User:Laurynrh/sandbox

Marine and Coastal Conflicts
There is a theory proposed by Karen A. Alexander in the text, “Conflicts over Marine and Coastal Common Resources," which attempts to explain the occurrence of marine and coastal conflicts. The principal idea to the theory is that these conflicts result from a combination of competition for goods and services from oceans and coastal regions, and an exacerbation of political and social factors. There are five components considered in the theory,  1) a changing social-ecological environment, 2) Increased competition, 3) Marine and coastal goods and services, 4) Political and social factors shaping resource use, and 5) conflict . A changing social-ecological environment results from drivers of change, portrayed in the figure below [editor note: figure 7.1 from text not included as it is in violation of Wiki policy]. These drivers include increasing population, security of supply, the economic imperative, institutional failure and a changing marine environment, which ultimately lead to competition for resources.

In the twenty-first century, many communities around the world are experiencing instances of overpopulation, which has a multitude of impacts on the marine and coastal environment. Not only do larger populations require more land, water, food and energy for survival, but changes to city infrastructure as a result of accommodating more people can cause direct ecosystem destruction and also result in increased carbon emissions, contributing to global climate change. Marine resources are also crucial aspects of many global economies, ranging from ecotourism to fisheries and contributes over $500 billion to the world economy. Therefore, overuse and over-sourcing from these marine and coastal areas also can damage economic states in addition to the natural state of these sensitive areas. As demand increases and damaged ecosystems have less resources to supply, the pressure caused by these drivers of change often leads to competition for resources. While competition is not synonymous with conflict by any means, aspects of competition can be exacerbated by factors in our built environment and ultimately lead to conflicts over marine resources. Political and Social factors among communities have been seen to escalate instances of competition and are generically described in the figure to include taking/altering what is “ours”, unfair treatment, threats to wellbeing and poor governance. Escalation to conflict typically occurs when interest groups believe they have the right to access the land, water, or resource in question, and that right becomes threatened or managed in a way they do not agree with.

The drivers of change and exacerbating factors described can be directly observed in the town of Seadrift, Texas following the end of the Vietnam war. What began with competition from fishing pressure between Texas fishermen and Vietnamese boat people, resulted in the death of a local fisherman and a series of violent racial hate crimes led by the KKK. In the mid 1970s, Vietnamese refugees from several different families were hired to work at a crabbing plant in the small fishing town. Some of the men invested in boats and fishing equipment to join the local crabbing community for income to support their families. When yields of crab and shrimp began to decrease and their security of supply was threatened as a result of increased fishing pressure, conflicts between local and Vietnamese fisherman emerged on a small scale. Crabbing/shrimping was economically imperative for most fisherman, as it was their primary source of income. In the beginning, it was as simple as sabotaging one another’s crab pots and other fishing equipment. For three years, tensions between the two fishing communities grew and eventually became violent. One local fisherman, Billy Joe Aplin, reportedly sabotaged a Vietnamese fisherman’s equipment at sea that was placed in what he considered to be ‘his’ designated fishing area. A direct confrontation between the two fisherman ended in the destruction of the Vietnamese fisherman’s traps, and later that day, fisherman, Nguyen Van Sau shot and killed Aplin. The trial for Aplin’s murder made national news and Sau was deemed innocent, with the jury determining he acted out of self defense. Within days of the verdict of the trial, the KKK traveled to Seadrift and encouraged members of the town to act against the Vietnamese community. Several Vietnamese fishermen had their boats sunken and houses burned to the ground during this time. Out of fear for their safety, many in the Vietnamese community had no choice but to evacuate the area and went the legal route to pursue federal protection. After several years, some Vietnamese returned to Seadrift and these tensions subsided the two groups of fishermen work working much more cohesively. Most of the conflicts in Seadrift were a result of lack of communication due to language barriers among the tw groups, and the conflicts are now mostly blamed upon the inability of the government and industry to facilitate the immersion of Vietnamese refugees into the Seadrift community.

Conflict in The Grey Zone[edit]
The Gulf of Maine, a semi-enclosed sea located between the Northeast United States and Southwest Canadian borders, is home to a rich lobster fishing region (Cook, 2004). In 1977, both the United States and Canada declared 200 mile exclusive fishing zones off their nation’s coasts and the International Court of Justice adjudicated the boundary decision in 1984 (Cook, 2004). There was institutional failure by the Court of Justice to completely address the boundary dispute, resulting in a gap approximately 72km (45mi) wide, with an area of approximately 259km2 (110 square miles) of which there is no legal boundary of ownership between the two nations. This is known as an international "grey zone" (Cook, 2004). The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) governs the Canadian lobster fisheries, while the United States' fisheries are governed both by the federal and state governments. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission governs the federal zone of 4.8 and 320 km (3 and 200 mi) off the coast of Maine, and Maine’s state government controls the area within 4.8 km (3 mi) offshore.

The Gulf of Maine is one of high fishery production and revenue, thus the disputed territory has led to inevitable conflict between fishermen and local governments between the two nations. Maine is known for their successful lobster fishery, and the industry has become imperative to the state’s economy (Lobster War, 2019). Due to warming ocean temperatures, populations of lobster from Rhode Island and Massachusetts moved poleward toward colder waters at the same time as species of groundfish in the Gulf died off in the from changes in temperature (Lobster War, 2019). Since groundfish are main predators for young lobster, lobster populations saw a large boom in productivity around 2002 (Lobster War, 2019). With an increase in supply, both Canadian and American trap fishers responded with increased fishing efforts (Lobster War, 2019). As different organizations, and therefore different interests are at play in the management of the Gulf, differing regulatory styles have heightened tensions and created conflict. Between the two countries, there is not a consented fishing season, and there are no specific fishing territories within the “grey zone” (Cook, 2004). Issues in fishing conflict are exacerbated by political and social factors, including a lack of clear rules for both sides, leaving both to believe that the competitor is taking what is “theirs”. Increased competition in the gulf has led to disagreements on fishing rights between fishers of the two countries and have caused direct conflict to arise. So far, these have included both verbal threats, and damage to fishing property and equipment (Lobster War, 2019).

Fishers from both countries are impacted by drivers of change, including an economic imperative for growth; historical institutional failure in managing the ocean and coastal environment, and a changing social-ecological environment. In the past, regulatory action had been in place to conserve lobster stocks in the region. For example, Canadian fisheries had an off-season during the summertime, but when U.S. fishermen began to harvest during the summer months, the Canadian government feared lobster stock would be limited by the time their harvesting season began, and quickly jumped on board, allowing their fishermen to compete (Cook, 2004). Both Canadian and American fishers have expressed concerns about the security of lobster stocks and have urged for conservation in the area (Lobster War, 2019). However, the escalation of competition continues between fishers of each country and prevents either side from slowing their harvests, only fueling damage to stocks and placing future harvests at risk (Lobster War, 2019). Inevitably, lobster stocks began to decline as a result of fishing pressure, poor management, and a changing marine environment, and it is likely that both fisheries are becoming irreparably destroyed (Lobster War, 2019). This international “grey zone” is a key example of how the drivers of change defined by Karen A. Alexander in her book ““Conflicts over Marine and Coastal Common Resources,” can lead to drastic conflict, and the destruction of a marine stock and environment in the process. The lack of international cooperation and communication between governments perpetuated conflict that will ultimately lead to the collapse of a once thriving industry (Lobster War, 2019).