O P I N I O N

Common Tragedy

by Mike Crowe

More interesting than anything Garrett Hardin had to say in his essay “The Tragedy of the Commons,” which Science published in 1968, is the fact that this flawed paper is so widely cited. Hardin was an academic ecologist at a time when environmentalism was gaining popularity. He was also a fan of Malthusian population explosion scenarios.

From that stance Hardin wrote that humans will inevitably overuse a commonly held resource.

His example was the overgrazing of English pastureland in the 18th century. Hardin pointed to the English small farmers, who he implied grazed ever more sheep on the same land until the resource collapsed.

Hardin was also an advocate of privatizing commonly held resources as means of managing them. He was trumpeted by an evolving “neoliberal” philosophy which sought economic growth within a social responsibility theme. It was an economic strategy gaining ground in academia with a helping hand from industry and government.

English pastureland in fact was overgrazed in the 18th century. However, what Hardin missed is that the English crown responded to special interest demands for an Enclosure Act on English pastureland commons. The result was farmers whose families had occupied and worked common lands for generations were thrown off. Pastureland was enclosed so an absentee landlord could graze sheep on large areas. Flocks went from a small farmer’s handful of sheep to an absentee owner’s flocks of thousands. See: http://tlio.org.uk/a-short-history-of-enclosure-in-britain/

There was no reason for the traditional inhabitants to raise more sheep than they had markets for or could consume themselves. Selling wool to cottage spinners and meat to local markets had been small-scale and relatively stable. But mechanized woolen mills were industrializing woolen production. The growing British Empire provided expanding markets.

Not a few of Maine’s oldest families were victims of the Enclosure Act’s consolidation, a transition of ownership. Evicted farmers were forced into towns with swelling populations. With no means of earning an income and no place to live, some were forced into the forests. Some, to spare their families from starvation, ate the sheep that were grazing, in some cases, on their former farmland. One of the penalties for poaching was exile to the American colonies.

Hardin wanted to see the overgrazing story in a way that supported his thesis. There is abundant research that indicates societies have sustainably maintained common pastures, farmland, fisheries and forests for many generations. Hardin’s interests in the math of world population growth, which is a fact, does not make overuse of commons an eventuality. Failing to see privatization, consolidation and absentee ownership as the cause could have undermined his economic growth theories.

That many reading this likely bought their last broom, lawnmower or skillsaw, not at their neighbor’s former local third-generation hardware store but at Home Depot or Lowe’s, is neither a coincidence nor the result of some kind of economic natural selection. It is the result of transitioning the hardware business into an investment opportunity that is traded on the stock market. It was made possible by an organized, long-term effort that changed federal, state and local laws and regulations to conditions favorable for a transition like this to happen. It may be difficult to see the socially responsible aspect of this, but it seems to have worked out for international investors.

The fishing industry in the United States is valued at over $100 billion. According to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) the world’s commercial fishing industries are worth over $360 billion. See: Towards investment in sustainable fisheries: A framework for financing the transition. Environmental Defense Fund and The Prince of Wales International Sustainability Unit, http://www.50in10.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/fisheries_handbook.pdf.

EDF is promoting the privatization of the fisheries resource for investors, which it refers to as a transition, through the development of programs like catch-shares. The “Tragedy of the Commons” is a recognizable phrase repeat in this context. Catch-shares are shares of a total fish quota that can be sold or traded. All of which can make the consolidation of the resource an investment vehicle. EDF writes that this is a transition to sustainable fisheries, but does not describe how it will lead to sustainability. How owning a self-renewing resource can make the 400 percent profits EDF’s Vice President David Festa promises to investors is apparent. But once again it is more difficult to tweak out the social value in the loss of independent fishing communities—one of the oldest commercial cultures—along with empty commercial harbors and lost small businesses.

EDF has been at this a while. The previous National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief, Jane Lubchenco, was an EDF revolving-door employee. The New England Fishery Management Council for decades has had members who were EDF employees. There are current members who are coached by EDF management.

Other big-money players influencing fisheries policy and ocean uses include the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (Intel Corporation). When Washington declared that the nation needed a National Ocean Policy, but had no funding to create one, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation stepped forward. The $5 billion Moore Foundation can afford to pay for all of the NOAA employees and others engaged in the the ocean planning process, the four-star hotels for the tri-annual meetings and marine research projects underway. But should they be allowed to make public policy?

The David & Lucile Packard Foundation (Hewlett-Packard Company), the Walton Foundation and Pew Trusts are also putting some of their considerable financial clout behind ocean and fisheries policy. Spending untold millions of dollars on ocean policy is not grounds for an indictment. However, not many business people could teach Gordon Moore or David Packard anything about making a lot of money. They do it by investing for financial returns. Everyone, including EDF, knows that.

Can the rightful citizen stewards of this common resource really expect that maximizing “efficiency” and profits will not be the founding principles put forward for ocean management by these corporate titans. Sustainability is a function of the amount of fish harvested not ownership. If ownership is the operating principal, then any group anywhere could own the fish in our common resource.