The tragedy of the commons

There is enough in this world for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed. -- Mahatma Gandhi

In our previous article we questioned the term management for marine stocks which cannot be fed, kept in one place or treated for sickness – all everyday practice in livestock farming. We stated that in fisheries the term management really refers to culling (fishing) in which one controls the amount, area, season and to a lesser extent size, age or sex of fish caught. We also explained that it is impossible to simultaneously utilise a living marine resource and keep it at its original biomass, or keep the individual sizes of fish at their original levels.

We also said that due to the natural dynamics of renewable living resources one actually has to deplete or thin out the resource quite substantially before it becomes very productive. Finally we argued that the question of fisheries management is not how to prevent the resource from declining at all, but rather how far should the process of depletion be allowed to progress before the resource becomes economically unproductive and/or subject to unacceptable biological risk.

Under-exploited resources for which there is a market can produce a significant income in a very short period of time. There are number of reasons for this, fish are still big, fishing effort (cost of fishing) is relatively low due to the abundance of fish, competition is also low initially since it takes time to develop expertise or to divert the means necessary for fishing new resources.

The incentives that exist because of the demonstrated profitability of a fishery in its early development stages leads to new entrants into the fishery, and causes existing entrants to expand their operations by either procuring additional vessels and manpower, or by upgrading their existing equipment to increase its efficiency and capacity. For example, on-board facilities to freeze or process fish will substantially increase the time that can be spent at sea, and the fetching price of the landed product. Electronic echo-sounders, video plotters, net sensors and various other navigational aids improve the skippers ability to fish.

These investment decisions are often driven by increased competition, by declines in catch rate, by increases in demand as market awareness is created and by the immediate profitability experienced in the fishery. This pattern is very rarely modified by perceptions of the eventual biological and economic characteristics of the mature fishery. Such perceptions are invariably academic and at times of good catches and lucrative incomes less optimistic predictions by scientists have seldom influenced fisher’s modus operandi.

The first time that fishers are likely to change their views about the future of the resource is when they start to experience the reductions in catch rate and mean size mentioned in our previous article. This is a new phase for the fishery. During this phase, since the return on additional investment is not increasing at the same rate as before, catches start to level off, and the fishery begins to mature.

At this stage the uncontrolled fishery is likely to take the following route. The decline in catch rate causes catches to level off initially, but then as catch rates continue to decline, catches now start to decline. If this process is severe it is reasonable to describe it as a resource collapse At this stage some form of interference by a higher authority is needed to prevent further deterioration of the resource. Unfortunately, this intervention is often too late and the fishery is frequently already economically and possibly biologically compromised compared to what was possible under proper management. In its final state, the fishery is no longer economically viable. One should however not confuse the term "resource collapse" with the biological extinction of the species, as will be explained in subsequent sections.

The term "common property resource" refers to a wide range of natural resources which cannot easily be regarded as or converted into private property. A loose legal definition of the term is "that which is not owned, and can be used by all". Examples are: state owned land, the region between the low water mark and the high water mark, water in rivers, the atmosphere. These resources are widely regarded as belonging to all (i.e. all the inhabitants of a country where they occur). Although in Roman-Dutch law fish in their natural state are regarded as "belonging to nobody", marine fish in their natural state are generally regarded as common property.

In the absence of any laws regarding the use of these resources, anyone who wishes to, can engage in fishing. Under these conditions, there is no restriction on where, when, how and how much one can catch, this is limited only by the availability of fish in the sea, and one's fishing skills. The utilisation of marine fish resources in this manner, which we term the free-for-all option, leads to a number of problems.

Although in the past, arguments have been presented suggesting that fish in the sea are an inexhaustible resource, experience has shown that the amount that can be fished from the sea on a long term basis is limited. Utilisation of a limited resource under the free-for-all option leads to some obvious problems, namely that the amount of fish removed from the sea could exceed the ability of the fish population to cope. When this happens, the amount of fish in the sea will be reduced to a very low level, possibly even to extinction. In practice however, it is very difficult to fish out all the fish in the sea, because as the number of fish declines, it becomes more difficult to catch them.

For an economically sought after fish species, the free-for-all option will therefore lead to a very large reduction in the number of fish in the sea, so that the fishery becomes biologically and economically non-viable. This state is often referred to as resource collapse. At this stage, the fishery ceases to have any economic value.

The unavoidable collapse of the resource under the free-for-all option means that an alternative approach must be devised for the utilisation of marine resources. In contrast to the free-for-all options, any alternative system should seek to limit the amount of fish harvested. This can be achieved by stipulating one or more of the following:

• i) the permitted location of fishing,
• ii) when fishing may occur,
• iii) the size and sex of a particular species that may be caught,
• iv) the fishing technique, and
• v) the total quantity of fish that can be caught.

One of the most commonly applied and important measures is to restrict the number of people allowed to fish. This is known as limited entry. Limited entry makes access to the resource a privilege. Privileged access introduces a number of political problems, but as discussed in this document, the benefits of limited entry often outweighs its negative factors.

In South Africa, all commercial fishing is conducted on a limited entry basis. Arguments for the need for limited entry are often not appreciated or acknowledged by the public. Even if and when such arguments are accepted, the allocation of entry rights to particular individuals and/or interest groups remains a contentious and heated issue. Controversy surrounding entry rights is fuelled further by the basically undemocratic nature of South African society, since the allocation process is regarded as unfair. This is a highly emotional issue, and the image of the South African fishing industry has been tainted by this issue for most of its history.