Going Overboard to Protect Subsistence Fisheries

     In light of a changing global economy, the impact of sound fisheries management in both developing and developed nations cannot be underestimated in its value to both current and future populations. For many communities within Southeast Asia, fishing exemplifies much more than a tradition. One particular region of interest is the numerous smaller cities and villages surrounding Indonesian capital of Jakarta.
     The history of the region is interwoven with seafaring; from hauling in mackerel, tuna, and even shark, fish has long been an important part of both Indonesian culture and additionally, the economy. Indonesia is ranked within the top ten global fish producers, and the industry employs over two million people. The nation’s fisheries exports exist at well over a billion dollars, and over 700,000 registered fishing boats dot the shoreline and open water. Additionally, nearly 40% of all Indonesian fishers are engaged, at least partly, in some form of freshwater pond aquaculture. Many individuals rely on the fish for commercial purposes, but approximately 10% of the population is dependent upon subsistence fishing for their daily food intake. Unfortunately, in recent years, much commercial overharvesting has threatened the hauls available to this portion of the population. 
     Within the United States, the largest amount of subsistence fishing is done by communities living in remote/rural Alaska, and amounts to approximately 57,000 people, which, compared to the entire population of the United States, is just about 1%, comparatively. However, when examining just the state of Alaska as a whole, it comes out to approximately 10%. Though the United States’ Alaska and nation of Indonesia both have very different cultural histories and legacies of development, the health of many populations in both regions is largely reliant on their respective governments’ abilities to manage and promote proper usage of fish stocks, and to allocate harvest numbers in a manner that will allow for subsistence fishers to maintain livelihoods, while still encouraging local economic growth.
     However, if such a large part of Indonesia's fishing economy is reliant on inland aquaculture, why does the nation encounter large amounts of controversy surrounding open sea fishing in the region? The answer can be attributed to regimes that have deteriorated in their ability to conserve local fisheries for local populations.
     Subsistence fishing in Alaska is primarily governed by the Alaska Board of Fisheries, which determines when it is necessary for larger commercial vessels to restrict harvests, as subsistence fishers are given priority. In Indonesia, it is managed largely by imposing quotas and total allowable catch numbers, as set by the Directorate General of Fisheries, and various provincial managers. Yet open-water fishing in Indonesia exists primarily in the small scale, even from a commercial perspective, and unfortunately suffers due to a lack of effective legal enforcement. Neighboring nations additionally play a large part in depleting open-water fish stocks.
      The Indonesian government is attempting to change this, however, by announcing within the last week that it planned to declare a “war” on illegal fishing. Much of this occurs from fishers in nearby nations such as Malaysia, but results in over $20 million losses. The President, Joko Widido, has advocated sinking the ships (after rescuing crew members) in order to send a message that the nation values and will continue to be strongly protective of its fish stocks. New military (Coast Guard) forces are also planned to assist in ensuring that Indonesia’s fish are captured by Indonesian fishers. This stance may seem overly harsh, yet these drastic steps may be necessary in order to place their marine economy back on track,
     Though Indonesia and Alaska both rely heavily on fish, from both a subsistence and commercial perspective, divergences management regimes have greatly influenced the development of local economies and cultures. Relationships with foreign actors have also played a large part in determining the commercial ventures available, both domestically, and internationally. Following the example of successful management initiatives may offer valuable venues through which developing nations can promote domestic economic growth, but developing nations must prioritize indirect investment in their markets. In conclusion, Indonesia has an obligation -- not only to the portion of its population depending on fishing for subsistence, but also to its economy as a whole-- to ensure accountability and to promote the interests of its people before that of foreign commercial activity. Given the stance it has taken on the issue, it surely seems as if this goal will be achievable.


-  -  -
Sources
-  -  -
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/19/us-indonesia-fishing-idUSKCN0J318O20141119
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/11/19/jokowi-declares-war-illegal-fishing.html
http://seawildearth.com/tag/sustenance-fishermen/
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21591905-government-tries-preserve-fecund-part-coral-triangle-plenty-more-fish-sea
http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/idn/profile.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/travel/jakarta-maritime-travel/index.html

Calm Down Klare

In Resource Wars, Michael T. Klare argues that after the Cold War, new conflicts between nations will be centered on resource security. The need to make sure that a nation has enough natural resources to sustain its economy will lead to increasingly militarized conflicts between nations fighting over finite resources.

There are several things I find problematic about Klare’s argument. The first one is that the idea of nations fighting over resources is hardly new. Even before the Cold War, natural resources were already causes for conflict on top of other more pertinent things such as ideologies, ethnicity, etc. Germany and France had for a long time fought over mineral resources in Alsace and Lorraine, Russia has fought over the oil-rich fields in Romania, and many other older examples can be found in history including during exploration campaigns to the new world. Even when the issue of scarcity was not yet an issue, countries were already willing to fight over control of resource-abundant areas. Klare does recognize that resources alone are not enough to justify how certain conflicts have broken out. However, he does seem to believe that in the future, resources will the most important reason for conflicts. If we look at history as an indicator we can make a case arguing that it will not be the case. So as far as reasons for conflict go, resource is not a brand new one as Klare suggests.

Another factor to be taken into consideration is that more powerful countries waging wars to protect their interest is not something new. Countries waging wars to have access or control over resources will simply be a further extension and representation of the balance of power, whatever that might look like at a certain point in time. Resources are no different than, say, security or ideology as far as reasons for conflict go. So knowing that resources are finite, and assuming that states do not find alternatives in time, resources can explain conflict under the same framework of reference used for security issues.

With that said, there is something else to take into consideration. Klare seems to suggest that as the situation tightens up, countries will be willing to use whatever means necessary to obtain what they need, including depriving other countries of resources in order to protect their own interest. That sounds reasonable enough if one looks at the issue from a purely realism perspective. However, it is important to consider that countries are increasingly interconnected economically due to the globalization of industries. It is difficult to imagine a country making decisions to guarantee its access to resources at the cost of ruining another country economically. This kind of future cut-throat competition scenario proposed by Klare is not reasonable. If one of the major power falls due to its inability to sustain its economy due to lack of resources, all other countries in the system will feel the hit. This notion of “if I fall, so will you” is, in my opinion, enough of an incentive to guarantee that nations will be actively looking for alternatives to the energy problem.

Finally, there is the idea discussed in class presented by the Prometheans. If we look at the history of humanity we have always saved ourselves from seemingly unavoidable crises by technological and scientific advancements. The famine that many predicted in Asia in the 60’s was avoided by advances in agriculture and genetically modified crops. Many diseases that threatened us as a species have been dealt with by scientific advances. The current climate problem will more likely than not follow the same pattern. Things will get really bad before we are forced to find an alternative, but what matters is that we will.

Deudney's Delusions: How the DRC Shows That Environmental Degradation Is An Actual National Security Threat

     There are many logical linkings exsiting between national security and the manner in which it is affected by environmental resource use. In The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security, Daniel Deudney discusses his reasons for believing the claim to be invalid. However, an examination of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the various issues the conflict-ridden nation has been facing over the past decade clearly shows the ways in which environmental degradation acts as a national security threat to this developing nation.
     The economy of the nation is heavily dependent on subsistence industries, agriculture in particular. However, other harmful practices that run rampant in the land include deforestation, poaching of wildlife, mineral extraction, and oil drilling. It is also essential to note that since the early 1990s (and in truth, really, since its independence in 1960), the country has been ravaged by much political strife. Many rebel groups have taken over rule of the nation’s weak transportation infrastructure, and many manners in which economic diversification is available for populations, such as through ecotourism, or even various extractive industries, such as mining or logging, are often hindered by the presence of these violent factions.
     Degradation of natural resources, whether by local or domestic forces, presents a threat to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, not only in terms of greatly working against economic growth, but also from a security perspective. Industries dependent on healthy environmental conditions, for instance, ecotourism and fishing, are unable to thrive if certain industries (ie; oil) are allowed to expand within the nation. If one is defining security as “the state of being free from danger or threat,” and as encompassing aspects such as economic, physical,  resource, and non-use well-being, then environmental degradation surely impacts the ability of a state to promote its interests, both in comparison to other states, and alone as well.
     Environmental degradation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has the potential to harm many communities in a number of manners, as well as cause international conflict. For instance, oil reserves surrounding the Virunga National Park have the potential to pollute the nearby Lakes Albert, Edward, and Kivu. Populations in the bordering nations of Rwanda, as well as Uganda, both depend on the bodies of water for food supplies. The militarized groups in these regions could be expected to affect neighboring regions, should a third-party interfere with their livelihoods. It is also crucial to recognize, specifically in regards to the eastern region of the DRC, that there are still many refugee populations displaced by conflicts occurring in the last two decades. Thus, harming these bodies of water could not only create domestic conflict, as impoverished populations struggle to find new modes of subsistence (it should also be mentioned that agricultural capabilities within the DRC is quite region-dependent, given the size of the country), but also cause international conflict as pollution seeps to negatively affect its neighbors. In this manner, one can consider it almost the existence of a resource war.
     Deudney’s statement, “The fact that so many resource-poor countries, like Japan, are very wealthy, while many countries with more extensive resource endowments are poor, suggests that there is no clear and direct relationship between abundant resource availability and national wealth,” quite clearly sums up the condition of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The biodiversity within the nation is one of the highest levels worldwide; there is enough arable land in the country so that if it was utilized properly, it would be able to feed the entire African continent; and the country has numerous deposits of valuable minerals such as gold, tungsten, bauxite, iron, and uranium. Because the national infrastructure is so very frail, the environment exists as a fallback for the majority of the peoples within the country. The layout of the nation does not allow for many sites of westernized commerce, especially in reference to rural farming populations. Therefore, the Congolese have a strong reliance and dependence on the environment for their basic needs and services. Degradation in developing nations such as the DRC also involves the realm of environmental justice, primarily because the firms involved are foreign, and do not reinvest the resources back into community development. That, combined with the weak hand of the largely corrupt government does not allow for exploitative resource use to exist positively within the nation.
     In conclusion, the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s current state is one of many examples as to why environmental and resource degradation has implications serious enough that the actions can be considered a national security threat. Interstate violence cannot be disconnected from resource utilization and availability, and a state that wishes to promote its interests by harnessing the “emotive powers of nationalism” to protect resources is in no way upsetting or undermining any sensibilities. The environment is the determining factor for many nations’ prosperity, and to discount its importance by claiming that it is not connected to national security is to adopt a rather naïve, narrow-minded perspective.


Sources:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/11/soco-oil-virunga-national-park-congo-wwf
http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/countries/democratic-republic-congo-facts/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16394635
http://www.unep.org/NEWSCENTRE/default.aspx?DocumentId=2656&ArticleId=8890
Deudney, Daniel. The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security. Green Planet Blues: Four Decades of Environmental Politics.

Homer-Dixon: Is Scarcity Really The Reason? Or Is It Competition?

Homer-Dixon believes that scarcity if the root of conflict, to say that the lack of resources and goods is what causes conflict. Homer-Dixon ignores the real root of all these conflicts, which is actually competition. The thing that Homer-Dixon does not address here is what exactly Homer-Dixon means by the word scarcity, he does not accurately define the word.  Scarcity is a good or resource that is in short supply, or simply a shortage. Homer-Dixon does not really define or delve into this idea which is where the whole problem with his theory arises. Is scarcity an abundant resource that can’t be reached? Or is it a resource that is actually in short supply? Other factors such as government structure, monopolies, technology, etc show up and can actually be the reason why something is scarce or simply hard to find. Homer-Dixon fails to even properly define the word scarcity and misses the true root of conflicts, competition.

Homer-Dixon’s argument of scarcity continues to fall apart when you examine all of the other factors that show up when you examine his data sets. Homer-Dixon completely ignores things such as labor control, politics, prestige, revenge, cultural differences, and countless others. His theory of scarcity and conflict may be linked, but he chooses to make scarcity the main or only reason when at best it falls under the umbrella of competition or is just a factor among countless others. It can also be noted that every single state looked at by Homer-Dixon was already in a state of conflict when examined, which Homer-Dixon claimed was stated by conflict. As stated before, Homer-Dixon ignores the other factors that could cause conflict in these states and fails to see how the idea of competition is the root cause of many of these conflicts.

Competition is a much more logical reason than scarcity since it can actually be defined and can exclude outside factors. Scarcity itself leaves too many holes in its argument such as the aforementioned technology, government structure, and business monopolies, among others. The real reason why these conflicts starts is because of competition since it shows up in every single type of state from rich to poor, democratic to authoritarian, and abundance to actual scarce resources. The truth is that there is not a concrete answer as to what causes these conflicts since things like cultural history, economic status, privilege, politics, and labor control all come into play. Scarcity can be one of these factors but not the main or only one as stated by Homer-Dixon. Even so, competition would be a much better fit for this idea.

            

Competition will always be prevalent in society no matter what. Even if a resource is abundant and there is more than enough to go around, there will still be competition. States, actors, and corporations will always want to possess the most of whatever resource or good is available. Things like access points to the resource, amount of the resource, and technology are extremely prevalent when discussing scarcity, but not with competition. Competition allows more factors to be taken into account or excluded and is a much better fit for why conflicts stat, rather than scarcity. Competition fits into any society, state, actor, or government regardless of political ideology, scarcity, abundance, wealth, labor control, or any other factor. Scarcity is not properly defined by Homer-Dixon and his support for his argument is full of holes. Scarcity cannot be easily defined as shown by Homer-Dixon, but competition can and is full of much more testable hypothesis and data.

I am not saying that environmental scarcity cannot be a cause of conflict, but it is not properly explained by Homer-Dixon. Homer-Dixon does not acknowledge that his definition of scarcity is completely undefined which can leave the reader confused. Also, competition can cause scarcity of a resource if it is overused, (e.x. tragedy of the commons), or it can be a result of scarcity since competition can arise when a resource is in short supply. Competition shows up in every single type of state, government, country, corporation, colony or area of abundance or scarcity. Competition is an idea that permeates every single aspect of society. It is one of the things that make up human nature. It is the kind of things that ignores wealth, poverty, upbringing, and location. Since competition shows up everywhere, is more easily definable, and isn't a theory broken up by factors that hurt the scarcity argument, it is a much better fit for why environmental conflict starts. Homer-Dixon fails to properly define the term scarcity and his research supporting the theory itself ignores other factors that can be more localized and better show why conflict starts. Competition is a much better theory and properly shows why environmental conflict begins.

Sources

Peluso and Watts, “”Violent Environments” VE, Ch.1, p.1-30

Hartmann, “Will the Circle Be Unbroken: A Critique of the Project on Environment, Population, and

Security”. VE, Ch.2

The Problem with Conflict Diamonds

Competition for desirous goods can wreck havoc on a developing society. Numerous African nations have suffered due to their abundances of diamonds especially since Western colonization. The West’s desire for these priceless gems has created chaos among African governments, rebel groups, and Western jewelers. Today, those diamonds that have been unjustly mined and sold to fund violent conflicts have been marked as “conflict diamonds.” These conflict diamonds have funded civil wars, killed millions of people, and left regions completely impoverished.

 For the past few decades, human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and social responsible companies such as Brilliant Earth have worked relentlessly to educated people on the issue of conflict diamonds. These organizations have influenced a wide variety of people and businesses from Tiffany and Co. to Hollywood that produced the film “Blood Diamond.” This film, which was released in 2006, accurately portrays the violent struggle between multiple actors that fight to gain control over diamond mining in Sierra Leone.

The film focused on a fictional story between a miner and a South African smuggler. According to the film, conflict diamonds make up 15% of the international diamond market. This percentage may not seem like a big amount, but for a multi-billion dollar industry that means millions of dollars worth of profits are made from conflict diamonds. These profits help fund rebel groups so that they can fight violent and bloody civil wars. The movie, as well as facts alone, makes it clear that the issue of conflict diamonds is one that is quite difficult to solve. It is practically impossible to stop the mining and selling of these conflict diamonds because of the vast amount of actors involved. The primary actors involved are the African governments, rebel groups, involuntary miners, Western governments, smugglers, and major corporations. All these actors have different desires and compliance is nearly impossible.

However, since the end of multiple African civil wars such as the one in Sierra Leone, governments and jewelers have been trying to work on a solution. One of the most widespread solutions has been the enactment of the Kimberley Process. According to Amnesty International, “the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) imposes requirements on participants to certify that shipments of rough diamonds are conflict-free.” However, the Kimberley Process imposes limitations that are too detailed. It’s definition of what constitutes as a conflict diamond is so limited, that conflict diamonds still move freely within the diamond market. According to Brilliant Earth, “due to the severe limitations of the Kimberley Process, diamonds tainted by human rights abuse are widely sold and certified as conflict free.”

This process has failed to solve the deeper issue of widespread human rights violations. The process may deal with the violent conflict of civil war but it does not ultimately deal with general human rights violations. The process “ignores human rights abuses, worker exploitation, and environmental degradation” (Brilliant Earth). The process ignores these issues because of its severe limitations and the fact that, “it does not require diamonds to be traced to their mine of origin, allowing smuggled diamonds to obtain conflict free certification and enter world markets” (Brilliant Earth).

Today, the Kimberley Process concludes that practically 99% of the world’s diamonds are conflict free (Allen). However, this is a hugely undermining statement, especially since the Kimberley Process does not take into account the way governments treat their people in regards to diamond mining. According to the Human Rights Activist Rafael Marques, the Kimberley process has given “legitimacy to corrupt governments that abuse their own people” (Allen). Popular jewelers also disagree with the success of the Kimberley Process. According to a trade group that represents Tiffany & Co. and Zales, the Kimberley Process should “either figure out a way to incorporate human-rights monitoring into its oversight of member countries or invite an outside organization to do it for them” (Allen). An oversight committee would be a great way to monitor the diamond industry, especially since the majority of the actors in the diamond industry cannot be fully trusted.

Conflict diamonds are still hugely popular in Africa, especially in countries such as: Angola, Zaire, and the Democratic Republic the Congo. In these particular nations, peasant diggers have been enlisted to mine these diamond regions since Western colonization and occupation. Since then, these regions still produce diamonds that fund conflicts, unjust governments, and civil wars. There is also a huge issue of smuggling and corruption, for example “over $2 billion in diamonds have been stolen by political allies of Zimbabwe’s president since 2008” (Brilliant Earth). This corruption as well as the fact that a large of amount of mined diamonds go unregister contributes to a large loss of tax revenue for these governments. This loss of tax revenue hinders development that could better political and economic systems.

Conflict diamonds are an issue of scarcity and abundance simultaneously. These diamonds are abundant in these regions, however technology has yet to make it efficient and safe to mine these regions. These diamonds are also scarce — they are scarce because they are not commonly found in the rest of the world outside these developing regions. This scarcity has led to diamonds being extremely desirous to Westerners.

Americans and Europeans use diamonds as status symbols, usually completely unaware of where they really came from. There is a huge disconnect between all the actors involved in diamond mining.  These actors are completely incompliant and even struggle to know what they themselves want. In a scene from the film “Blood Diamond,” Leonardo DiCaprio who plays a smuggler explains the different roles of actors involved in diamond mining. He states that governments want to stay in power long enough to gain wealth so that they can move faraway into exile, that rebel groups fight for power that they are not sure they even want, and that Peace Corps quickly realize they can not do anything to help. This realization is obviously pessimistic, but eerily true.

Those on the international stage have tried to find a solution especially with the enactment of the Kimberley Process. However, the limitations of the process have done very little to solve the root of this issue. This issue is rooted the relationship between the haves and the have-nots. It seems that no matter who is in charge, there is a disparity between authority and civilians. The issue of conflict diamonds is more related to the difficulties between international and local institutions than to scarcity and abundance. Until these developing regions create a strong political and economical infrastructure so that common people can gain from diamond mining, little will change and governments will still be corrupt and uncompromising.

Sources:

Film - “Blood Diamond”

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/business-and-human-rights/oil-gas-and-mining-industries/conflict-diamonds

http://www.brilliantearth.com/conflict-diamond-facts/
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704198004575311282588959188