönsson, 2010).

Development theory did not arise in a social or institutional vacuum (Cowen and Shenton, 1996; Crush, 2003; Escobar, 1995), but exists within a vast hierarchical apparatus of knowledge production and consumption which affects human societies. The concept and policies of development should be critically analysed as it gains its legitimacy not only from its power to seduce and people’s dreams for a better life, but also from its power to turn people away from the truth (Rist, 1997). It sacrifices environment, solidarities, traditional interpretations and customs, and, for the overwhelming majority, it has always meant increasing poverty and growing dependence (Esteva, 1987).

The belief in a single Western modernity and the denial of the existence of multiple modernities in different countries (Kamali, 2006, 2008) have paradoxically led to the impoverishment and exclusion of targeted people (McMichael, 2010). The concept and programmes of development often ignore the existence of broad national and international social injustices (Mohan, 2007). As mentioned earlier, the EU is one of the major actors in the field of what McMichael (2010) calls the ‘development industry’.

The main objective of this study is to examine how the EU’s fishing partnership agreements influence individual life chances in a number of African fishing communities and if the agreements lead to forced migration from African fishing communities to Europe. Furthermore, the role of social work in such global transformations will be explored. The following questions have guided this work: How do immigrants from fishing areas in some African countries experience the fishing agreements between the EU and their countries of origin? How do the immigrants experience their migration to, and assess their current lives in, Europe? How can social work play a role in working with the individual consequences of such global transformations?

Methodology

The findings of this study are based upon a variety of data. Key informant interviews, which are widely used in social development inquiries (Davis, 1997), were conducted with two EU politicians with proper knowledge about the EU’s fishing agreements and programmes for global development. Both politicians have been directly engaged in debates and discussions concerning EU agreements, fishing and migration policies for many years. In order to understand the situation of social work in Africa, key informant interviews were also conducted with two African social workers with proper knowledge both from working in fishing communities and from the position of social work in many African countries. One of the interviewees was responsible for one of the largest educational institutions in social work in an African country. He came originally from Cameroon, which hosted many EU-fishing projects, and had worked in social work practice in the fishing areas. The other interviewee was a female social worker from Senegal who had voluntarily worked in fishing communities in Senegal for four years.

The principle for selection of key informants was that they ‘should (1) occupy roles that make them knowledgeable about the issues being researched and (2) be able and willing to communicate with the researcher’ (George and Reve, 1982: 519). Furthermore, interviews were conducted with 11 individuals with migrant backgrounds from African countries, who had direct experiences of fishing connected to the EU’s policies for global development. The interviewees were 10 men and 1 woman between the ages of 29 and 46 years, with backgrounds from Cameroon, Gambia, Ivory Coast, Senegal and South Africa. The over-representation of male interviewees depends partly on that the majority of immigrants from African countries to Europe are men (Eurostat, 2010) and partly on the fact that the majority of former fishers migrating to Europe are young men.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted containing open-ended questions relating to the sociopolitical context of the EU’s policies for global development, as well as the local and individual consequences of the EU’s partnership agreements. All interviews were conducted in Sweden (Stockholm) and England (London) between April and June 2010. Each interview lasted between 90 and 120 minutes. The interviews were supplemented by visiting the everyday life of the respondents, sharing meals, following their daily work, mingling with families and friends and attending programme activities. Through the meetings and discussions which took place outside the formal set-up, we could capture other aspects and dimensions of their lives and experiences. This was mainly informed by the assumption that reality can be interpreted in various ways, is dependent on subjective interpretations and requires cooperation and understanding between researcher and interviewees (Graneheim and Lundman, 2004). Qualitative research based on interviews, narratives and observations is not value-free, but contextual and formed by the researchers’, the participants’ and the social surroundings’ values (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Mishler, 1986; Temple and Edwards, 2002).

The interviews were supplemented by analysis of the EU’s fishing documents, such as ‘European Commission Fisheries policy documents’. The analyses of both the EU documents and interviews are based on content analysis. Although the content analysis method goes back to the quantitative research of the early 1950s (Berelson, 1952), it has come to be used in many qualitative analyses of data (Graneheim and Lundman, 2004; Latter et al., 2000; O’Brien et al., 1997). The method of content analysis helps in identifying core consistencies and meanings in a variety of qualitative materials (Patton, 2002) both in their manifest or latent forms (Graneheim and Lundman, 2004). Analysing what we see in a text or what the text says deals with the manifest content of the text (Downe-Wamboldt, 1992), but analysing what the text really means and talks about deals with an interpretation of the underlying meaning of the text, that is, its latent content (Downe-Wamboldt, 1992; see also Graneheim and Lundman, 2004). Although we were interested in both aspects of content analysis, the latent content of the texts was more central to the analysis of the EU documents. It made it possible to trace the links between the visible and the invisible, the dominant and marginalized, between ideas and institutions, and thus see the mechanisms behind the maintenance of privileges and power relations by the means of text and language.

The EU’s fishing agreements and Africa’s development

Although the development aid that flows to African countries is substantial (Huybrechts and Peels, 2009), it has been criticized for being paternalistic and Eurocentric, stressing the superior, reliable, efficient ‘donor’ in contrast to the inadequate, passive, unreliable ‘partner’ or recipient (Eriksson Baaz, 2005).

As the agricultural sector and other natural resources are declining in many African countries, coastal and offshore marine resources are often the remaining source of potential long-term sustained economic growth and a source of cheap protein for a growing population (Alder and Sumaila, 2004). It is of crucial importance that fishing opportunities, vital for local communities’ livelihoods and survival, remain unexploited. Since 2004, the EU have named fishing agreements with third countries Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPAs) to indicate that these are of mutual interest and key to development in the so-called ‘developing countries’ (European Commission Fisheries Factsheet, 2010; European Commission Fisheries Policy, 2008). Fishing in African waters is, however, nothing new and goes back to European colonialism; it has long continued, even since the independence of African countries (Atta-Mills et al., 2004).

The analysis of the EU documents concerning FPAs shows that there is a latent agenda in the documents with strong Eurocentric content and ambitions. The EU (2008) declares that:

Overcoming poverty and ensuring food security in West Africa are major challenges, both for the governments of the region and for international donors, such as the EU. But the EU’s FPAs are not part of that problem. Indeed, they may be part of its solution.

However, FPAs, despite the politically correct and legitimate promises, demonstrate that the EU’s economic interests are more important than its political commitments (see Carbone, 2008). EU countries fishing in African waters has resulted in varying levels of exploitation of marine resources throughout western Africa which have impoverished the marine ecosystem and created huge economic and social problems (Adepoju, 2003; Alder and Sumaila, 2004; Sumaila et al., 2007). As one of the key informants, Abel, says:

In the urban areas you can find a lot of unemployed people who are struggling to get fish and sell. Due to mass fishing from Europe and China it has become impossible for them to continue to get fish and sell for living in their local communities. Europeans and Chinese are dominating with their sophisticated boats and go very far into the sea and take all the fish. The local fishermen cannot go very far because they use small wooden boats. So the people now have to search for other types of engagement in order to survive. Consequently many of them move to other areas of engagement such as crime.

The EU in its FPA (European Commission Fisheries Factsheet, 2010) declares that its fishing policies will not harm local communities:

In this way, the EU can be sure, among other things, that the fishing opportunities it can use are in line with the best available scientific advice, and will neither deplete fragile stocks, nor put its boats in competition with local artisanal fishers who depend upon coastal fisheries for their livelihoods and sustenance.

However, research shows that the fishing agreements ignore the ‘partners’’ needs for fishing opportunities, vital for local communities’ livelihoods and survival (Alder and Sumaila, 2004). This is confirmed by Anna, one of the European politicians engaged in the EU agreements:

I believe that the main objective is to get fish for ourselves. It is not to help West African countries. Documents can look very ambitious and good, however this is about self-interest. And it’s the same with the other partnership agreements. It is self-interest governing.

Many local fishers, who are forbidden from fishing in the waters contracted to Europeans, do not see any other opportunities but to fish under the cover of darkness. The EU admits that a new phenomenon has occurred in the areas where the EU’s large fishing fleets are engaged in fishing, namely the ‘illegal fishing’ or ‘pirates fishing’. The EU declares that the EU and its local companions should be engaged in military operations to ‘fight pirate fishing’ (European Commission Fisheries Policy, 2008).

Many interviewees see the agreements between the EU and many African countries as a continuation of colonization of their countries. As the interviewee Idrissa from Senegal says:

Colonialism has not ended. They have just changed the process, to continue to colonize in a different way. One should not think that Africans are free to do what we want. It is not true. Powerlessness and dependence relations are produced and reproduced. Africa has been colonized and is now re-colonized in a different way where the sectors of fisheries and agriculture are just two examples of this.

The key informant, Diabira, who is an educator in social work, confirms what Idrissa says by arguing that it is not only the fishing industry which is affected by Western intervention, but ‘all commerce, trade and other economic issues’, which have affected Africa’s development enormously. According to interviewees in this study, the destructive fishing policies of the EU have led to the destruction of local communities’ life chances, forcing many people to leave their traditional communities and to emigrate to other places. Many African intellectuals and participants in social movements are united in opposition to the partnership because it surrenders too much to international institutions and contributes to the reproduction of existing power relations (Power, 2003). Partnership, according to many interviewees, is nothing more than what Cowen and Shenton (1996) call continuation of colonialism beyond its formal end. In many cases the discourse of partnership is used to justify exploitation and exclusion of otherized people (Crush, 1995).

Destruction of local communities and emigration

Many Africans are forced to emigrate to the urban areas of their countries in search of jobs and income opportunities. This is the most common pattern of migration in Africa based on governmental modernization, destruction of agricultural opportunities and increasing urbanization. As a result, migration to Europe has also increased during the last few decades. Migration is mainly presented by interviewees in this study as a ‘forced migration’, not something that one chooses voluntarily. Saliou from Senegal says that:

10 to 15 years ago it was a free choice, a voluntary action if you wanted to stay in West Africa, or travel to Europe. In the last 10 years, people are now forced to flee to Europe. Because of contemporary agreements such as within the sectors of fisheries and agriculture as well as other trade agreements on the global market, people see no future, the future is very uncertain.

Interviewees describe huge problems, such as overfishing and destruction of local opportunities which European countries, Japan and China have created for West African countries in the last 15 years. As Elhadj from Senegal puts it:

What happens is that the Senegalese fishermen who have a small fishing company have to support his family of 10 maybe 15 persons, cannot support the family any more. What happens is that it’s not just the fishermen who migrate to Europe, but nearly half of their family. They invest all their assets to travel to Europe in search of better income. It is useless to change the situation, it is impossible to find another job.

However, migration to Europe is for many a very costly and dangerous process that can take a very long time, with major risks for migrants’ lives. As argued earlier, the desperate endeavours of many people in African rural areas to tackle poverty and the destruction of their traditional life chances force them to move to both urban areas in major African cities and to Europe. This creates a new market, which even changes the function of the old fishing boats. As one of the interviewees, Souleyman, from Senegal, says: ‘the fishing boats of the local communities formerly used for fishing now is used to transport people to Europe’. He means that they cannot stay and bear the burden of increasing poverty and other inequalities. Migration becomes a choice between heaven and hell, according to him:

We call it ‘Barça ou Barzakh’. ¹ Barca means Barcelona and Barzakh means hell. Meaning that you reach Barcelona [Europe] or you will die, one stays in a place between heaven and hell. They have no choice; they just have to do that.

It is not only fishermen, but many young men and women who leave their local communities for migration to Europe. Many of them have never been to sea and have no idea of the conditions of crossing the Mediterranean Sea in risky old boats. As Muhammed, a migrant from Gambia, says:

These are young men who have never been to sea. They go out to sea, without life jackets, they have to spend 10 days on the water, with sea waves higher than 10 meters. You cannot eat, whatever you eat comes up. You don’t sleep, it is burning sun, and you are scared. You start hallucinating after three days. There have been many stories about people coming back mentally sick after their experiences. Many die onboard. It ruins their lives.

Although many die during their trips or fail to reach European coasts, there are others who succeed in entering Europe in hope of a better life and job opportunities in European countries in order to make their living and send money back to their families in Africa.

Living in Europe as immigrants

Entering Europe does not automatically mean getting well-paid jobs and better living conditions for all immigrants. Although some groups of immigrants, because of their educational backgrounds and place of birth, improve their living conditions in Europe, many others are forced into low-paid and ‘dirty’ jobs and become subjected to racism and inhuman exploitation based on an established structural discrimination and everyday racism (Essed and Goldberg, 2002; Fekete, 2009; Kamali, 2008). Besides, during recent decades anti-immigrant sentiments have increased with the entrance of xenophobic parties into European parliaments and local assemblies. They are framing immigration as a danger to European ‘cultural homogeneity’, modernity and welfare. Xenophobic parties increasingly influence the public debate by portraying immigrants from former colonies as invaders who are abusing the welfare system of European countries and endangering European security. It seems that the old European dilemma based on declarations of human rights and universalism on the one side, and the reality of racism and exclusion of people with immigrant and minority background on the other, is reinforced by the electoral success of xenophobic parties (Kamali, 2008). This is even confirmed by some European politicians working with the issues of immigration. As the politician, Mary, puts it:

The fulfilment of human rights is very bad. Most of West African immigrants are economic refugees, and their rights are violated even more as there is no system supporting their rights to seek asylum. But even those who seek asylum in Greece for example, are treated like rats. It is paradoxical that we in Europe are giving aid to strengthen democracy, human rights and development in African countries, when those people who are working and fighting for these issues in their own countries are forced to flee because of our policies and interventions and have to stand horrible treatment, far from human rights here in Europe.

Being ‘the others’ of European countries is confirmed almost by all interviewees. Muhammed, from Gambia, says ‘Human rights are only for white Europeans, only, only, only. It is not for Africans, no black man, no Asians, or South Americans’. Many immigrants see themselves as being ‘caught in between’ and not belonging anywhere. Dekete from the Ivory Coast illustrates this:

We never had the chance to work where we were. And when we are here [in Europe] society looks at us as we do not belong to here. We are outcasts, caught in between, do not belong there, and do not belong here.

There are other aspects to migration that influence many immigrants’ chances in Europe. Meanwhile, the increasing military control of the EU’s borders by cooperation between member states, that is, Frontex, has already resulted in thousands of ‘unwanted’ immigrants dying or being deported before reaching the EU, and all the while other non-European immigrants are openly welcomed: those well-educated immigrants needed in Europe. The division of migration into desirable and undesirable migration (Castles and Miller, 2003) is well-known by the immigrants. As one of the interviewees, Mustapha, from Senegal says:

The borders to Europe are just growing higher and higher. It is just a system of controlling people, a system of selecting the ones with skills, and sorting out the others having no rights or dignity. The rich, the wealthy, they are allowed to come in, or lawyers, doctors or if you are working for World Bank and United Nations they will let you in.

It is of course not only the EU’s immigration policies which encourage people to immigrate to Europe, but the increasing socioeconomic gaps between the privileged European and non-privileged non-European countries. Even many educated groups, including social workers, are increasingly leaving African local communities for Europe, according to interviewees.

Local problems and global social work education

The destruction of fishing communities in some African countries, partly as a result of the EU’s fishing agreements, have already led to increasing social problems in fishing communities, according to the interviewees. As social worker, Fatima, who has been working in two local fishing communities in Senegal, says:

There are many families who have no job, no money and have to fight for their living in those fishing communities. They even have no right to fishing, even if they take their small boats during the nights to the sea, there are very few or no fish at all. Large European fishing boats have emptied the sea. Families do not have the money to afford their children’s education and healthcare. Many working people leave their community and those staying, such as elderly, women, children, are living under miserable and inhuman conditions.

This is a problem that engages many governments and non-governmental organizations in Africa. Meanwhile, educated and skilled social workers in African countries are needed, today more than ever before; the shortage of economic resources for many African nation-states, combined with corruption and cooperation with European multinational companies, hinder the development of the social work profession. As someone responsible for social work education in South Africa and himself a social worker who participated in this study, Diabira argues, ‘social workers are very few in Africa and most of the educated social workers are moving to Europe in search of better work opportunities’. However, some African countries, such as South Africa, try to stem the loss of educated people, such as social workers. According to Diabira:

The government has increased the salaries of social workers in South Africa so that they can stay, but people still want to move away. And, regardless, the fact is there are lots of problems that social workers need to tackle, but social workers are moving away.

This is a serious problem not only for South Africa, but also for many other African countries in need of educated people who are able to work with increasing social problems and social inequalities. As another interviewee, Abubaker, says:

It obviously affects African countries and there is an awareness of the existence of an intellectual generation who are educated in Senegal, then go to Europe, continue with training in Europe and then stay there and do not come back.

Confronting the weakening role of the state, traditional solidarity has been the only model of social work in many African communities (e.g. Sarr, 2005). However, as social worker Fatima mentions, even the traditional solidarity based on community help has weakened. Nevertheless, some social workers stay and work under such difficult conditions. As Fatima puts it, ‘social work here is much based on NGOs’ and religious groups’ engagement in the community’.

Another challenge to social work in African fishing communities is the lack of contextualized education and knowledge about the global transformations which affect the life conditions of many people living in traditional communities. Social work education in Africa, as in many other non-Western countries, is very much influenced by modern Western countries’ educational systems and curricula. Globalization has not merely been economic, but has also meant globalization of other modern institutions, such as democracy, military and educational systems (Giddens, 1990). Even social work education has been globalized and many Western universities’ educational curricula have been adapted by non-Western countries’ universities (Jönsson, 2010). Western curricula in social work lack a greater global awareness and fail to address problems on a worldwide scale (Dominelli, 2010; Haug, 2004; Hokenstad and Midgley, 1997; Midgley, 2001). Therefore social work education has sometimes been termed as ‘professional imperialism’ (Midgley, 1981). Accordingly, the globalized education of social workers often misses the specific and particular situations of local communities and does not adjust the universal education of social work to local conditions (Sewpaul, 2005). As Diabira puts it:

There is no part of educational courses of social work, or very little, which deals with the exploitation of Africa, local conditions, relations with Europe, the roots of social problems, inequalities, poverty, crimes and so on. [. . .] The content of education is very much the same as in Europe.

The Eurocentrism of education of social work in non-European countries and the ignorance of local conditions have been discussed and criticized in other studies (Jönsson, 2010).

African fishing communities are not only losing their job opportunities, but also their educated social workers who are leaving communities behind and alone with their increasing social problems. However, it must be mentioned that working as social worker in fishing communities is not an easy task. As Fatima says:

As a social worker, you are alone, without any support at all or very little concern of the authorities and governmental organs, you are very much depend on NGOs’ support; if they give you money you can work, otherwise you have to be there without being able to do anything for people who are poor and need support. It is not easy; many times you think what are you doing here.

Concluding remarks: An alliance for change

The reproduction of inequalities in the world based on a historical division of privileges and power between Western and non-Western countries is maintained by the ‘normal’ function of established international organizations, including many areas of social work education and practices. If social work is faithful to its historical legacy of solidarity and fighting for human rights and social justice, it should engage in promoting social change and the improvement of the life chances of marginalized and disadvantaged people.

The globalization of the Western education of social work, which went hand in hand with Westernization of many non-Western and former colonial countries, is part of the problem (Jönsson, 2010). The contextual institutional arrangements and historical specificities of non-Western countries are in many cases ignored and, on the contrary, are seen as obstacles to the development and prosperity of non-Western people and countries. It is widely believed that the development of non-Western countries depend on those countries’ success in following Western blueprints (Kamali, 2006). As it was argued in this article, the EU’s fishing agreements destroy many African local communities’ traditional living conditions and promote increasing national and international migration. Many African immigrants are living in a reality in Europe which discriminates and excludes them from a life with equal opportunities as ‘Europeans’. In this concern, social work has an important role to play by leaving its national and Eurocentric boundaries, and ‘acting locally thinking globally’, to use Robertson’s term (1992). Here follow some suggestions.