Where to go from the End of the Line?

I went to see ‘End of the Line’ yesterday, and I must admit I was pleasantly surprised with the outcome of the documentary. I was expecting a straight out attack on multinationals and Western consumerism – probably biased by the majority of the documentaries I have seen over the past few years – but was pleased to find that the movie addressed multiple aspects to the problem rather than singling out one.

In short, the documentary addresses a classical “tragedy of the commons” problem, where a free market does not lead to the best possible solution in a common good situation (in this case: the ocean). People would rather ensure they have more now than risk having nothing in the future because everybody else has already taken action. Result = depletion of natural resources!
In fish terms: while it would be better in the long run if fishers would catch less fish, so as to ensure sustainable fish populations and sustainable income generation in the long run, fishers will catch more than they need now, because if they don’t somebody else will.

Back to the documentary. While the extinction of certain types of fish was still front and centre throughout the documentary, it did not fail to at least mention the societal impacts of the fishing industry both in the developed as in the developing world. The riots of the fishers that were soon to be out of business after the Canadian anti-cod charter (1992, I believe) being one example, and mentioning the dependence of Senegalese fishers on fishing activities being another.

The documentary ends with a summation of the results Charles Clover and his team managed to obtain: one restaurant no longer serving an endangered species, another mentioning the fish is endangered in a footnote on the menu, and UK celebrity-chef no longer using or referring to bluefin tuna in his books or shows.

While these results definitely deserve a mention, I found them to be a quite meagre conclusion to an all in all interesting documentary. It does not really provide any tangible solutions – with the exception of the expansion of marine reserves, which currently amount up to 0.6% of the global fishable area – and this is where it’s main weakness can be found.

What it failed to address especially for me (this is my development background speaking) is that unless we can provide fishers and fisheries with a better alternative –so as to incentivize them to (voluntarily) decrease their fishing activities – the current situation cannot be reversed without a huge blow to society and economic growth opportunities, especially in developing countries. In the developed world, these negative externalities could in theory be incorporated in the price through more elaborate regulation and permits, hence increasing production cost and consumer price, ergo lowering consumption and subsequently supply. In the developing world, where the majority of people already live under the $2-a-day barrier, this type of measure can not be efficient (in part also because of the lack of developing country government regulation and enforcement), as long as their livelihoods is as dependent on fishing as it still is nowadays.

In sum. Must see? Not really. I was happy I did, as I don’t really have a background in fishing or extinction of fish. And it was interesting to find out that Mitsubishi owns around 60% of the bluefin tuna business. But aside from some “ha, I never knew that about fish!” moments, it left me hungry for actual feasible solutions.

luc

Explaining globalization through soccer!

Dani Rodrik is a professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University, where he teaches in the prestigious MPA/ID program. As a regular visitor of Rodrik’s blog, and following up on a recent talk Rodrik gave at the LSE, I came across a wonderfully light yet ingenious short piece written about a year ago, in which he describes the current globalization dilemma in terms of football (soccer).

An overview of the key points:

1. European clubs have loosened restrictions, and players from all over the globe are indeed being traded and sold as if they were mere commodities.
2. This increase in mobility has undoubtedly increased the earnings gap between African stars plying their trade on the European fields, and their fellow citizens back home; this type of inequality, however, is not necessarily a bad thing, as it can be a Pareto-optimal outcome (some are better off, nobody is worse off).
3. New regulations are being proposed to limit the number of foreign players in any team, and imposing minimum quota on how many home-grown players should be in the first 11.
4. Domestic leagues, both in Africa as well as in poorer areas in Europe, are suffering and seeing a mass exodus of talent. Ergo, the domestic league does not benefit from its own talents, and has no tools for keeping the talent within national borders.

Rodrik then comes to a highly interesting conclusion, arguing that the most successful clubs and national teams will be those who can combine the opportunities presented by globalization with strong domestic foundations. He gives the example of Egypt, the most successful nation in the history of the African Cup of Nations, winning the latest edition with only 4 of the 23 players playing in Europe (arguably their star players), and a backbone of home-grown players more familiar with Egypt’s style of play. Compare this to Cameroon, who only had 1 domestic player on the teamsheet… but still made it to the final).

Rodrik concludes: “What sets apart the Chinas and Indias of this world is not that they have laid themselves bare to the forces of globalization, but that they have used those forces to enhance their domestic industrial and productive capacities.  The benefits of globalization come to those that do their homework.”

How do you UYDO?

I’m currently involved with a young UK charity, UYDO, which stands for United Youth Development Organization. As Finance Manager, my main responsibility is to safely manage your donations, and ensure that the transfer of the funds to the local organizations and entrepreneurs we want to help happens as efficient and smooth as possible. 

This is however not a shameless call for donations. On the contrary! We don’t want your donations today! (this is obviously a lie: please donate!!) I just wanted to provide you with some information on UYDO.

UYDO gives young people the opportunity to break the poverty cycle by helping them create opportunities for themselves. UYDO does this by raising funds which are then provided as a loan and combined with business training and mentoring programs. In the meanwhile, UYDO works alongside the entrepreneurs to assist them in starting up successful businesses. 

More than anything else, UYDO stands for youth action! Young people from all around the globe can join, participate, and contribute to the UYDO cause, whether it is as a designated fundraiser, a shouter on the website, or as part of the executive committee.

Enough for now. I’ll definitely provide regular updates here, but do check out the website for more info. We intend to launch the pilot project within a matter of weeks!

Join, support, follow. How do you UYDO?

luc

In the beginning, there was... the Blog!

I’ve long been toying with the idea of starting a blog, and now that I have finally finished my last exam ever (though never say never, right?) I have some spare time on my hands. 

Why a blog? As you’ll all probably know, Luc does not equal ‘local’. I take any bets on people who can predict where I’ll be in 5 years time. Or even in 3 months (though have stopped taking bets on ‘cleaning houses in Senegal’). With this blog, I can keep you, my precious reader and probably something similar to a friend*, both informed and entertained on my whereabouts and activities.

The blog will include:

• Updates on my progress in making it in the development sector
• What is Luc doing these days?
• Book/article/conference reviews
• Ideas
• General trivia, links, and nonsense

Happy one day anniversary for my blog!

À la prochaine

luc

* I owe this wonderful phrase to M.Magini (2009)