Cinner and customary marine tenure in the Indo-Pacific.

Assignment Brief

Please develop your discussion within the context of either:

1. Acheson and the lobster fiefs
2. Cinner and customary marine tenure in the Indo-Pacific.

Note: you don’t have to read Acheson if you read Cinner and vice versa, but in either case you should show evidence of having read Hardin and Wade or Seabright.

Sample Answer

Customary Marine Tenure in the Indo-Pacific: Understanding Cinner’s Perspective and the Commons Debate

Introduction

In many coastal areas of the Indo-Pacific region, local communities have managed marine resources for generations through traditional systems known as customary marine tenure (CMT). These systems are based on cultural norms, shared rules, and strong local control. Joshua Cinner has written extensively about how such systems work and how they affect the management of marine resources. This essay will discuss Cinner’s work on CMT and how it relates to wider theories about common resources, especially those discussed by Garrett Hardin and Paul Seabright.

Understanding Customary Marine Tenure

Cinner argues that CMT is a system where local communities claim ownership over certain parts of the sea, like reefs or fishing zones. These areas are controlled by families, clans, or villages, and access is based on community rules. For example, in some villages in Papua New Guinea or the Solomon Islands, only certain people can fish in specific areas, and they may use rituals or taboos to manage access. These systems are not written down but are understood and respected by local people.

Cinner explains that these systems work well when they are accepted by the community and when there is social pressure to follow the rules. The idea is that because the community owns the resource, they have a reason to look after it. This includes restricting access, banning certain fishing methods, or closing areas temporarily to let fish stocks recover.

Hardin’s "Tragedy of the Commons" vs. CMT

In his famous essay “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Garrett Hardin warned that shared resources (like oceans or grazing lands) will be overused because everyone tries to take as much as they can for themselves. He said the only way to stop this was through strong government control or private property rights.

But Cinner’s research challenges Hardin’s idea. CMT shows that local people can successfully manage common resources without needing national governments or private ownership. The key is that the community agrees on the rules, and everyone knows they benefit from protecting the resource. In fact, when governments try to ignore or replace these traditional systems, resource management often gets worse.

Seabright’s View: Can Communities Really Manage Commons?

Paul Seabright, in his article “Managing Local Commons: Theoretical Issues,” offers a more optimistic view than Hardin. He believes that communities can cooperate, especially when they have a shared identity and trust. Seabright says that local institutions can work, but they need clear rules, the ability to monitor use, and ways to punish rule-breakers.

This matches what Cinner sees in the Indo-Pacific. Many villages have rules, enforcement (like shaming or fines), and strong cultural reasons to cooperate. So, Seabright’s ideas support the idea that CMT is a working example of local governance of the commons.

Continued...