5 ms·

The illegal trawling on the African coast by Chinese trawlers are destroying the livelihood in many African countries. I wish the EU would work with those natio

The illegal trawling on the African coast by Chinese trawlers are destroying the livelihood in many African countries. I wish the EU would work with those nations affected to intercept and arrest those boats.

krisoft 4y ago
So Chinese ships are doing something at the coast of African countries and somehow you want the EU to do something about that? How does that compute?
- ornornor 4y ago
  And that’s why it’s called tragedy of the commons.
  - stuaxo 4y ago
    An article on the original "tragedy of the commons" http://links.org.au/debunking-tragedy-commons http://links.org.au/debunking-tragedy-commons
    - ornornor 4y ago
      This argues that the only alternative is privatization. I don’t think that’s true. The issue here is that land that no one has authority over means that there is also no enforcement and that it’s a race to the bottom as to who will manage to exploit it to the point where it is destroyed and useless to anyone anymore. And why wouldn’t you, morals aside? It’s basically free resources for the exploiter with externalities shared by everyone. It doesn’t mean the solution is private ownership. Look at national parks, they’re publicly owned but they’re not a no man’s land so a government has authority to enforce conservation rules there and punish those who pollute/damage the park. That’s what parent comment was perfectly illustrating: “not EU waters, not EU trawlers, why even lift a finger if Africa is too corrupt or financially unable to protect these ecosystems and the Chinese too cynical to refrain themselves?”
      - foobarian 4y ago
        The semantics of those words are not quite right. Yes a national park may sound like a "public" good. But it is privatized in the sense that there is an owner who looks after it. If international waters had an owner as diligent as the National Park Service things would be a lot different.
        pstuart 4y ago
        Perhaps it's time for International Parks.
        brianmurphy 4y ago
        The same question remains. Enforced by whom? It seems solvable with a consensus of the stakeholders.
        tick_tock_tick 4y ago
        > Enforced by whom? I mean I'd assume the world police would handle it. The NOAA and FWS currently manage Papahānaumokuākea but it would be quite a scale up for global areas maybe the Navy could enforce a baseline.
        ornornor 4y ago
        Well I reckon government (or a government-like entity) owned is as close as you’ll get to have laws enforced while not being privately owned (as in by an individual or a corporation).
        dementis 4y ago
        "Generally, a state's exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, extending seaward to a distance of no more than 200 nmi (370 km) out from its coastal baseline." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone "China has by far the largest distant water fleet in the world with at least 3,000 vessels, some of which have been spotted off the coasts of Africa and as far as Ecuador. This has raised concerns of overfishing at a time when global fish stocks are plummeting. “It’s their strategy of establishing themselves as a big fishing power,” said Matti Kohonen, executive director of the FTC. “Then they end up breaking a lot of fishing laws by doing that." https://english.alarabiya.net/features/2022/10/26/Chinese-firms-responsible-for-illegal-fishing-globally-study-says https://english.alarabiya.net/features/2022/10/26/Chinese-fi... The issue with a lot of places globally that Chinese owned fishing fleets(of highly questionable legal status) go is that they will decimate the area like a plague of locus and then just like locus they will move on once there is no longer any viable marine wildlife to catch(or even kelp / sea grass to collect). And the local governments either don't have the resources required to patrol their coastal exclusive economic zone or they intentionally don't want to antagonize China by stopping their illegal fishing fleets either because of political corruption or due to other more serious reasons. Technically the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) can enforce Maritime law but I am not aware of them doing anything about illegal fishing fleets.
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      I'm familiar with Hardin's original essay (<https://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html https://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of...>), as well as numerous critiques of it. Those have expanded in recent years, many with allegations that strike me as perilously thin of Hardin's alleged nationalist sympathies. It's worth noting that these concerns all but entirely seem to post-date Hardin's own death (after which of course he can no longer defend himself), and were not markedly present during his lifetime to the best of my knowledge. Angus's own rebuttal claims, among other points that "it’s shocking to realise that he provided no evidence at all to support his sweeping conclusions. He claimed that the “tragedy” was inevitable — but he didn’t show that it had happened even once." This is in fact false as even a casual reading of the original essay will show. Hardin's principle concern was population and the risk of global overpopulation. That presents his first example given the best available knowledge at the time he published the essay: Has any cultural group solved this practical problem at the present time, even on an intuitive level? One simple fact proves that none has: there is no prosperous population in the world today that has, and has had for some time, a growth rate of zero. A second more trivial example, involves public parking: A simple incident that occurred a few years ago in Leominster, Massachusetts, shows how perishable the knowledge is. During the Christmas shopping season the parking meters downtown were covered with red plastic bags that bore tags reading: "Do not open until after Christmas. Free parking courtesy of the mayor and city council." In other words, facing the prospect of an increased demand for already scarce space, the city fathers reinstituted the system of the commons. Two more substantial examples follow immediately: Even at this late date, cattlemen leasing national land on the western ranges demonstrate no more than an ambivalent understanding, in constantly pressuring federal authorities to increase the head count to the point where overgrazing produces erosion and weed-dominance. And, in the same paragraph: Likewise, the oceans of the world continue to suffer from the survival of the philosophy of the commons. Maritime nations still respond automatically to the shibboleth of the "freedom of the seas." Professing to believe in "the inexhaustible resources of the oceans," they bring species after species of fish and whales closer to extinction (9). And a fourth: The National Parks present another instance of the working out of the tragedy of the commons. At present, they are open to all, without limit. The parks themselves are limited in extent--there is only one Yosemite Valley--whereas population seems to grow without limit. The values that visitors seek the parks are steadily eroded. The fifth is pollution, to which Hardin sees no market-based solution: The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is averted by private property, or something formally like it. But the air and waters surrounding us cannot readily be fenced, and so the tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different means, by coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated. What Hardin's self-described critics seem to miss is that Hardin isn't arguing against commons per se but unregulated commons. That regulation may be provided by the market, through taxation or other incentives, through behavioural restrictions, quota systems, or even social mores. Hardin does suggest that property rights seem to be one of the more effective mechanisms available, but does NOT declare that this is the One True Way to manage all commons. He, and his commons-defending critics, are in fact arguing for the same thing: a regulated commons serving the interests of the broader community, not of avaricious individuals.
dementis 4y ago
This is from 2021 but it does show how heavily China has invested into Africa to support their Naval and Maritime shipping. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9554253/How-China-bought-influence-Africa-warns-new-naval-base-there.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9554253/How-China-b... There has been some speculation that China is effectively trying to take control over Africa and has been rather successful at doing so on some fronts. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18417/china-taking-over-africa https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18417/china-taking-over-a...
marginalia_nu 4y ago
To be fair the EU can barely prevent this shit in European waters.
stevespang 4y ago

krisoft 4y ago

So Chinese ships are doing something at the coast of African countries and somehow you want the EU to do something about that? How does that compute?

ornornor 4y ago
And that’s why it’s called tragedy of the commons.
- stuaxo 4y ago
  An article on the original "tragedy of the commons" http://links.org.au/debunking-tragedy-commons http://links.org.au/debunking-tragedy-commons
  - ornornor 4y ago
    This argues that the only alternative is privatization. I don’t think that’s true. The issue here is that land that no one has authority over means that there is also no enforcement and that it’s a race to the bottom as to who will manage to exploit it to the point where it is destroyed and useless to anyone anymore. And why wouldn’t you, morals aside? It’s basically free resources for the exploiter with externalities shared by everyone. It doesn’t mean the solution is private ownership. Look at national parks, they’re publicly owned but they’re not a no man’s land so a government has authority to enforce conservation rules there and punish those who pollute/damage the park. That’s what parent comment was perfectly illustrating: “not EU waters, not EU trawlers, why even lift a finger if Africa is too corrupt or financially unable to protect these ecosystems and the Chinese too cynical to refrain themselves?”
    - foobarian 4y ago
      The semantics of those words are not quite right. Yes a national park may sound like a "public" good. But it is privatized in the sense that there is an owner who looks after it. If international waters had an owner as diligent as the National Park Service things would be a lot different.
      - pstuart 4y ago
        Perhaps it's time for International Parks.
        brianmurphy 4y ago
        The same question remains. Enforced by whom? It seems solvable with a consensus of the stakeholders.
        tick_tock_tick 4y ago
        > Enforced by whom? I mean I'd assume the world police would handle it. The NOAA and FWS currently manage Papahānaumokuākea but it would be quite a scale up for global areas maybe the Navy could enforce a baseline.
      - ornornor 4y ago
        Well I reckon government (or a government-like entity) owned is as close as you’ll get to have laws enforced while not being privately owned (as in by an individual or a corporation).
      - dementis 4y ago
        "Generally, a state's exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, extending seaward to a distance of no more than 200 nmi (370 km) out from its coastal baseline." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone "China has by far the largest distant water fleet in the world with at least 3,000 vessels, some of which have been spotted off the coasts of Africa and as far as Ecuador. This has raised concerns of overfishing at a time when global fish stocks are plummeting. “It’s their strategy of establishing themselves as a big fishing power,” said Matti Kohonen, executive director of the FTC. “Then they end up breaking a lot of fishing laws by doing that." https://english.alarabiya.net/features/2022/10/26/Chinese-firms-responsible-for-illegal-fishing-globally-study-says https://english.alarabiya.net/features/2022/10/26/Chinese-fi... The issue with a lot of places globally that Chinese owned fishing fleets(of highly questionable legal status) go is that they will decimate the area like a plague of locus and then just like locus they will move on once there is no longer any viable marine wildlife to catch(or even kelp / sea grass to collect). And the local governments either don't have the resources required to patrol their coastal exclusive economic zone or they intentionally don't want to antagonize China by stopping their illegal fishing fleets either because of political corruption or due to other more serious reasons. Technically the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) can enforce Maritime law but I am not aware of them doing anything about illegal fishing fleets.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    I'm familiar with Hardin's original essay (<https://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html https://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of...>), as well as numerous critiques of it. Those have expanded in recent years, many with allegations that strike me as perilously thin of Hardin's alleged nationalist sympathies. It's worth noting that these concerns all but entirely seem to post-date Hardin's own death (after which of course he can no longer defend himself), and were not markedly present during his lifetime to the best of my knowledge. Angus's own rebuttal claims, among other points that "it’s shocking to realise that he provided no evidence at all to support his sweeping conclusions. He claimed that the “tragedy” was inevitable — but he didn’t show that it had happened even once." This is in fact false as even a casual reading of the original essay will show. Hardin's principle concern was population and the risk of global overpopulation. That presents his first example given the best available knowledge at the time he published the essay: Has any cultural group solved this practical problem at the present time, even on an intuitive level? One simple fact proves that none has: there is no prosperous population in the world today that has, and has had for some time, a growth rate of zero. A second more trivial example, involves public parking: A simple incident that occurred a few years ago in Leominster, Massachusetts, shows how perishable the knowledge is. During the Christmas shopping season the parking meters downtown were covered with red plastic bags that bore tags reading: "Do not open until after Christmas. Free parking courtesy of the mayor and city council." In other words, facing the prospect of an increased demand for already scarce space, the city fathers reinstituted the system of the commons. Two more substantial examples follow immediately: Even at this late date, cattlemen leasing national land on the western ranges demonstrate no more than an ambivalent understanding, in constantly pressuring federal authorities to increase the head count to the point where overgrazing produces erosion and weed-dominance. And, in the same paragraph: Likewise, the oceans of the world continue to suffer from the survival of the philosophy of the commons. Maritime nations still respond automatically to the shibboleth of the "freedom of the seas." Professing to believe in "the inexhaustible resources of the oceans," they bring species after species of fish and whales closer to extinction (9). And a fourth: The National Parks present another instance of the working out of the tragedy of the commons. At present, they are open to all, without limit. The parks themselves are limited in extent--there is only one Yosemite Valley--whereas population seems to grow without limit. The values that visitors seek the parks are steadily eroded. The fifth is pollution, to which Hardin sees no market-based solution: The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is averted by private property, or something formally like it. But the air and waters surrounding us cannot readily be fenced, and so the tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different means, by coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated. What Hardin's self-described critics seem to miss is that Hardin isn't arguing against commons per se but unregulated commons. That regulation may be provided by the market, through taxation or other incentives, through behavioural restrictions, quota systems, or even social mores. Hardin does suggest that property rights seem to be one of the more effective mechanisms available, but does NOT declare that this is the One True Way to manage all commons. He, and his commons-defending critics, are in fact arguing for the same thing: a regulated commons serving the interests of the broader community, not of avaricious individuals.

dementis 4y ago

This is from 2021 but it does show how heavily China has invested into Africa to support their Naval and Maritime shipping. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9554253/How-China-bought-influence-Africa-warns-new-naval-base-there.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9554253/How-China-b... There has been some speculation that China is effectively trying to take control over Africa and has been rather successful at doing so on some fronts. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18417/china-taking-over-africa https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18417/china-taking-over-a...

marginalia_nu 4y ago

To be fair the EU can barely prevent this shit in European waters.

stevespang 4y ago