« Conflicting Survey Results | Main | Employment and wages» Russell Roberts
October 01, 2007
Fishing
Don Boudreaux
University of Illinois law professor Andy Morriss (who co-blogs with me at Market Correction) sent this excellent letter yesterday to the Financial Times.
Sirs,
Your story on the overfishing problem in the EU (“Report tears into Brussels fishing policy”, Sept. 27) quotes the author of a report critical of current regulatory efforts as attributing the problem to politicians’ and bureaucrats’ lack of will in standing up to fishing interests. Fisheries are the classic tragedies of the commons and fishermen are behaving rationally when they overfish, for all of the benefits of each fish caught accrue to them while the costs are borne by the population as a whole. Fishermen are also behaving rationally when they “fish” for politicians in Brussels or national capitals, for if French fishermen do not, they will suffer when Italian fishermen do and vice versa.
Since the problem is a tragedy of the commons, the solution lies in an infusion of property rights rather than one of political will. Garrett Hardin, author of the original 1968 article describing the tragedy, concluded that it was solved by “private property or something formally like it.” Since then Iceland and New Zealand’s respective successes with “individualized tradable quotas” (ITQs) have demonstrated that property rights can solve the tragedy of the commons in fisheries in fact as well as theory. Rather than devolving power to regional councils, as the fishing commissioner suggests, the solution is to devolve power to individuals by creating property rights via ITQs. If the EU does so, the incentive to fish in Brussels will evaporate, while the fishermen will have incentives to protect the health of the fisheries.
Andrew P. Morriss
H. Ross & Helen Workman Professor of Law and Business
Professor, Institute for Government and Public Affairs
University of Illinois
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Environment, Politics, Property Rights | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/22050346
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fishing:
Comments
Property rights? Hmm. We'll have to form a committee to determine how those work in the context of European dirigisme.
Posted by: M. Hodak | Oct 1, 2007 8:00:46 AM
I like Professor Morriss's letter, but I would like to see some fresh ideas in property rights brought forth. It might not make sense to say that tradeable quotas work because as I understand it, their success depends on an number of other institutional factors.
It would be neat to see someone recommend that the actual ocean should be owned. I don't see how ownership of the ocean should be any different than ownership of the land. If people had secure titles to areas of the ocean, perhaps they would apply their sweat and innovative energies to think of ways to "fence in" pieces of it, invest in aquaculture, make some of it habitable for humans, etc.
While allowing for the ITQ solution as being the best one, Professor Morriss unwittingly grants that the EU and other government authorities are the rightful "owners" and decision makers when it regards the seas. I am surely not willing to make that concession.
Posted by: Mike | Oct 1, 2007 9:29:20 AM
The claim of territorial ownership exists already. Some nations claim a minimum of 12 miles, and others as much as 200 miles from the coast.
Aquaculture is already being practiced in numerous spots but certainly exclusively in costal bay areas making fencing feasible.
Could the ocean just be to vast to claim as property? Especailly as not only the water itself but also the creatures that live in it never remain in the same area for any great length of time.
If the fish that swam through your property onto my property is mine then it would seem that without fencing or someway of ironclad agreement and enforcement every property owner would be encouraged to catch all they could at any given time in order to maximize their profits from their property.
Hell of a question to answer in my opinion.
Posted by: vidyohs | Oct 1, 2007 11:49:46 AM
vidyohs,
There is a border problem amongst territories. Imagine the US auctioned off (or did an IPO if you will) the fisheries rights (much like ranchers sell off the mineral rights to oil companies for whatever lies deep under their land) off the west coast of the US (I'll exclude the gulf coast, east coast, Alaska and Hawaii for simplifying example purposes) up to 200 miles distance, and that they divide those territories into three corporations, North, Middle, and South.
Notwithstanding border issues with Canada and Mexico, these three companies have problems with migrating fish traveling from territory to territory. This may well lead to overfishing in border regions (which can be precisely defined thanks to GPS technology) in the absence of an agreement between them stating otherwise.
Assuming the government twits don't prohibit them for spurious antitrust reasons, there is no reason to think that these new corporations couldn't come up with intelligent, legally enforceable border area fishing limits, or better yet, border area fishing prohibitions, i.e. creating a "no fish" zone in perhaps a 50 mile space between their territories.
When all the property is owned, their is every incentive for these property owners to come up with a way to avoid mutually destructive overfishing in such regions, indeed, to avoid overfishing in any region, much like farmer-owners have every reason to rotate crops to avoid depleting the minerals in their privately owned soil.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 | Oct 1, 2007 3:54:51 PM
Seems like a good start to coming up with a solution. I didn't think of the value of the GPS system functioning as a border identifier.
I think you're right about the idea that private owners would have every incentive to come up with mutually beneficial solutions.
I'll play devil's advocate here, what about the migratory patterns of fish, not only through each zone but in and out of the entire region. That could be quite a variable. And, how about the problem of sport fishing and how that would have to be factored in.
Last but not least is the envirowhacko resistance to fish farming that already exists against salmon and catfish farming in Chile and the far east.
Nothing is impossible, but I see this as extremely difficult. I'll be interested to see if anyone else has input.
Posted by: vidyohs | Oct 1, 2007 5:30:19 PM
"Last but not least is the envirowhacko resistance to fish farming that already exists against salmon and catfish farming in Chile and the far east."
Posted by: vidyohs | Oct 1, 2007 5:30:19 PM
Great blog by the way! It is now a regular stop on my travels round the blogosphere.
I find myself in the odd situation, wrt this issue, of being a UK-based salmon (sport) fisherman and a fan of Hayek.
The seas around the UK have been overfished for decades and the wild populations of some species (e.g. cod and salmon) are very low indeed now. Much of this can be laid at the door of the EU fishing policies over the years. In particular, sandeels which are at the bottom of the food chain for many species have been industrially fished for their oil. Indeed tons of them are fished to be ground up and used as an industrial lubricant. This has had a catastrophic effect on fish stocks, on top of the damage done by overfishing of species higher up the food chain.
In addition, fish farms, particularly in Scotland have been hugely detrimental to the wild stocks of migratory salmon and seatrout that have to swim past the coastal fish farms to reach their breeding rivers. They swim through huge clouds of sea lice from the farmed fish. Sea lice are not normally a problem, but in these concentrations they kill many young fish.
I yield to no man in my contempt for the socialism posing as "green concern" spouted by most environmentalists. However, opposition to fish farms (as they are currently run) is a poor target for such contempt.
Posted by: James | Oct 2, 2007 7:00:10 AM
"This may well lead to overfishing in border regions (which can be precisely defined thanks to GPS technology) in the absence of an agreement between them stating otherwise."
There isn't anything particularly special about this problem. We face similar problems in the capture of wild animals on land, and in drilling for oil and gas.
Posted by: Nick | Oct 2, 2007 7:49:15 AM
Interesting comment about the sea lice, James.
My problem with the envirowhackos is that their answer to nearly everything is to stop it, not fix it. That and their unreasonable (IMHO) fear of any food not genetically the same as that that was eaten by early man. It is their resistance to any change. Consequently I always suspect the motives of the envirowhackos just as a matter of experience.
The objections I have been aware of from the envirowhackos relate to humans eating salmon that have received high doses of antibiodics and growth hormones. I am aware that the claim is that the bottoms of the fenced in bays where salmon farming is done have steadily deeping levels of salmon feces that is not removed by ocean action.
The sea lice is something new to me. Is there something that can be done but isn't?
Posted by: vidyohs | Oct 2, 2007 5:49:49 PM
Hi Vidyohs
I'm not an expert on the matter but you can find more information here - http://www.salmonfarmmonitor.org/problems.shtml .
I agree with you about the faith-based approach to science which leads militant Greens to ignore evidence and rely on their own "common sense".
I gather the antibiotic argument is also made but this, along with the sealice issue could be solved by farming fish less intensively and further out to sea. In many places in Scotland the cages are in sheltered sea lochs and form a curtain of sea lice the wild fish must swim through to get to the river.
All of these problems are solvable without banning fish farming which we need if people want to continue to eat more fish than we can sustainably harvest from the wild population.
Posted by: James | Oct 3, 2007 4:14:29 PM
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a Consultant by profession with the Value Securities & investment Ltd.I represent a group of Board of Directors that is interested in engaging your service for investment on a large volume of fund Fifteen Million Dollars Deposited in Finance Company for investment
purpose in your country awaiting for the assigned beneficiary to carry out the investment.
If this proposal is acceptable to you and you are capable to handle investment, Please send your telephone and fax numbers to enable me communicate with you and provide
further details on your commission for your participation in the transaction and I will let you know on how we hope to achieve this objective.
I will appreciate a prompt response from you.
Yours faithfully,
Mr.Henrik Bjorn.
Tel:447031821979
Posted by: Henrik Bjorn | Oct 10, 2007 12:00:01 PM
I am passionate about fishing. I have a very strong desire for the activity. The start of trout season signifies the beginning of the entire fishing season, for me. Can anyone please tell me which country has the greatest salmon fishing in the world?
Posted by: Mike Hodgdon | Apr 14, 2008 2:50:16 AM
The debate will continue until something forces thinks to be done. Unfortunately it is the governments of the world that will make the decisions and I have never known any government or official to do the right thing unless their was something in it for them personally.
Posted by: Steven L | Sep 5, 2008 10:21:39 PM
I think you have made some very interesting points on the subject and I agree. You have clearly made valid points even though due to time constraints you could have added more detail.
But all in all your views are very fair and I think we seem to think along the the same lines. Feel free to see more on the subject on fishing. Scottish salmon is the best.
Posted by: Louise Hannan | Oct 5, 2008 3:46:45 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
