Oceans, Conservatism, and Ending the Tragedy of the Commons.
David Boaz over at Cato correctly identifies the general solution, private property rights, to the over-fishing problem that plagues our oceans. What Mr. Boaz leaves mostly unsaid, with the exception of a few links to websites supporting the extremely flawed Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) system, is a practical private property solution to the tragedy of the commons as it pertains to our oceans.
Mr. Boaz asks “…how do you create private ownership in fish or sharks or sea turtles that can easily move through vast and unfenced bodies of water?” On the surface it seems to be an insolvable problem. The Federal Government currently has nominal ownership, insofar as it has the power to set quotas and grant fishing licenses, the sale of which, in theory if not always in reality, goes towards maintaining the fisheries. But of course, it is in the realm of reality where the tragedy of the commons rears its ugly head. In theory, the Federal Government, the all-powerful Big Brother which liberals so dearly love and uphold as reflecting the Common Will of the People, would impartially count the fish, determine how many could be sustainably harvested, set quotas and sell fishing licenses, and use the proceeds to maintain the fisheries for the future benefit of the American People. Let’s bask in the glow and breathe in the fresh air of that Utopia for a moment, shall we?...
:::cough, cough:::
Good stuff. Back to reality. In reality, the Federal Government is strongly influenced, if not completely controlled, by a variety of special interest groups with competing agendas, not all of which are in the best interests of the fisheries. With radical environmentalists who value fish more than people on one side of the argument, opposite the fishermen, who reap all of the benefits of catching fish but not all of the costs, it is no surprise that the fisheries have been inconsistently and incompetently managed. Add the fact that the Federal Government consistently takes revenues from usage taxes such as fishing licenses (or gasoline, or tobacco, or…) and puts it into the general fund where the money goes God-knows-where, and it’s easy to see how Utopia doesn’t exist without a few bong hits.
Historically, when government fails (which happens quite often) to successfully manage a commons, private property rights are necessary. Which brings us to the question of what a practical private property rights solution might be.
I propose the following three-part solution:
First, that the Federal Government should auction off tracts of ocean, just as it auctioned off tracts of land on the western frontier. Fishing licenses would be abolished and the use of these tracts would be determined by their owners.
Second, that a system be set up where those who create the value by maintaining good fish habitat receive a percentage from those who capture the fish and sell it. This is the most complex part of the proposal, as both the quality and quantity of the fish where they are born, raised, and harvested, would have to be determined and a proportional percentage paid out to each owner. Complex, but doable, and not altogether different from the current census system. Collection and redistribution of the habitat-maintainers share of the proceeds would be handled by the Federal Government, which is one of the few things it excels at.
Third, the Federal Government would still be responsible for policing the ocean for poachers and to prevent forbidden uses such as waste dumping. The Courts would settle property rights disputes, and everyone involved would still pay income taxes. Hey, Conservatism doesn’t promise a perfect world. Just a better one.
Cross-posted at Redstate.com under User ID Matthew G.
--
--
"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche
- Soothsayer's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference
Related Sites -
Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)
Foreign Affairs -
Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
War and Piece
Politics -
Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch
Captain's Quarters
Crooked Timber
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton
Firedoglake
Glenn Greenwald
Global Guerrillas
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Liberals Against Terror
Matt Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Moon of Alabama
New America
OxBlog
Patterico
Political Animal
Political Wire
Publius Pundit
QandO
Reality Based Community
Talking Points Memo
The Agitator
The Belmont Club
The Corner
Truman Project
Winds of Change.net
War -
Counterterrorism Blog
Iraq the Model
Jihad Watch
Small Wars Journal Blog
Economics and Business -
Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Daniel Drezner
Mahalanobis
Marginal Revolution
Roubini Global Economics
The Big Picture
Science and Tech -
Bad Astronomy
New Scientist
Real Climate
Science Blogs
Scientific American
The Panda's Thumb
Legal -
Balkinization
Conglomerate
Ideoblog
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Overlawyered
ProfessorBainbridge
ScotusBlog
Talk Left
The Becker-Posner Blog
Volokh Conspiracy
Sports -
Baseball Crank
Baseball Musings
Baseball Reference.com
ESPN.com
NFL.com
Only Baseball Matters
The Sports Economist
Books, Film and Music -
Amazon.com
Internet Movie Database
All Music Guide
News and Aggregators -
Asia Times
Boingboing
CNN
Digg
English Russia
Fark
Los Angeles Times
Memeorandum
MSNBC
Politico
Poynteronline
Slashdot
The New York Times
The Washington Post
References -
...that the earth and the sea and all the fishes therein are finite.
That we need to be good stewards to the only place we will ever live...in other words, we need to start being adults and stop doo-doo`ing in our own living room.
We could also recognize that our breeding proliferation is a blight and we could try to curb our insatiable passion for unprotected sex...because we don't have the moral courage to admit that we might like it for simply the pleasure it provides.
That little kink in mankind's sexual psyche is a weirdo surely.
Best Wishes,
Traveller
My New and for that matter First, Sig Line:
The problem is that there is not enough pleasure in the world.
- Login or register to post comments
)...which is often indistinguishable from, and confused with, the impossible way.
Either way, changing human nature is unnecessarily difficult when all that needs to be done is to change the incentive structure so that it accomodates human nature while getting the job done.
--"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )We might refer to this as the tragedy of the privates..
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )sea, I'm taking them. All of them. Every last minnow. Same for the birds.
I worked as a deckhand in a regulated fishery (Sea Urchin), and I agree that ITQ systems are flawed -- about as flawed as any people-designed program which is subsequently administered by committees of other people -- but enclosing the oceans as suggested here leaves us with the negatives of ITQs (monopolization) and more of the negatives of government (special interest capture of regulatory agencies, intrusion to defend property rights).
- Login or register to post comments
)...the fact that they're monopolies (sort of, no need to split hairs). It's the fact that the government is not and never will be impartial or competent enough to consistently and successfully administer a quota system. The Soviets tried quota systems. They didn't work. Markets do.
--"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Private property rights work like an invisible hand by balancing the incentives of everyone involved. The consumers will still want fish, and fishermen will still want to catch and sell as much fish as possible. The difference is that, with private property rights, the fishermen will have to bear the costs of catching fish, and those who provide habitat and hatcheries that provide fish will share in the rewards of fish being caught, and will have a financial incentive to continue doing so.
--"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )practices (among others) for local species that don't roam too far offshore. They incentivize harvesters via a quota system, aggressive anti-poaching, and a hatching/habitat protection program that includes participation of the fishermen (in time and money).
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...but it doesn't mention how well those fisheries are doing, or the quantity and price of the captured fish.
If the Japanese government is, in effect, creating a monopoly situation where the supply is artificially restricted and the price kept high, I suppose that would be a victory, of sorts, as long as the fisheries survive. But it is hardly an ideal solution, and it is easy to imagine that the fishermen will continue to lobby for higher quotas while using the government-created monopoly as a barrier to entry for other prospective fishermen.
--"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What rights do owners not have? Could I have nuclear waste dumped for a hefty fee in my ocean? I mean I would buy a deep spot. I just think the free market fails to take everything into account. Third are we liable for our property? I am not a believer in the status quo. Third corperate interests could by a spot do damage make a profit go bankrupt and then to it again. Also what kind of resources are we willing to put into policing the ocean?
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- Login or register to post comments
)...we're only talking about waters out to 200 nautical miles that the United States currently owns the fishing rights to as per the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
As I said in the last paragraph, waste dumping would be prohibited, as most likely would be building something like this off the coast of New Orleans. Considering that there are use restrictions on landside property, I don't see why private ownership of ocean tracts would be any different.
As for corporate interests doing a hit and run, take a look at timber companies. They could make a huge profit by just cutting down all the trees at once and selling them. But they don't. It isn't in their long-term interests to do so because such an action wouldn't maximize their long-term gains like sustainable harvest does. But back when the only people who owned the trees were the ones who cut them down first, loggers wiped out entire forests. Kind of like fishermen who only own what they catch, so they destroy entire fisheries. Private property rights ensured that we'll always have trees to use. I want to do the same with fish.
--"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )great shoals of trees moving across the landscape at will. The loggers can harpoon and cut them as they pass across their territory. Their neighbours are cutting them at unsustainable rates and the value of prime tree fishing land is dropping as a result
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You've just partially described the system we have now. But not only are the loggers harpooning trees at unsustainable rates because they only own the trees that they harvest, but the people who plant the trees, who provide a nursery for the trees to grow and who protect the trees from predators and other environmental factors don't get paid a dime.
Welcome to the tragedy of the commons. Everyone owns a resource, so no one owns it, and everyone exploits it for their own benefit.
Private property rights changes the entire picture. Imagine that the loggers, who may own or may just be renting the land that they are harpooning trees on, are restricted from butting in on other loggers territory which would create a situation in which there were so many loggers in a single territory that no trees could escape. Add the fact that for ever tree the loggers harpoon and sell, a percentage would go to the person(s) who planted the tree and helped it grow. The loggers would still have the incentive to catch as much as they could, but if they unwisely overexploited their own area, they would be out of a job. And the people who planted the trees and helped them grow would have a financial incentive to keep doing to so, and to do so more effectively and efficiently.
--"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but I'm just not seeing it here.
Under your system, there would be owners. They would sit around doing nothing because there is not much they could do to encourage fish to "grow" in their patch. They're getting paid per fish caught in their zone right? So dependign on their particular circumatances they may be hoping for a quick buck or a long term return. Either way, how do they influence this?
There would be fishermen. The more they catch, at the margin, the more they get paid. So their incentive is to catch as much as they can and can get away with. This is as it is today.
The government would still have to enforce the system to make sure only those permitted to would fish, that quotas were respected (or have we eliminated those?) and that the new owners get paid correctly.
What has changed other than a tax on the fishermen - namely these new owners?
"The loggers would still have the incentive to catch as much as they could, but if they unwisely overexploited their own area, they would be out of a job"
-
I don't think so. Fish move about. A logger that overexploits his hill is out of work. A fisherman that fails to fish to the max is just allowing his neighbour to catch those fish the next day.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...private ownership will work.
Under the current system, fishermen have every incentive to maximize their catch, and very little incentive to leave anything because, as you noted, other fishermen will be trying to maximize their catch as well. If the fishery collapses, so what? The fishermen will move on to the next one, and the next one, until there is nothing left. They don't own the fishery, so why should they take care of it?
On the other hand, when ocean tracts have private owners, fishermen suddenly have a very strong incentive not to overfish: they can't move on. Someone else owns the other tracts. It becomes in the best interests of the fishermen to maximize their sustainable harvest in the tract that they own. You're also assuming that fishermen are the only ones who would want to own ocean tracts. But when private ownership is allowed, it is possible for individuals and companies that have no intention of fishing themselves to buy tracts and lease them to fishermen. These individuals and companies have a strong incentive to maximize their sustainable profits as well.
Also, you seem to assume that nothing can be done to improve the value of a particular tract of ocean. This is patently false. Besides this article on ocean farming (of which I'm admittedly skeptical) that Mr. Boaz linked to, even if the only way to improve fishing habitat is to not fish it so much, individuals and corporations that owned ocean tracts would have an incentive to do so under the system I propose because they would receive a percentage of the profit from those who do harvest fish. Their inaction would be profitable for themselves, as well as for those who harvested the resulting increase in fish.
--"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )One serious problem with your ownership idea is the fact that there are more fisheries out there using the same space.
Some one can have a permit for a specific fishery that might be thereabouts territory wise. However, another fishery, that that "owner" does not partake in would also fish the smae territory in a different season, or even at the same time.
Salmon, tuna, shrimp, crab, groundfish all fish the same waters, sometimes all at the same time...not to mention the other more "boutique" fisheries. Crab in particular can move across the bottom of the ocean across entire states in a very short time. because of this, the owner of your "tract" would have the incintive to actually fish it out as the theory that more will show up later and they have to get it while the gettin's good.. We fish from CA to WA sometimes, depending where the catch is.
I don't want some absentee landlord telling me that I can't fish in a specific area unless I pay them rent. The feds already have that market cornered. There already a limit on the number of boats that can fish...do you propose that that limit be lifted and replaced by the private ownership thing?
The quota system has some flaws, no doubt...and the rationalisation up in AK regarding the king crab and opilio fisheries has raised some issues that would take too long to get into here.
The whole idea of permits and quotas is to keep the fisheries healthy or rebuild them...as is the buy out of trawlers (a percentage of our gross goes to this...removing permits and hence less pressure on those fisheries and the stock.
One last thing, the global climate (the El Nino effect, etc) and external forces like water problems upstream, like the Klamath River in northern CA can have a severe impact on a fishery (salmon in this case) that has nothing to do with what's going on in the ocean.
Just one example is the albacore fishery...some years they are very close to shore and others it involves going offshore for hundreds of miles. I don't think you understand the migratory aspects of the biomass. Hake, for example don't just "hang around" a specific area, nor do salmon, or tuna or crab...some groundfish, more so, but that is just one fishery...and it happens fast in some cases.
And who is going to patrol the borders of each tract?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )an interesting set of points + nice to see you.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )welcome back! Or have you just been lurkin'? Good points as well. I take it from your post that you are involved in the commercial fishing business. It would be great to have more info re the average industry professional's view of overfishing and gov. meddling etc.
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )if you made the segments of ocean large enough (and prohibited splitting) that this issue of overuse in one segment harming others would be minimized? I don't know jack about fish migration patterns, is this realistic or silly?
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Lots of nearshore species don't move about much and it takes a long time to repopulate an area that is overfished, but over fish one area and a few miles down the shore the picture could still be healthy. Species like cod that move in great ocean shoals are more prone to sudden catastrophic collapse.
But even if you make zones big enough - ie the whole fishery - who gains? The government still needs to police the system to make sure the rules are being followed. They probably need to set a maximum catch to prevent the private companies sanctioning overfishing - after all something like a whole cod fishery is too important not to protect. In the end there is still x amount of fish in the sea.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and it seems to me that maintaining good fishing habitat is as simple as not fishing it. The owner of a slice of ocean has nothing to do all things being equal, other than collect his rent and hope that the government quotas are correct to maintain the fishery. If he has control of quota then there is nothing to stop him wanting to turn a quick profit by allowing overfishing. The fewer people who did this the more of an incentive there would be to do it.
Meanwhile the gov still picks up the tab for all the real work of safety at sea, policing, etc.
Sadly I think the only solution to the problem is for most governments worldwide to grow a spine and stand up to special interests who want to overfish. Since this will clearly not happen any time soon, the best I am hoping for is a collapse in a major fishery or two resulting in positive action.
As an aside - I have great sympathy for the special interests in question. I am from an island nation and know men who make their livign from the sea. Tough work and these are business men with big debts, staff, regulation etc etc. Sadly, for many fisheries the choice seems to be out of work fishermen now or no fish and out of work fishermen later.
As a second aside - I wonder has anyone done any price elasticity studies that give an impact to the fishermen of viable fishing. Surely the price of fish would jump as supply was restricted. Enough to rescue all the jobs? Most of them?
As a third aside - the situation is worse in the EU. Here we have many national governments staring at each other waiting for the other to blink and cede ground. If the agricultural policy that fed Europe for all these years could be considered a great success, the fisheries policy must be one of the EU's most pathetic failures.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"...and it seems to me that maintaining good fishing habitat is as simple as not fishing it."
Bingo. See, I AM an environmentalist... sort of... not really... listen, I just don't want the fish to disappear like they did in that episode of Futurama where Fry just wanted to make a perfect pizza but the anchovies were all gone except for one can that he had to pay like a gazillion bucks for...
:::snap:::
Ok, back to reality. Seriously, the whole point of making the ocean tracts private property is to prevent overfishing. Expecting people to buy a tract, leave it alone, and rake in the profits is kind of the idea. It's the whole idea of the invisible hand. Also, there is a link in the Cato article which talks about farming ocean tracts, which I am skeptical of, but what I'm not skeptical of is the fact that fish hatcheries and people who remove ghost nets would both be able to make a profit.
As for governments growing a spine and standing up to special interests, it hasn't happened, and it most likely never will, not over the long-term at least. But people protecting their property rights? That has a long and rich history.
--"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )