A Solution for Overfishing?

Dear Sirs and Madams,

You may not have expected it, but Vanity Fair provided the most readable explanation for the financial collapse in Iceland. This article by Michael Lewis in April of this year gave a very detailed and meticulous analysis of Iceland's woes.

I found the following passage extremely interesting:

"This insight is what led Iceland to go from being one of the poorest countries in Europe circa 1900 to being one of the richest circa 2000. Iceland’s big change began in the early 1970s, after a couple of years when the fish catch was terrible. The best fishermen returned for a second year in a row without their usual haul of cod and haddock, so the Icelandic government took radical action: they privatized the fish. Each fisherman was assigned a quota, based roughly on his historical catches. If you were a big-time Icelandic fisherman you got this piece of paper that entitled you to, say, 1 percent of the total catch allowed to be pulled from Iceland’s waters that season. Before each season the scientists at the Marine Research Institute would determine the total number of cod or haddock that could be caught without damaging the long-term health of the fish population; from year to year, the numbers of fish you could catch changed. But your percentage of the annual haul was fixed, and this piece of paper entitled you to it in perpetuity.

Even better, if you didn’t want to fish you could sell your quota to someone who did. The quotas thus drifted into the hands of the people to whom they were of the greatest value, the best fishermen, who could extract the fish from the sea with maximum efficiency. You could also take your quota to the bank and borrow against it, and the bank had no trouble assigning a dollar value to your share of the cod pulled, without competition, from the richest cod-fishing grounds on earth. The fish had not only been privatized, they had been securitized.

It was horribly unfair: a public resource—all the fish in the Icelandic sea—was simply turned over to a handful of lucky Icelanders. Overnight, Iceland had its first billionaires, and they were all fishermen. But as social policy it was ingenious: in a single stroke the fish became a source of real, sustainable wealth rather than shaky sustenance. Fewer people were spending less effort catching more or less precisely the right number of fish to maximize the long-term value of Iceland’s fishing grounds."

Perhaps Michael Lewis is on to something in terms of saving the global stock of fish. The quota system and the government regulation of the fish population is great and all, but my reservation is that it does not solve the issue of fishermen dumping dead fish overboard. I cannot say that I am an expert on the economy of fishing, so I will shut up now.

I hope the sushi fifty years from now won't be too expensive...

Best,
Yong Kwon

Dear God...

Dear Sirs and Madams,

The results for the European elections are in and I have become more worried for this world than before the elections. Not only was the voter turnout a historic low this year (43%), but the Europeans also managed to put anti-immigration and racist groups, like the British National Party, into the parliament. While these radical right groups hardly constitute a force to be reckoned with, I feel this is a serious sign of popular sentiments in Europe.

At the same time, no one has stepped forward to make any significant moves to tackle the big problems. The green paper, published by the European Commission, admits that 88% of European fish stocks are overexploited and 30% have collapsed. No serious voices advocate for the dismantling of NATO or to protect refugees.

Do the European want a closed continent? They clearly don't mind keeping the spoils of their plunder and further victimizing those who have escaped the inner-circles of hell that some EU member states have helped create.

The EU elections have been a step back for liberty.

Best,
Yong Kwon

On the future of the European Union

Dear Sirs and Madams,

As results come in from all over Europe for the European Union Parliament elections, I have a quick shout out to those that live in EU member states.

Denizens of the EU have a crucial role in this time of increasing volatility. The $50 billion of agricultural subsidies from the European Union are keeping other farmers in much worse of regions of the world from being able to access the food market. Their despair will transform into violence as it did for the fisherman in Somalia.

European Union and its member governments’ refusal to confront the fishing lobbies and decommission the excess boats encourages mass poaching in areas like Senegal and Somalia. One must recognize that this is a self destructive act that will only decrease the available fish in waters around Europe. As the Senegalese starve and the Somalis take up arms against international shipping, the European fishing boats are digging their own graves.

However, it is not just those beyond the borders of the European Union that face injustices waged upon them, sanctioned by the EU. There has to be a system of accountability which ensures the practice of adopted legislations regarding human rights and equal treatment. I do not wish the European Union to take on more federal power, so I beseech individuals in the EU to take it upon themelves to demand from their governments to ensure the liberty, equality, and justice for all.

All, including immigrants and refugees, many of whom have escaped hell-on-earth only to find themselves in shanty towns made of card board boxes, hunted down by the host government and ostracized by the local communities. Redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor will inevitably occur under a free market and it is the most efficient, moral, and peaceful way to make the whole world a lot more prosperous. Your alternative is to await the violence unleashed by honest, hard working people whose only fault is that they were on the receiving end of the unfair and illiberal market conditions. I assure you that the losses in the former scenario to be insignificant, especially compared to the latter. Besides for the European nations whose population is decreasing who will pay for today’s young when they become pensioners?

Lastly, take the first step to disestablish NATO. There is no reason for its existence nor a European Union army, it will only provoke further tensions with Russia. Russia could probably use some help from the European Union. If people are so concerned with immigrants maybe Europe should look into diagnosing the issues after complaining about the symptoms for so long.
That goes for everything else as well.

Ah, I rant.

I hope you will not find offense in the above criticisms. I have tremendous respect for the European Union’s stance on all sort of things from humane treatment of animals to its position on ensuring the safety of food products. However, certain actions undertaken by the EU really damages the world and I believe it is important for the constituents of the EU to recognize those serious problems. The Common Agricultural Policy is under review regarding its subsidies and it has been promised to the world that it will be diminished. The Economist picked up the problem with fishing and it should be now on the minds of the politicians who have the means to change the situation. Everything necessary for Europe to finally lurch forward on the liberal path to global prosperity is present. Now the European Union constituents must send the right people into power.

They better, the livelihoods of many people depend on it.

I wish the old continent good luck.

Best,
Yong Kwon

More on Europe, Africa, fishing, and survival

Dear Sirs and Madams,

I would like to supplement my previous article on piracy and fishing with an article from the Guardian.

Nobel laureate economist Amrtya Sen had argued that famine is not always the result of not there being enough to eat, but rather the basic condition of individuals not having enough to eat. In another words, there may be store houses filled with food or a body of water capable of supporting the population, yet the individuals may not have the entitlement to access the necessities. The resulting starvation is a famine. Sen noted that the famines of the 20th centuries have all been man-made disasters, a product of inept and misguided politics.

The Guardian journalist George Monbiot makes a similar argument in his criticism of the European Union's fishing policies. His article highlights the legal depletion of Senegalese food source by European fishing boats. While Senegal refuses to renew its fishing agreements, European fishermen found loopholes to continue fishing on an industrial scale.

According to ActionAid "fishing families that once ate three times a day are now eating only once or twice."

European trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, is trying to negotiate an economic partnership agreement which would legalize the dodges used by European fishermen.

Monbiot scathingly declares that "the rich world's governments will protect themselves from the political cost of shortages, even if it means that other people must starve."

The Guardian article recognizes two problems: Europe's failure to manage the fishing industry properly when it can no longer meet European demands and Europe's refusal to confront fishing lobbies and decommission all the surplus boats.

These problems were also noted in an Economist article few weeks ago.

Fishing is a larger issue than an average individual may presume. From piracy to an existential threat, as consumers, to what extent are we responsible? It's very unsettling to me that one part of the world is taking, albeit legally, the very basic items necessary for the survival of individuals in another part of the world.

Forget the millions of tons of emergency cereal poured into the African continent, what we need is a solution which establishes a long term means of sustenance.

God forgive us.

With much fear of what to come,
Yong Kwon

So long and thanks for all the fish

Dear Sirs and Madams,

My friend recently told me about the near patriotic frenzy that his NROTC classmates fell into after the US Navy Seal snipers killed the 3 Somali pirates who was holding Captain Richard Phillips hostage. Thank goodness that the courageous captain was rescued without harm. Yet the whole “we are going to kick their ass” attitude does nothing to resolve the situation and does not prevent future ship captains from facing similar perils.

I am at a loss when I hear people talking about how cool it is that pirates still exist, as though imagining Jack Sparrow facing off the US Navy off of the Horn of Africa. The fact of the matter is that piracy in Somalia is the direct result of abuse. A lot of people have argued about how decreased naval movement after the fall of the Soviet Union allowed pirates to return. In reality, most of the pirates are former fishermen who have lost their means to continue their trade due to poaching and pollution. Few years ago, Somali fishermen learned that an armed response to foreign vessels illegally dumping pollutants was the only means of collecting proper compensation. Now, they’ve taken the lesson to heart as international fishing ships illegally poach off of Somali waters on an industrial scale, depleting the fish and threatening the very survival of the Somalis. Ordinary people turn to brutality and violence when pushed to the extremities of survival, the Somalis are no different.

Looking long term, the Horn of Africa will not become any safer under an international military presence. Only a comprehensive plan protecting the livelihoods of the Somalis can achieve that goal. The governments and organizations of the world should seek to create a condition in which the use of arms would be unnecessary to the Somalis.

Poaching fish and dumping pollution needs to be vigilantly watched for and violators must be punished.

The serious political and ecological consequences are not limited to the Somali coast. Fishermen in the Philippines have turned to dynamite fishing, for many of the same reasons as the Somalis, damaging the reefs and endangering the fish population and the entire ecology of the region. Fishing rights is a far reaching issue.

I find it ironic (? perhaps ironic is not the correct term here but bear with me) that during the height of the financial bubble Icelandic university students abandoned studying the economics of fishing for finance and marketing. Now, they and we must recognize the utmost importance of conservation and sustainable fishing.

We are what we eat, provided we have something to eat.

Best,
Yong Kwon

We Are What We Eat – The Burden of Agricultural Subsidies on the World Market

Dear Sirs and Madams,

One often forgets that repression of economic liberties constitutes a form of state violence. Whatever temporary good it seeks to accomplish, government intervention often tends to disturb the global market, exacerbating inequality and threatening the very survival of countless individuals around the world. Nowhere is this more clearer than in the agricultural policies of the United States and the European Union. The far-reaching ramifications of the west’s agricultural subsidies include not only the possibility of intensifying the current global economic crisis, but also undermining the security of the entire world.

It is important to grasp two very important facts from the Great Depression of the 1930s. First, the Depression did not develop from a vacuum, but as a consequence of the American government’s policy after WWI to increase tariffs, mostly in the agricultural sector. Second, once the depression began, the American government ignited a tariff war with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which by increasing tariffs further destabilized the deteriorating world market and order.

In the current global market, while agricultural tariffs no longer have as great an influence, the same detrimental effects are exerted by agricultural subsidies. The European Union alone spends $50 billion every year supporting domestic production of agricultural goods. As a result, not only are agricultural products from the third world not competitive within the EU but also the third world is forced to purchase subsidized agricultural products from Europe. By unfairly eliminating competing producers of agricultural goods in the third world, the United States and the European Union have effectively reduced the agricultural output of the world. Furthermore, the introduction of bio fuel subsidies exacerbated the diminishing supply of food. As a result, according to UNESCO, wheat prices have gone up 130% since March of 2007. Unable to compete in the food market despite the increase in prices, the purchasing power of many agriculture based nations will plummet as the crisis deepens. In this scenario, the world trade can only diminish with terrible consequences.

Although the crises in the housing and the financial markets overshadow the enormous burden placed on the global market by agricultural subsidies, the rest of the world is not so oblivious to the ongoing crisis. In retaliation to the west’s agricultural subsidies, increasing food prices, and the global economic crisis, 29 countries have curbed their export of food products. This feeble attempt to hoard domestic products has been a consistent response by nations facing economic hardship. During the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997, the response from many afflicted nations was to raise their tariffs, especially against highly competitive American produce such as beef. In response, the United States passed anti-dumping laws, causing havoc in Pacific commerce. This time the crisis is global and the global trends that we had seen in the 1930s, following the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, are already evident around the world. India, Russia, Vietnam, and other countries have already raised tariffs, spearheading the cataclysmic economic combustion which may decrease global trade for the first time since 1982.

If one remembers what lay at the end of the Great Depression in the mid and late 1930s, the direness of the current situation does not need to be reiterated. In 2008, Foreign Policy magazine ranked Pakistan the nation most heavily afflicted by the food crisis. With 200 million people losing the ability to purchase basic means for survival, the conditions are ripe for the radicalization of the population. Considering Pakistan’s nuclear capacity, this is no small matter. As the world heads deeper into an economic crisis, tariffs increasing, and the global commerce shrinking, the socio-political conditions can only worsen. Frederic Bastiat said that "If goods do not cross borders, armies will." In other words, tariff wars or subsidy wars can lead to shooting wars.

Recognizing the negative impacts of agricultural subsidies, the European Union seeks to phase out its Common Agricultural Policy which outlines Europe’s policies on food production. However, no global economic reform will be complete without the cooperation of the United States. For the United States, agricultural subsidies account for only a small part of the bigger problem surrounding government intervention. In 2007, government spending accounted for 37% of the entire GDP. The United States must liberalize its market and allow all peoples of the world to have a fair chance to subsist. For this may be the only means to save the world from irrational self destruction.

Best,
Yong Kwon