Activity 4.1 – Tragedy of the Commons: A Case Study

Introduction to the tragedy of the commons

Tragedy of the commons, a phrase first coined in 1833 by William Forster Lloyd, refers to our overconsumption of common resources for personal gain, therefore harming the larger community, including ourselves, in the long run (Amendolare, 2017). While commons, or resources equally shared by a community, can be very sustainable, as population grows, they can reach a point where there simply isn’t enough to support the whole community. One solid example of this is overfishing. Each member of the community sharing a common fishing area will be inclined to maximize their own profit by catching more fish than they require. While this may temporarily benefit the individual, the effect is that inevitably, with each member of the community having this same mindset, the fish population will decline so that it can no longer support the community or repopulate.

Tragedy of the commons problem in the real world

One real world example of this is overfishing in Alaska. This is an issue that plagues many areas around the world, and has become increasingly relevant in the town of Homer, Alaska. Marine life populations such as that of the snow crab, halibut, and salmon have experienced a dramatic drop due to overfishing. According to Congresswoman Mary Peltola, excessive bycatch and lack of habitat protections also play a major role in this decline in conjunction with climate change and global warming (Federman, 2023). Bycatch is any marine life unintentionally caught when fishing for a certain species. The result is that commercial fisheries, but especially subsistence fishers, local community members, and small businesses suffer. The methods of fishing used by many larger fishing companies can also be incredibly harmful to the marine environment as they repeatedly drag nets across the ocean floor, disrupting the ecosystem.

External Costs    

Externalities are any unintentional effects on a community by one party, and are classified into two categories: positive and negative. A positive externality occurs when the action of one group or individual consequently benefits the entire community, whereas a negative externality occurs when such an action results in a negative outcome, which is then shared by the whole, not just the party who made the action (Theis, 2018).
A negative externality of overfishing in Alaska is the irresponsible fishing practices of commercial fishers that use trawlers. These long commercial vessels utilize fishing trawls or massive nets which drag along the seafloor disrupting the aquatic ecosystem. This results in degradation of the environment which impacts not only the trawlers, but also local and subsistence fishers as well.

Two solutions

Solutions to eliminate or mitigate overfishing vary, but two possible methods include implementing regulations on bycatch as well putting more limitations on the number of people who can fish, as well as when, where, and how they can do so. Though the trawl industry may disagree, bycatch is a major contributor to the decline of fish populations such as halibut. Additionally, most methods used by commercial fishers are actively detrimental to marine habitats, and throw off the ecosystem’s balance. Regulations could be put into effect to limit bycatch of vulnerable species as well as prohibit fishing for species during a certain period such as while they are mating. This could allow for marine species populations to repopulate and thrive again.

Argument for and against the possible solution

The advantage of implementing more fishing regulations is that it would likely have the desired effect of helping fish and crab populations recover to a sustainable level, and allow fishers to continue to rely on the natural resource for food and profit. Marine ecosystems would be able to recuperate and balance of the larger ecosystem would be maintained.

The disadvantage of the solution of implementing more regulations and limiting fishing is that any regulations put on commons will most likely disproportionately impact those with less money, and therefore, less influence. This is also how things like space, quietness, and recreational areas become not a right, but a commodity to those who can afford it. The council who makes such regulations in Homer, Alaska are motivated not by a desire for sustainable fishing practices and a healthy environment, but rather by economic interests. As Peltola says in the article, the council “has been captured by the largest industry players,” and “subsistence users and smaller commercial operators have been pushed to the margins” (Federman, 2023).

The article also states, “it has been the directed and subsistence fisheries that have had to limit their quotas to help restore depleted populations. The trawlers on the other hand have been allowed to maintain at or near the same levels of wasted bycatch for certain species,” which could also be considered a negative externality (Federman, 2023). So it would appear system-wide change is required in order for progress to really take place.

References

Amendolare, N. (2017, November 21). What is the tragedy of the commons? [Video]. TED-Ed. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxC161GvMPc&feature=youtu.be

Federman, A. (2023, March 3). Alaska's Fisheries are Collapsing. This Congresswoman Is Taking on the Industry She Says Is to Blame. POLITICO. Retrieved April 3, 2023, from https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/03/03/alaskas-fisheries-collapsing-peltola-industry-blame-00066843

Theis, T., & Tomkin, J. (Eds). (2018). Sustainability: A comprehensive foundation. THEIS_and_TOMKIN_2018_Sustainability-a-Comprehensive-Foundation.pdf