In
a world of rapidly increasing numbers of people and rapidly decreasing amounts
of natural resources, sustainable resource management is one of the most important
problems currently facing humanity. The
country of Iceland is a small country that, throughout its history, has been
forced to come to terms with the limitations of its own resources (1). In some ways, Iceland can be viewed as a
microcosm for the world, except, for the time being, on a more extreme level. While in much of the developed world the problem
of unsustainability is not yet a pressing issue in people’s everyday lives, in
Iceland the entire national economy hinges on the continued health of its
fragile fisheries, so stewardship of marine resources is a top priority for all
Icelanders. Another way Iceland is a
smaller, more extreme model for the world is in the recent economic crash,
which hit Iceland particularly hard. Some
Icelandic strategies for sustainability may be applicable on a more global
scale, but in the long term they will prove insufficient for both Iceland and
for the world.
Fish are Iceland’s most valuable
natural resource and the resource that they have been most successful at
managing. Up until 1972, the fisheries
around Iceland were not under the jurisdiction of any nation and Icelanders
felt that they were in danger of being depleted, as had happened to fisheries
elsewhere in the world (2). In 1972,
Icelanders secured exclusive national rights to fish within 57 miles of
Iceland, and by 1975 to fish within 230 miles (2). By implementing catch limits and eventually an
Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) system whereby the total allowable catch
was split into shares that could be bought or sold by individual fishing
companies Iceland has been able to maintain its fisheries (2). This strategy has succeeded because it
converted the fisheries from a ‘commons’ owned by no-one and therefore
exploited by everyone to a resource owned by the Icelandic people who were able
to choose to manage it a way that would ensure its continued output. Despite its many successes, ITQ can also be
an unfair system because it puts the livelihoods of entire towns at the mercy
of the ITQ owners (2). As the ITQ system
is tweaked and improved by the policy test bed that is Iceland, it will
continually become more attractive for implementation by other nations.
As a model for sustainable management of
renewable resources, such as plant and animal resources, privatization through
ITQ or similar systems is promising.
Management of renewable resources, however, is not the most pressing
issue facing the world with respect to sustainability. Far more pressing is the issue of conserving
non-renewable resources, most conspicuously fossil fuels, of which any use at
all is inherently unsustainable. The
world economy is literally driven by the use of fossil fuels, and Iceland,
through its complete dependence on international trade, is inevitably complicit
in the gradual squandering of the world’s non-renewable resources; by importing
foreign goods, it is importing unsustainability.
An interesting case is Iceland’s whaling
industry. Iceland allows the harvest of
a certain number of whales every year from its waters (3). In theory, it is possible to continue the
practice of whaling sustainably if the government is wise in its quota
allocations. Opponents of whaling
typically point to whale watching tourism as a more sustainable and
environmentally friendly alternative to whaling (3). Tourism, however, is highly fossil fuel
intensive, requiring tourists to board a plane and fly to Iceland, then get on
a diesel powered boat and cruise around Icelandic waters. Granted, whaling also requires a certain
amount of fossil fuels to power the whaling boats and to ship to whale meat to
foreign markets, but the total volume of whaling seems destined to remain
small, whereas expansion of tourism may have more room to grow. In the worst case scenario, replacing whaling
with whale watching might mean replacing a moderately sustainable industry with
an industry solely reliant on unsustainable fossil fuels.
While Iceland still relies on fossil
fuels for transportation, it has been a global leader in the development and
deployment of renewable energy. As early
as 1990, geothermal energy accounted for 31% of Iceland’s energy usage and
hydroelectricity for 37% (4, p. 19).
Iceland is a hotbed for geothermal research and Icelandic experts train
scientists and engineers from developing nations on how to exploit geothermal
energy in their own countries (5). Thus,
if by their reliance on international trade Iceland is guilty of importing
unsustainability, by developing renewable energy technology and sharing this
knowledge with the international community, Iceland is just as much commendable
for exporting sustainability.
The economic failures that have recently faced both Iceland and the rest
of the world put our commitments to sustainability to the test. In many ways the collapse bodes poorly for
sustainability. Less capital is
available to invest in researching and advancing renewable energy. Iceland also
faces the fateful choice between continuing its sustainable management of
marine resources or overexploiting them for money to help their economy
recover. On the other hand, the collapse
may serve as a reminder of the frailty of human institutions and how quickly
things can go wrong if not carefully managed.
The Icelandic firm Audur Capital is an example of a company that has
taken an approach to investing that emphasizes sustainability in the wake of
the crisis (6).
Iceland has been a pioneer in the
stewardship of renewable resources and the replacement of nonrenewable
resources and has shown potential to retain its leadership even in the wake of
an overwhelming economic crash. Even so,
Iceland remains deeply enmeshed in the fossil fuel dependent global economy. Until renewable alternatives for fossil fuels
are implemented worldwide, being the leader in sustainability is like being the
fastest runner in the chain gang.
References:
1.
Diamond.
J. (2005). Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. New York: Penguin
Group. p.197-210
2.
Eythórsson.
E. (2000). A decade of ITQ-management in Icelandic fisheries: consolidation
without consensus. Marine Policy. 24, 483-492.
3.
Brydon.
A. (2006). The predicament of nature: Keiko the whale and the cultural politics
of whaling in Iceland. Anthropological
Quarterly. 79, 225-260.
4.
Lacy,
T.G. (1998). Ring of seasons. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
5.
Andrésdóttir.
Á. (2010). Pure power to the people. Iceland
Review. 48, 28-34.
6.
Ertel.
M. (2009). Iceland’s women reach for power. Spiegel
Online International.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,620544,00.html
No comments:
Post a Comment