A cautionary tale from KiribatiLet’s transport you for a minute to the island of Kiribati, in the middle of the Pacific. For generations, the people on Kiribati survived by harvesting coconuts and fishing in the coastal waters. However, in 2004, government officials and aid workers began to realize that the tropical reefs off the island were become severely overfished. If fishing continued at the same rate, one of the island’s main sources of food and livelihoods would be threatened, and the reefs would
continue to be drained of their rich biodiversity. In an effort to stave off this overfishing, an aid agency teamed up with the local government and
designed a seemingly creative and logical program. They hypothesized that if they used international aid dollars to subsidize coconut farming then local people would be incentivized to farm coconuts instead of fish and this would preserve the fish population and increase the
incomes of the islanders leading them to have more stable and prosperous lives. It seemed like a win-win situation! More income for local people and less fishing!
Yet, within a few years, those idealistic visions had crumbled. More islanders had indeed taken up coconut farming and were enjoying higher wages. However to the great shock of the aid workers, fishing increased by 33% and the fish population had declined by 17%. It turned out
that when people could make more money from coconut farming, they also had more leisure time. And because they found fishing an enjoyable pastime, they spent more time casting their nets. They even bought more sophisticated fishing equipment with their newfound prosperity, increasing their daily catches and depleting the local ecosystem. Inadvertently, the aid agency and the government had actually deepened the crisis instead of resolving it.