There are two approaches alongside privatising CPR’s that Mintrom suggests promote sustainability. The first approach is when central government give contracts to private entities to manage a resource for a specified number of years.[1] This occurred in 1992 after the Sealord Deal was settled between Maori and the Crown.[2] The Deal allowed international seafood company Sealord Ltd a percentage of the Quota Management System (QMS) in New Zealand waters. The company owned the share for eight years and created job opportunities for many New Zealanders. However, the company later sold their shares in 2000 and Te Ohu Kaimoana (the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission) purchased all of the company’s shares resulting in economic benefits for Maori, and all of New Zealand.[3] Not only were economic benefits obtained, the sustainable development of our marine life was also guaranteed because Maori understand the role that they play as shareholders and kaitiaki of this natural resource.
A second variation of government efforts to manage CPR, Mintrom explains, is the establishment of partnerships between the government and stake holders. Stake holders who at times may be indigenous groups “who claim the rights to manage some common pool resources”.[4] For instance, before the sale of the Sealord Ltd’s shares in 2000, Maori gained 22 percent interest in New Zealand commercial fishing and 20 percent of the quota for each new species of fish that went into the QMS.[5] This was an effective agreement economically and sustainably between Maori and the Crown. Mainly so because the QMS guarantees that Maori will fish appropriately because they understand the implications surrounding over-fishing. If Maori are relying on fish and marine life as a source of income then they will make sure that the resource will not be depleted because it will most likely be the next generation who suffer if they over-fish this resource. This is reiterated by Te Ohu Kaimoana, who oversees many of the policies surrounding aquaculture and fishing management in New Zealand.[6]
Another useful tool within Market Failure Analysis is rectifying negative externalities. Negative externalities are often associated with agricultural farmers who may dispose hazardous waste into rivers or streams. By rectifying these negative externalities (i.e. hazardous waste), local governments could impose a tax, or fee, on farmers to reduce the amount of waste or sewerage deposited into rivers and lakes. Mintrom explains that “taxes are often used as instruments to discourage industrial pollution” often associated with nuclear power plants or factories. But the same process could be applied to farmers, or similar industries that often pollute our water ways. This would be helpful to the Maori kin groups in Waikato who often debate with the local council and farmers over the waste disposal that comes from farmers land into the Waikato River.
[1] Ibid.
[2] http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/te-hi-ika-maori-fishing/6
[3] http://www.treaty2u.govt.nz/the-treaty-today/fisheries/index.htm
[4] Mintrom, 198.
[5] http://www.treaty2u.govt.nz/the-treaty-today/fisheries/index.htm
[6] More information available at: http://teohu.maori.nz/home.htm