Throughout the congress, students from Ratana Chuenpagdee's World Fisheries course at Memorial University in Newfoundland, Canada, will be guest-posting here on the blog. Part of their assignment is to respond to comments and get involved in discussions with people attending the conference, and with other students around the world.
The negative effects of globalization have been discussed in several papers.
In one case we looked at in class, the preservation efforts of local governments are contrasted with the market demand created by globalization. The paper we reviewed highlighted an interesting phenomena where global markets often fail to generate the self-interest that arises from attachment to place. In this particular scenario, roving bandits were exploiting unprotected resource areas; this is known as the tragedy of the commons, where open access to a resource ultimately leads to its depletion.
Because we live in an age of globalization and growing global food demand, this appears to be happening on a large scale. New markets can develop so rapidly that the speed of resource exploitation often overwhelms the ability of local institutions to respond.
This begs the question- what can be done about this situation?
The paper suggested various approaches that were all centered on finding ways to match the growth in demand for local marine products, with the development of institutions to regulate harvesting by roving bandits. The main concern is getting restrictive measures on harvesting in place quickly, as species can often become severely at risk before the risk is even recognized. Suggested approaches included establishing harvest permits and controlling the delivery of products to markets in order to dampen the rate of increase in demand.
Whether or not controlling product delivery, for example, is a realistic measure to take is debateable, in our opinion.
Our immediate reaction to this suggestion was “how could controlling delivery dampen demand”?
Demand will arguably exist at a significant level. If governments restricted the delivery of products and made fewer products available, retailers would likely increase their prices in order to maintain profits. We recognize that this may be the intended result-make fish more expensive and people will buy less of it. However, consumers may continue to buy fish simply because they enjoy it.
Would such a measure be effective?
Could it be modified in order to be effective if not?
And, are there any additional measures which could be taken to remedy this situation?
We look forward to hearing your thoughts in the comments section!
Post by Susan, Andrew, Brett and Leanne.
Susan, Andrew, Brett and Leanne,
ReplyDeleteAs much as I want to see sustainability happen in the fishery, the thought of retailers making fewer products available seems quite problematic, especially if these are products that have the technology to be preserved. If we look at who is behind delivering these products, there are not only people in the fishing boats, but also people in the manufacturing business; people in canning, and bottling of fish products, freezing, creating products such as fish sticks and so forth. If the product is only available by demand, there will be less of a supply created so then most likely less jobs. Many people depend on the fishery for employment (ex. rural areas in Newfoundland).
If the companies make the fish more expensive, yes this will enable more profit, but on a government side of view, if people lose their jobs due having less to manufacture, more money will be needed to help people who have depended on the fishery for employment. Which if we stick with the example of rural Newfoundland, more people will be inclined to leave their homes and areas which will decrease population in rural areas.
I do see how this could be a sustainable choice for ecosystems, as I remember the amount of seafood that we had to throw out when I worked in a Seafood department, but I am unsure of having seafood as a luxury item. If it is more expensive, people who enjoy it will purchase it. But as a student who enjoys seafood, I will not be able to purchase it if it's more expensive and as prices for food are already on the rise, people will lose the nutritional value that they often had from the seafood.
As said in the ecosystem complexity blog it is so difficult trying to figure out how to be sustainable in the fishery. Although I do not have an answer of how this can be modified, I do have to be critical in thinking of the labor and employment side of it.
I am looking forward to reading possible remedies as I find this topic to be quite interesting and complex.
Fishers and the fishing industry spatially expand to find new species and serve the emerging market in the pattern of serial depletion described in this article. I think controlling the delivery to dampen demand is a supplementary measure to 'buy time' before appropriate institutions (e.g. resource rights, co-management regimes, and regional/international information coordination) to regulate harvesting of the new species are set in place. I agree with the main point of this article that governance arrangements are ultimately what we must rely on to prevent both local overfishing and geographically-expanding overfishing. We'll need to employ and be conscious of other factors as well, such as technology innovation and 'emergency' measures such as government regulations in controlling the delivery of fish in the chain from catch to consumer.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Song