by Charl van der Merwe, Pr.Sc.Nat. On behalf of Sedgefield Ratepayers & Residents Association (Edge Issue 701)
In 1968, American ecologist Garrett Hardin published an essay in the journal Science titled “The Tragedy of the Commons” in which he explores the consequences of resource use by individuals and the need for collective social responsibility. He used the metaphor of a common grazing pasture where herdsmen could each add more cattle to maximise their individual gain while the costs of overgrazing are shared by everyone. Each herdsman receives the full benefit of adding one more animal, while the cost of depletion of the shared resource is spread across the whole community. The result, Hardin argued, is the inevitable overuse and destruction of the common resource unless some form of collective restraint is introduced.
Hardin drew attention to the potentially destructive effect of individual self-interest when common resources are freely available. He argued that the tragedy arises because individuals acting rationally in their own short-term interest can collectively produce an outcome that is harmful to everyone.
He used examples such as unrestricted access to grazing land, fisheries, forests and other natural resources to illustrate how resources can be degraded when people are free to maximise personal benefit while the costs are borne collectively.
Hardin identified two factors contributing to the tragedy of the commons: the freedom of individuals to exploit shared resources and the absence of effective mechanisms to protect those resources. Natural resources such as forests, rivers, fisheries and grazing lands can therefore be overused when there is little or no regulation of access or use.
The concept also applies to pollution. When individuals or businesses discharge pollutants into the air, rivers or oceans, the benefits may accrue to the polluter while the environmental costs are shared by society as a whole. In this way, the atmosphere, rivers and oceans become common resources vulnerable to degradation.
South Africa already has severe environmental challenges and the tragedy of the commons can be seen in issues such as overfishing, illegal harvesting, water pollution, littering, uncontrolled development and the destruction of natural habitats.
Hardin explores potential solutions to the tragedy of the commons and says some form of collective control is essential, whether through regulation, private ownership, agreed rules, community management or other mechanisms that limit unrestricted use.
By enforcing responsible limits and creating penalties for overuse, communities can protect resources from being depleted. He calls this situation the “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon”, where members of society collectively agree to restrictions that protect the resource for everybody.
Another principle related to the protection of common resources is the Precautionary Principle.
The principle gives the owner a personal stake in preserving the resource. Hardin again, in this approach, could lead to the potential success and failures through common ownership.
Intervention would mean regulations to control resource use. He warns against relying solely on this approach, warning of unintended consequences, administrative costs and the possibility that government can worsen the problem as it often happens. One of the limited resources is a finite world can support only a limited population — “tragedy of the commons” in Hardin’s world, population growth compounded with many problems or suggests practical solutions.
The focus is on the long-term consequences of actions and the protection of future generations. It encourages decision-makers not to delay protective action merely because there is scientific uncertainty.
The Precautionary Principle is particularly important where environmental damage could be serious, irreversible or difficult to repair. It means that lack of complete scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing reasonable measures to prevent environmental degradation.
The principle recognises that environmental systems are complex and that the consequences of interventions are sometimes difficult to predict. It therefore encourages caution where activities may pose serious risks to ecosystems, biodiversity, human health or natural resources.
This approach shifts the emphasis away from waiting for absolute proof of harm before acting. Instead, where credible evidence suggests that an activity could cause significant or irreversible damage, preventative action may be justified.
The principle is widely applied in environmental policy, biodiversity conservation, fisheries management and pollution control.
The 1992 Rio Conference on the Environment and Development led to the Rio Declaration being adopted. Principle 15 of that declaration states that, in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
In other words, the principle is a cautious approach towards potential environmental damage where scientific uncertainty exists. It supports taking preventative action before irreversible harm occurs.
In the context of Hardin’s essay and the Precautionary Principle, we should consider how we manage common resources such as water, land, air, biodiversity and public open spaces. The precautionary principle reminds us that uncertainty should not become an excuse for inaction where serious environmental damage may result.
ISSUE 701 — 16 October 2024
Talking Conservation is a conservation-focused column in Sedgefield’s Edge newspaper, sponsored by Drie Valleyen Reserve.