a H :- r >5-')‘v-j5" .. r .u :« I 2:539. - . "Y‘J‘v .54.?! V ‘f’; ‘3 22%;"? . a. - k 1 ". 5 £3 .?'€l&§§§%\w.v .g _ “‘50 .‘ ~~§ L A“ ‘ fi‘ 9‘ “Y; . L,‘ ‘ t 3.: ~._ 9-323“ 3‘}. .a . '19 t. "35:53. - n h ' n ' > t‘ a“ . .24 IVA; H ‘ {'vaslév V . . , 4.4.4:,“ at g . . J J": 'k V :JL. .‘u ‘ > , \J‘ .. ”’74" 'm 3&4, ‘ :5‘"$:::‘ 3’. 13:53:...“ ____-:-(_u {J . in . . - . @3335“? o. "4 5”“, I. «.1 ‘- ‘ . , . 113419; . M52 I in ' ~‘~‘ ' g? :2 ~ . ”#3:,“ . .9; ”2 x?-.~:’:rrf£'-." 7r”)? ",3“ ' I 'I'WW 3-, :95» l 7 ”SI; 53:5! 7" {5331: ,‘r 5]v7)"l(‘:".-m .._'5 5 f. n. T. vv-r'v ,4. 5- to} n-r vvw‘ v I ’;:.“.1Y9'-L": / .1" 'E‘Irrf‘i gp'n/ ‘} «git-4' I“ 5'; o .. r. . fr! . 5:513?” J viii/(f0 I ’- ‘ 35*;5 ~--‘ ‘ .7 . l.‘ ‘ .~'::‘-‘;.}x‘:,?fi Z’Ilfi '1, ’X,/"'/_n:-' v 'IJ;/_ J" .J’/;:}- “no; (J. :y'l; . ' . I '33:, v/:." . _ p I, ’ -’ "I", 5;” l l 1;; ’14" 51*.“ fl I", l? ‘ 'I; ‘ I" [I ,(f‘f'fa‘u5 3f... .' 1.32/11; I.-' r':[/~..u‘f . . n J-‘é ‘m: ~ I. H I“ lit/16” , 31,, ‘7 IV'- 2/ . u v’f’r’r-i' 11/3 (9%" "2’ ‘ ,-.-/ ,';.'...;n.v. gm ”my / "1’! ‘ a}? ~ / , 1/ .~ '- H m / madzcwfivfiéwié’ M“ - ' 1‘) t~>.‘.""5" . ".‘1‘ u l I . . - P ' a"? .1175”, ’-"{'t:.figv. -' 3/" 11/ '-r ' $33 a '. 52¢” ~ r,. n, .4’ l 1'." 2/13 r’J ‘ .23, ‘ {ffiy/fl" (I l )g g;;yfo."4h_._-W ‘1‘? «LA-J. “cu; I 4 ‘ ' man;- I» .54 ~W~l~ k ,. ’..u QOWVIQGl VIC mm“ lllW 3 1293 Michigan State LIBRARY University This is to certify that the thesis entitled STATE UNIVERSITY LIIIIAIIES imlmlwml iii“ 00053 759 Ecological Implications of Marine Resource Development: An International Sociological Study presented by Nancy Servatius Merson has been accepted towards fulfillment Mas of the requirements for ters degree in Sociology Date JULY 17; 1986 0-7639 Cicalqimcr¢a¢4M7 Miior professor MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution l a Y" MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from LIBRARIES .annnc-uniL your record. fINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. I : =8 "we” Ecological Implications of Marine Resource Development: An International Sociological Study By Nancy Servatius Merson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology 1985 ABSTRACT This research is a global study of marine resource development as explained by ecological theory. The two theoretical questions were formulated by Gibbs and Martin in 1959. These questions ask, (1) under what conditions will certain characteristics of sustenance organizations be present or not; sum! (2) what is the consequence if these characteristics of sustenance organizations are run: present in resource exploitation. Data on 181 countries was collected including an expansion of Borgstrom’s (1962) for- mula of fish protein dependency. The questions were answered using multiple regression analysis. The findings indicate that land pressure does affect a country’s reason for entering a new ecological niche. Regard- less of the income level it is the poorer nations which are becoming the most dependent on protein from the sea. Since the ocean has proven to be an expensive commitment, the poorer nations will need to enter into joint sustenance or- ganizations if they plan to continue to develop in the marine area. Poorer nations will also utilize Service Sus- tenance Organizations if they are to avoid the social con- sequences historically associated with land resource depletion. This is especially significant if there is to be a long-term global strategy regarding the ocean as a resource. DEDICATION It is with great appreciation and respect that I dedicate this thesis to Dr. Georg Borgstrom. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Professor Craig Harris, my thesis chairman, for his helpful suggestions throughout this re- search project. I appreciate in particular his extra efforts involved in finishing the data. Dr. Georg Borgstrom shared his vast knowledge of fish and its importance as a protein source. He opened up his home and gave me the time and guidance needed to complete this thesis. I am very indebted to this great scholar and gentleman. I am also greatful to the other members of my committee, Professors Harry Schwarzweller, and Philip Marcus for their very thorough reading of the thesis plus their thoughtful and insightful criticisms. Their comments have been instrumental in significantly improving the quality of this thesis. I would also like to thank Nan Johnson, John Gullahorn and Allen Beegle for their support during my time at MSU. In addition, the assistance of Jay Guenon has been truely ap- preciated in the preparation of data, and the production of this thesis. I especially thank my husband for the patience and sup- port he gave me while at Michigan State. Going after our de- grees at the same time, often, with only the support of each other has been a real challenge. It has also been a time of love and friendship. Without doubt, he has always been the most important influence concerning my education. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction -------------------------------------------- Theory and Literature ----------------------------------- a. Structure of Development ------------------------ b. Niche Diversification --------------------------- C. Sustenance Organizations ------------------------ Hypotheses to be Tested --------------------------------- Data and Method ----------------------------------------- a. Collection of Data ------------------------------ b- Operationalization of Variables ................. c. Analysis of Data -------------------------------- Results ------------------------------------------------- a. Individual Charateristics of income Groups ------ b. Regression Analysis ----------------------------- Conclusions --------------------------------------------- Future Areas of Study ----------------------------------- Footnotes ----------------------------------------------- Appendices ---------------------------------------------- Appendix A Exclusive Economic Zones --------------- Appendix B World Production of Marine Resources --- Appendix C Formula, Variables, and Descriptive Statistics ----------------------------- Appendix D Hypothese, Sources, Variables and Descriptive Statistics ----------------- Appendix E Descriptions of Individual Cases ------- Appendix F Correlation Matrices ------------------- Bibliography -------------------------------------------- ll 12 13 14 22 26 26 28 38 41 43 49 68 71 72 73 73 74 75 78 82 84 90 INTRODUCTION Social scientists often ignore the ecological issues surrounding the exploitation of the physical environment. The process, activity, and change involved with exploiting a physical resource base is usually narrowly conceived. The importance for humankind to continue to produce is without question, but the chosen production process is often studied only in terms of maximized profit. The historical evidence of forgotten cost to the resource base, in the form of en- vironmental stress, is usually considered unimportant. The growing land degradation is commonly studied as isolated events, outside of the control of humans (Catton and Dunlap, 1983). Desertification (encroaching deserts) continued tn) in- crease as population pressure forced humans to misuse land in an effort to feed more and more people. Land once fertile would become a desert from continuous use. Deforestation would claim some of the world’s densest forests, as foreign trade demanded more lumber and people needed more firewood for fuel. As the forests disappeared, mountains would erode causing floods which would destroy farmland. Industrialized 2 nations would begin to feel the effects of acid deposition on the very lakes and forests they had so carefully tried to preserve (Eckholm, 1976; Ophuls, 1977). The social consequences of such degradation have been repeated throughout history in such examples as Mount Lebanon, Easter Island, the U.S. dust bowl of the 1930’s, the Sahel drought of the 1970’s, and today’s tragedy throughout Africa (Catton, 1980; Carson, 1962; Steinbeck, 1939; Schumacher, 1973; New York Times, 1984). One result of this degradation (M? land- based resources was that nations looked more to the marine environment for base resources. This increased reliance on the sea meant that protein shortage, over fishing, toxic waste, and oil spills, al- though not recent phenomenon in human history, assumed new dimensions and importance. The social repercussions of these previous tragedies, and the ability of a few oil producing nations to organize a global oil shortage, helped set the stage for the United Nations Law of the Sea (L.0.S.) nego- tiations of the 1970’s. President Johnson declared the seventies the ‘decade of the ocean’ (Wenk, 1978) and one hundred and fifty eight na- tions came together at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference (L.0.S.) to establish a new international ocean 3 regime. Marine resources were to be looked toward as a means to fill the gap left by scarce, or damaged, land resources, and the importance of these resources to the future sus- tainability of a nation’s development was rarely minimized. As a group their primary goal was to develop a new social system that would encourage marine sustenance activities that would benefit all members of the global community. This new social system would determine governance over the exploita- tion and management of a global common property resource. (A common property resource is a natural resource which is owned in common, yet is exploited under conditions of inr dividual competition.) Establishing this new social system proved to be a herculean task. Not only was the ocean an area of 139,705,000 square miles, it was a common property resource divided into the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic, and Antarctic oceans as well as smaller regions such as the North Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. Each region was governed separately and had different traditions, customs and power structures, as well as various types of resources and fluc- tuating climatic conditions. Each locality needed to be con- sidered ecologically unique. However, the L.O.S. negotiations were not the first time in. modern lmistory that the ocean became the object of negotiations. As early as 1945, the U.S. set a legal prece- 4 dent in the form of tflua ‘Truman Proclamations’ (actualLy signed by President Roosevelt two weeks before his death). This written proclamation declared U.S. control over all natural resources of the continental shelf contiguous to the United States. The proclamation also guaranteed protection of fisheries in certain areas of the high sea, and estab- lished possible joint management between the state and the national levels in; well as limited foreign fishing rights (Jones, 1972; Hollick, 1981). The world community responded with the establishment of even wider unilateral zones, licensing fees, and other restrictions (Hollick, 1981). As an example, Ecuador not only established a two hundred mile limit, but demanded that the United States fishcatchers have a license to fish for tuna off their shoreline. The United States refused to recognize their right to do this and through taxes we paid fines given to our fishcatchers over twenty years (Henkin, 1974; Steinmuller, 1982). The I.C.N.A.F. treaty (International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries) was another step in the development of a worldwide treaty dealing with the oceans as a resource production area. Fifteen countries signed the treaty in a regional effort to establish joint management 5 over the Northwest Atlantic fisheries. One major benefit of such an arrangement was that ‘catch data’ was greatly improved. Quotas of fish in this joint arrangement were based on the concept of ‘historical right’. Forty percent of the quota for a given year went to countries that had par- ticipated in the fishery for the past ten years (at the signing of the treaty). Another forty percent of the quota went to countries that had participated in the fishery for three years. Ten percent of the quota went to surrounding coastal countries and the last ten percent went to newcomers (Anderson, 1977). There was also a regional treaty that divided the North Sea between its riparian states, and another for the divi- sion of the Baltic Sea. The negotiation of treaties, the is- suance of legal proclamations, and disputes over ownership continue for straits, rights of access for land-locked nations, and the area cm shipping and pollution control (Hollick, 1981). The historic cases are usually interpreted as formal, usually written arrangements made through negotiation. However, it should also be noted that such treaties are so- cial decisions with ecological ramifications. A treaty is a chosen social option, one which has ecological implications, 6 since, as demonstrated by Bennett (1976), such an event as the L.O.S. is a ‘social process’ and not a ‘natural process’. Human actions determine the particular outcomes related to exploiting resources. Although the processes which influenced the nature of the final text of the L.O.S. treaty were international, the negotiators were also pressured from the business world, such as the shipping industry, transnational corporations and world fishcatchers. Unfortunately, what may have been for- gotten were the perceived needs of people at the local com- munity level. The international setting of the L.O.S. was built upon the historic right of previous treaties. Regional interests dominated the conference, and the L.O.S. nego- tiating text resulted ix: 71 parts and 220 articles (U.N. Chronicle, 1983). Unfortunately, this did not mean that ex- ploitation of the ocean would stop until all nations could agree on some form of sound resource conservation. Most coastal nations had already declared unilateral control over the ocean, in the form of Exclusive Economic Zones (E.E.Z.s’), areas beyond and adjacent to the ter- ritorial sea (Appendix A). Supervision of a piece of the ocean was a national endeavor to guarantee essential protein and oil sustenance from the sea. These Exclusive Economic 7 Zones were made subject to the specific legal regime estab- lished by the L.O.S. (L.O.S. Negotiating Text, Part V, Ar- ticle 55). It wasas though countries presumed that this elaborate enclosure would assure their exclusive right 1K) exploit the living and non-living resources from the sea. The view that an E.E.Z. was sitting in reserve did run: include the fact that the ocean was still a common property resource, one which touches or influences every nation in the world. There continued to be boundary disputes over favored fishing areas. The expense of exploiting offshore oil, as well as the need for expertise, often depended upon foreign capital. Shipping accidents which happened thousands of miles away could destroy the subsistence of an entire village (Detroit Free Press, 1980). An ocean should be considered a resource area which ex- ists as though it were three separate eco-systems. (1) For the fishcatcher in the coastal community, the ocean is a system of traditional resource management (Paris, 1972; McKay, 1980; Maril, 1983). It is a way of life, a means of subsistence characterized by accepted practices, myths and traditions. 8 (2) At the national level, extended jurisdiction has generated a bureaucracy of national programs and regional offices. It should be viewed as an eco-system where resources are exploited for the "maximum social benefit" of the nation (Maiolo and Orbach, 1982). Sustenance activities of the fishcatchers are more numerous; technology is larger, e.g., fishing fleets and factory ships; and ownership pat- terns become more differentiated. Several social groups in- fluence the choice of activities which set precedents which require adaptation by local fishing communities. (3) The marine eco-system is also managed as if the ocean were a system of highly technological capacity, i.e., offshore oil wells, container ships, as well as military and communication devices. At this level activities become an undertaking of im11tinational corporations, joint ventures and international programs. Conflict between the three eco-systems has interfered with the levels of sustenance activities. All the actors want increased sustenance and each is trying to make the necessary adaptation, i.e., they either adapt to the marine resource they want to exploit, or the resource area is adapted to their needs (Bennett, 1976). It is the social process which determines the particular ecological outcome 9 related to exploiting resources. This brief overview of the L.O.S. and the different marine activities illustrates how nations during the seventies attempted to apply social governance processes to the use and exploitation of the world’s oceans. It is also a reflection of a time of growing global interdependence of marine sustenance activities. As sociologists, we should un- derstand the decisions used to determine how the ocean is exploited (whether at the international, national or com- munity level). Sustenance activities at any of the three levels are parallel since all draw on the same resource. For example, fishers, whether through labor intensive means or with the newest capital intensive equipment, derive a means of sub- sistence from the productive environment of the ocean. In 1970, their joint effort produced a world fish catch of 59,495,000 metric tonnes. By 1980, this had increased to only 64,576,200 metric tonnes (Food and Agriculture Organiza- tion of the United Nations [hereafter F.A.0.], 1980). Al- though the increase was small percentage wise, fish was an important contribution to human diet, through intake of direct protein or by being ground into meal and used to produce more chicken, beef and pork (F.A.O., 1980). This in- 10 crease in protein production was taking place in combina- tion with the increase of numerous other marine resource ac- tivities (Appendix B). Along with this increase in production came an increase in membership in ocean related organizations such as the Intergovernmental Maritime Organization (I.M.0.) and the In- tergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (I.O.C.) as countries began to become interested in maritime resource development. New marine institutes were established and many new marine scientists were trained (Schechter, 1981; F.A.O., 1977). For my purpose, these illustrative activities which in- volve the actual exploitation of a marine resource, member- ship criteria or even training of marine scientists must be considered sustenance activities. It :US the combination of these activities which determines the potential not only for future subsistence of an individual country, but for the survival of the ocean as a future resource for all nations. Sociology has slowly begun to recognize that the en- vironmental crisis is global and that countries can no longer depend on the profligate use of resources. This thesis is an ecological analysis of marine resource development at the 11 global level. As stated the seventies was a decade of growth in marine (activities. As a result, more countries are depending on marine resources (specifically fish and off- shore oil) as their land resources decay or swiftly decline. This marine exploitation may appear as increased self- sufficiency at the individual level, or, because of growing ecological dependence, it may be increased pressure on an already global environmental crisis. THEORY AND LITERATURE Ecology was previously regarded as a discipline explain- ing the traits of animals within a unique environment. Most social scientists refused to use a theory which generalized from other species to humans. If humans could be creative enough to alter tflua environment they lived in, then human actions were outside the framework of ecological theory (Hawley, 1950; Cottrell, 1955; Odum, 1959; Odum, 1973; Eckholm, 1976; Catton and Dunlap, 1980; Bennett, 1980). 12 Humans have always been part of a larger community or ecosystem. Although humans greatly modify the environment they live in, they do not ‘create’ the environment and are as ecologically dependent as other less intelligent organisms. Unless reminded by a major disaster, i.e., flood, hurricane, drought, humans often forget this dependence; they often assume total dominance over their surroundings. What may currently be believed to be environmental mastery, may in the long-term be ambient disruption. Richard Wilkinson (1973), in his discussion on the structure of development, specified that historically, humans have :increasingly doudnated and restructured their environment. As the level of environmental exploitation in- creased more work had to be done by the humans. Processing and production techniques became more complicated as they changed In) exploiting less convenient resources. This resulted in two consequences: (1) there was the need for complex tools, and (2) labor saving machinery and equipment was needed for increased labor productivity. Increased complexity became a necessary response toward needing more sustenance activities. As resources that had previously been plentiful became scarce, local communities became less self-reliant. Colonial regimes became a response 13 to a home country resource shortage. Imports were used to fill the growing demand for raw materials, or in the few countries that were technologically proficient, new resources were substituted, or scarce resources were ex- ploited even further. Countries no longer remained ‘neutral’ toward neighboring nations. There was more involvement in trade, greater use of capital-intensive equipment, and even- tually a world quest for additional sources of power. Countries began to change from one ecological niche to another by substituting one resource base for another. To accomplish this move, countries eventually had to increase their interaction at the international level. Changing one’s ecological niche began to encompass more than just changing from one resource to another. Countries had to learn how to survive in a global community, under the conditions in which certain nations were better suited (Hardesty, 1975); i.e., they needed to produce the best products necessary, relying on imports for shortages, while reaching for a trade balance. Countries began to realize that the activities of each actor (country, international program, transnational corporation), in- fluenced the activities of other actors in the sustenance or- ganization (Hawley, 1950). The position or status of a 14 country within a niche depended upon its ability to adapt to increasing competition (Odum, 1972). The ocean is a difficult resource to exploit; it is a harsh environment and there is a need to work together. When the E.E.Z.’s became a reality, most countries found that they now controlled a section of the ocean that they could not manage. They lacked the technology, the personnel, and the markets to use the resource efficiently. This required countries to develop a new form of sustenance organization, one that could work at the international level. This meant that the different actors needed to adapt through what Catton (1982) called "niche diversification". There needed to be a way to differentiate activities across a variety of resources which would allow a country to supple- ment resources which had been exploited beyond the limit. This ability to adapt to several different conditions is what allows a nation to survive under increasing global complexity. SUSTENANCE ORGANIZATION In 1959, Gibbs and Martin developed a theoretical system of human ecology based on the nature of the sustenance or- 15 ganization of human populations. They focused on two re- search goals: (1) under what conditions will certain charac- teristics of sustenance organization be present or absent, and (2) what is the consequence if these certain sustenance characteristics are not present in resource exploitation. Gibbs and Martin’s conception of a population was an ag- gregate of individuals engaged in activities that provided a livelihood. My conception of a population is a international community made up of individual countries, with individual incomes, engaged in activities that allow them to survive as nations. I specifically exclude all institutions not directly related to the exploitation of natural resources, i.e., culture, and religion. Although such activties are im- portant to the understanding of a country’s performance, they are beyond the scope of this paper. My focus is on the pattern of social relationships ‘within the global community that are manifested in sus- tenance activities. I want to emphasize that for countries, sustenance activities are survival activities. This means that the sustenance organization (fl? various groups of countries must be analyzed from the viewpoint of a long-term adaptive strategy. For example, Cottrell (1955) observed 16 that by tracing energy back to its sources, estimates have been made tn) assess the geographical basis needed for the peOple in an area to generate enough power to sustain themselves. He proposed that the opportunity to use an area that offers a nation the opportunity to use high-technology should be viewed from the activities the nation engages in. This view makes no assumption about a state’s capacity to develop a long-term adaptive strategy which would allow it to prosper in the far future. Georg Borgstrom (1961) took Cottrell’s idea thirther by measuring a country’s dependency beyond its own resources, i.e., trade and fisheries. His ‘ghost acreage" concept al- lows us to determine the degree of dependence upon territory and resources beyond national control. His study indicated that the ocean as a resource could not support the addi- tional burden of the third world countries as they become technologically capable of harvesting the ocean. At the same time, however, he also suggested that several countries in- correctly view fish as an insignificant alternative to meat protein. In actuality, the nutritive value of fish is equal to meat. It is a good source of vitamins A and D. Mest important, it is an excellent source of protein (Borgstrom, 1962). 17 For many of the people in the less technologically ad- vanced nations fish is the only form of animal protein that reaches them. In places where fish is part of the diet; protein deficient diseases such as kwashiorkor, culebrilla, and boubfissure 1’ Annam (a disease which causes diarrhea in children, skin lesions, and edema of the legs and feet, and which is fatal if run: treated) are very rare (Borgstrom, 1965). Without a strategic, international long-term plan of sustenance organization, the global community could be deprived of an essential protein resource. Whether the activities are within the national boundaries or beyond, sustenance activities are highly integrated. They are commonplace, easy to replicate and enduring. It is the pattern caused by these activities that constitutes a sus- tenance organization. Any country may'rnrrticipate in more than one sustenance organization (Gibbs and Martin, 1959). Focusing on the ‘activities’ and not the ‘country’ is especially significant when exploiting a resource such as the ocean at the international level. As mentioned before, a resource is often managed and exploited through transna- tional corporations, joint ventures between private firms, or development programs from agencies such as the F.A.O. or the World Bank. Countries are no longer necessarily the unit 18 of activity. Yet, they are still affected since the resource on which the country is relying is continuing to be exploited. Sustenance organization can either be collective or non- collective. Tflu: former condition describes nations banding together to coordinate activities to obtain objects of consumption. Collective sustenance organizations include international trade, joint ventures, and development programs. The activities might be undifferentiated(a single nation may be responsible for all aspects of the production and distribution of a specific commodity), or the organiza- tion may have a high degree of division of labor (one nation invents the needed technology and supplies the manpower, another supplies the energy, another manages the capital). In non-collective sustenance organization, nations ob- tain their objects of consumption through their individual efforts. This type of sustenance organization, when applied to the global level, resembles the theory of self-reliance (Young, 1983). However, the interdependence of nations within the world system severely inhibits countries from es- tablishing marine development programs based on isolated sustenance organization. 19 For a growing number of nations, obstacles such as in- creased land degradation and the lack of needed technology have left them incapable of self-reliance. This is a major reason why Third World Nations insisted. gain more self-reliance regarding protein production, more nations will enter into joint sustenance 56 organizations to acquire the needed technology needed for continued marine resource exploitation. This will be essential if land pressure continues to grow during the next decade and protein is needed in even greater quantities. The poorer countries will not be able to support marine exploita- tion alone. Second, if marine resource development is to remain a valued method of acquiring protein, then countries must depend on expertise to guarantee a long-term survival of the resource. My second set of hypotheses offers further evidence regarding a country’s need for marine expertise. Hypothesis Two: ‘As niche diversification increases, countries depend more on the service sustenance organizations’. I adapted Gibbs and Martin’s definition of a service sustenance organization, as a collection of individual countries obtaining their objects of consumption by render- ing or receiving a service, and I mentioned as examples, development projects, and technical expertise such as marine 57 scientists, educators, and health personnel. In my second regression analysis, iI look an: the impor- tance of marine scientists to countries entering marine resource development. :As seen in Table Six, time dependent variable is ‘the number of marine scientists by income group’ and the independent variables are ‘total percentage of fish hectares’, ‘percentage of students enrolled in ter- tiary education’, and ‘total fish hectares’. My global analysis for 1970 illustrates that the only variable which determined a country’s number of marine scien- tists was the variable ‘students enrolled in tertiary educa- tion (beta=.466). By 1980, the total amount of fish hectares had a beta of .219, this was much stronger relationship then in 1970, where the beta was .015. Table Six: 1970 (Beta’s) Global Total Percentage of Fish Hectares -.061 Total Fish Hectares .015 Percentage students enrolled Tertiary Education .466 Total R2 .316 Total N’s 81 58 Low income -0572 .659 -o830 .283 10 Number of Marine Scientists By Middle -0493 .599 .222 .109 45 Income Group Industrial -0434 .868 .550 .815 21 59 Table Seven: Number of Marine Scientists By Income Group -1980 (Beta’s) Global Low Income Middle Industrial Income Market Total Z of fish hectares - -.114 -.378 -.540 Total fish hectares .219 .628 .640 .717 Percent students enrolled tertiary education .543 .420 .180 .603 Total R2 .495 1.000 .361 .742 Total N’s 64 8 34 17 60 Total percentage of fish hectares, and total fish hectares, both had interestingly strong beta’s for each in- come group. Global figures, relating to these two variables, were affected by the three groups of nations, High Income- Oil Exporters, Non- Market Economies and Unclassified. This appeared to be the same with the findings for 1980. The to- tal amount of fish hectares a country depended upon was strongly and positively related to the number of marine scientists a country had. When anflting at the total percentage of fish hectares, the beta is in a negative direction. At first glance this might be surprising, as well as confusing, since it is the opposite of the relationship for total fdsfli hectares. However, as pointed out by Borgstrom’s original reason for developing his formula, if I continue to look an: the per- centage of fish as a contribution to a country’s total diet, it appears to be an insignificant contribution. It is only when I place its contribution in terms of amount of tilled land I would need to replace the protein acquired from the ocean, that ‘total fish hectares’ becomes meaningful. This can be seen by studying the individual case studies in Ap- 61 pedix E, and once again by my second regression analysis. My final independent variable is percent students in tertiary education. In 1970, low income countries had a strong negative beta (-.830) representing the relationship between students of tertiary education and number of marine scientists, while, middle and industrial market nations both had positive beta’s. This was an indication that even though the low income group was dependent upon protein from the ocean, they were not ultilizing their tertiary education system to train marine experts. By 1980, this relationship had changed, the beta for students of tertiary education he- came positive (.420). Those low income countries with the educational structure, were training marine scientists at the tertiary level. There was also a less significant relationship at the middle income level - (beta=.180). ‘However, as seen by the low R2 (.109), more variables are needed to explain what was going on during tin: decade for middle income group. As a whole, however, the data supports my second set of hypotheses. As total dependency (n1 fish hectares increased [- low income group - beta=(.628), ndddle income group - beta=(.640) (TABLE 7)] the relationship with marine scien- tists became more positive. While with the industrial 62 market nations, their beta for total fish hectares became lower, .717 from .868, it was still highly positive. Hypothesis 2b (As a country increases its production of fish, it will increase its fish science capability) was sup- ported with the possible exception of the middle income group, which showed a slight decline in the percentage of students being trained at the teriary level. ‘Niche diversification’ at least as evidenced by marine resource development, includes more than just the physical resource, i.e., fish, boats, equipment, funding. When con- sidering the extent of diversification a country must also include the type (fl? training and expertise needed for successful long-term resource exploitation. My working definition of ecological niche, as stated earlier, is ‘the certain environmentalconditions or activities countries (or other actors) use to exploit a variety of resources for subsistence’. As seen by the finding for hypothesis two, the use of marine experts is one of the necessary conditions if niche diversification is to be successful. Hypothesis three looks at a different aspect of marine resource development, the exploitation of a non-living 63 resource of the sea, offshore oil. As a result of the 1973 "oil crisis" nations turned to joint exploitation of marine oil. This joint sustenance organization was believed to be the result of a land resource being depleted. It is a per- fect example (H? the social consequences of ‘niche diversification’ if countries do not maintain an ecological balance between all involved resources. Instead of gaining greater self-reliance by entering into what Gibbs and Martin referred to as zn1 ‘organizational complex’, land resources deteriorated, and by the 1980’s offshore oil was no longer needed. The relationship in the Low Income group between urban population 1970 and offshore oil wells 1972 was a beta of .604, and again between labor in agriculture and offshore 011 1970, beta = (-.394). Although middle income nations were less significant, urban population and offshore oil wells 1972 - R2=(.044) beta=(.209), the relationship between labor in agriculture and offshore oil wells 1972 was R2 of (.065) and beta = ( ‘-.254), the relationship becomes comparatively interesting by 1980. The effect of offshore oil upon urban growth and the labor force in agriculture decreased. This was to be expected, as the oil shortage of the early seventies turned 64 into an oil glut by the 1980’s. As with other marine resources, offshore oil exploration is expensive and risky. It is only when land shortages are involved that nations reach to the ocean as a resource. 65 Table Eight: Regression of Urban Population on Offshore Oil Wells 1972 and 1978. dependent variable - Urban Population Low Income Middle Industrial Income Market Offshore 011-72 .604 .209 .421 Total R2 .365 .044 .003 Total N’s 34 43 20 Offshore oil-78 -.206 .165 -.042 Total R2 .043 .027 .002 Total N’s 32 63 19 66 Table Nine: Regression of Labor in Agriculture on Offshore Oil Wells - 1972 and 1978. (Beta’s) dependent variable - Zlabor in Agriculture Low Income Middle Industrial Income Market Offshore oil-72 -.394 -.254 -.384 Total R2 .155 .064 .147 Total N’s 37 77 13 Offshore oil-78 -.134 -.l79 -.362 Total R2 .034 .032 .131 Total N’s 32 63 13 67 My findings support hypothesis three, and illustrate the ecological ramifications involved when countries expand to a new resource niche. Low-income nations had to enter into a collective organization to exploit the oil. The low-income 'nations were depemdent on the specialists and technology of foreign personmel. Their own peOple left agriculture and flocked to the cities in search of oil related jobs. [As shown by the ‘boom town’ literature (New York Times, 1982; Wall Street Journal, 1982); the way of life of some com- nmnities wasgreatly altered, and for some communities the results were disastrous (New York Times, 1982). The oil glut sent the specialist home, and the service sustenance organization was no longer needed. The balance between the low-income nation having a resource and the market wanting oil disappeared. The mutual dependence needed for an ‘organizational complex’ no longer existed. 68 Conclusions In this section I will reflect upon my findings and the implications toward the two research questions presented by Gibbs land Martian Under what conditions will certain characteristics of sustenance organization be present or not? and (2) What is the consequence if these certain sus- tenance organizations are not. present 1J1 resource exploitation? My study demonstrated several of the conditions which might be necessary for a country to enter into marine sus- tenance organization. One such condition is land pressure. My findings have shown that the more people a country needs to feed protein, the more likely they will enter into marine resource development. Once they have diversified into the marine area, they continue to exploit even greater quan- tities (Hf fish proteirh My finding also demonstrated the willingness of nations to train experts in the area of marine resources, if the education structure is available in which to do so. Increase in land pressure umst also be viewed as more 69 than just the ‘number of people’. If history continues to repeat itself and land resource degradation is not halted, then the lack of land to produce protein will force nations to exploit the ocean’s resources. Marine sustenance or- ganizations will increase at all three eco-system levels. In order for the poorer countries to continue to exploit the resource, they will have to enter into joint sustenance organizations with other countries. (As shown by my data, it is the poorer countries which are already relying the most heavily on fish protein.) Hypothesis two illustrated that the type of sustenance organization would include serv- ice sustenance organizations, where countries would. either request or supply marine expertise. This is especially necessary, as shown by the results in hypothesis three, if ‘marine sustenance organization’ is to be part of a long-term survival strategy. The study of social relationships of sustenance or- ganizations must include methods such as shown by my formula. The gain and loss from what may appear as a very small per- centage of protein subsistence acquired new dimensions when I was able to see the pressure which would be placed upon the farming sector if it suddenly needed to replace fish protein. .9! 70 The social disruption travesty which resulted from the sustenance organization surrounding the exploitation of off- shore 011 during the 1970’s is an illustration of what could happen in the area of living resource exploitation, if the list of marine expertise does not include prior social analyses. All the physical resources were available, the raw materials, the advance technology, the apparent need. However, the possible long-term social implications were ig- nored and any social gain was lost as boom turned to bust, and the organizational complex collapsed. It is essential that the sociologist be included in the study of ecological inmlications of resource development. Marine resource ex- ploitation will continue to increase with land pressure, and caution must be used if we are to avoid what happened to the Peruvian anchovy. The different decisions leading to a choice in sus- tenance organization must not be made unless the ecological implicatixnus for other resources are considered. Increased marine resource development should not be used as a replace- ment for depleted land resources. “ ‘1 71 FUTURE STUDY The next few decades will see the farming sector of the U.S. change completely. This will be due to economic changes, as well as ecological changes, as water supplies continue to be depleted in the western portion of the United States. I would like to adapt my present methodology used to determine dependence on fish hectares, to a regional study of the U.S. Data on fish consumption patterns on a regional basis will be gathered, and protein consumption will once again be converted into amount of farmland needed if re- placement of fish protein became a necessity. If a transition in farming production does take place, the ‘blue revolution’ may include increased dependency on the sea. The social and ecological implications of maintain- ing the sea as a viable resource should be understood before the types of sustenance organization is chosen. 72 Footnotes 1. World Bank (Hillection methods for population figures are mid-year estimates prepared by the World Bank to provide a consistent set of data from material obtained from the population division of the U.N. Statistical Office, the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and the World Banks own data file. 2. Gross National Product is a measure of the total domestic and foreign output claimed by residents of a country. At market prices, GNP includes compensation of employees, operating surplus, provision for tflm: consumption of fixed capital, and indirect taxes less subsidies to producers. For the purposes of international comparison, GNP in current values of national currencies is converted to U.S. dollars. 3. Calorie supply per capita per country is in the percentage of requirement the population receives. 4. World Fishing Fleet is the total fishing fleet by country. Fleet statistics cover annual data on the national fishing fleet engaged in commercial, industrial, and subsis- tence operations for catching, processing and landing fish, crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic animals (except whales), residues and plants in freshwater, brackish water and marine areas. Fishing craft engaged in fish-farming and aquaculture operations are also included. The statistics specifically exclude vessels used exclusively for recrea- tional fishing (sport fishing). 5. Land pressure is the amount of people per tilled acre, which a country needs to support nutritionally. For my research purposes, the amount of people per tilled hectare, which are in need of protein. 73 Appendix A. 20() tnet:er water depth (600’) end of slie1.f, begin slope 1* Photosynthetic Zone I i i i Continental shelf slope rise avyssal plain continental margin deep ocean floor Coastal Economic Zone (188 miles) High Seas L.O.S. text definition 12 miles 24 miles territorial contiguous sea zone (200 mile limit - Exclusive Economic Zone) 74 Appendix B World Production of Marine Resources RESOURCE CREASE Goods Loaded 33.0 Goods 36.0 Petzroleaum 45.0 Petzrolxaum 44.0 Wc>rld 91.0 Tarflters 100.0 Cor1taiaier 544.0 Fleaet (b) Offshore oil Offshore gas World Fish (3) quantity (b) quantity (c) quantity (d) quantity (e) quantity utiloaxied Lcnaded utiloamied sl1ips 1970 (a) (a) (a) (b) 8JB8 11,399 59,495,000 expressed expressed expressed expressed expressed (a) 217,913,433 in in in in in 1,102,627 85,!348,1121 1980 Z IN- 2,605,107 3,468,171 2,529,675 3,442,454 1,105,549 1,598,760 ].,5E35,I373 415,,168,5573 171,1352,7713 1,907,801 112,291,929 13,687 55.0 25,668 125.0 64,576,200 9.0 thousand metric tonnes gross registered tonnes thousands of barrels millions of cubic feet metric tonnes 75 Appendix C Variables, Sources, and Descriptive VARIABLE NAME SOURCE PAGE STANDARD CODE CASES TION 1. FISH PROTEIN BS 373-667 .334 1969-70-71 2. FISH PROTEIN BS 373-667 .396 1980 3. PULSES FAO 018-019 58.784 1969-70-71 4. PULSES FAO 018-019 63.671 1979-80-81 5. MARINE SCIENTIST YFS 007-362 205.267 1970 6. MARINE SCIENTIST IDMS 007-362 408.523 1980 7.0FFSHORE OIL OFFSHORE 059 165.696 1972/1974 8.0FFSHORE OIL OFFSHORE 010 108.947 1978/1980 9.MARINE INSTITUTES IDMS 007-362 35.554 1970 lO.MARINE INSTITUTES IDMS 007-362 58.295 1980 Statistics VALID MEAN DEVIA- 157 4.34 159 4.99 142 902.09 143 1002.32 81 81.74 64 168.98 72 43.932 10 27.787 87 15.207 64 26.391 76 Appendix C: cont’d 11.ARABLE LAND FAO 045-056 171 7749.02 27403.672 1970 12.ARABLE LAND FAO 045-056 171 8073.60 27298.130 1980 13.MARINE CATCH YFS 053-055 152 380013.82 1382920.1 1970 14.MARINE CATCH YFS 053-055 152 420661.38 1224667.5 1980 15.FISH IMPORTS YFS 032-051 138 53.088 148.079 1970 16.FISH IMPORTS YFS 030-042 151 58.676 157.858 1980 17.FISH EXPORTS YFS O32-051 138 52.104 202.983 1970 18.FISH EXPORTS YFS 030-042 151 52.947 150.658 1980 19.2POPULATION UNESCO 028-083 130 6.493 8.129 TERTIARY ED. 1970 20.ZPOPULATION UNESCO 028-083 124 10.495 10.916 TERTIARY ED. 1980 Appendix C - Source Code 1. FAQ - 1981 F.A.O. PRODUCTION YEARBOOK "land use" Vol 35, Table one, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1982. 2. IDMS - INTERNATIONAL DIRECTORY OF MARINE SCIEN- TISTS June ment Affairs. 1981, 48, of 3. 4. 5. OFFSHORE UNESCO YFS 77 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1970. OFFSHORE "The Journal of Ocean Business", A PennWell Publication, June 20, 1980 and 20, 1981, (well count). UNESCO Statistical Yearbook 1981, Depart- of International Economic and Social 3lst issue. United Nations, New York, Table 32 "School Enrollment Ratios". YEARBOOK OF FISHERY STATISTICS, Vol. 39, 50,51. Food and Agriculture Organization the United Nations. 78 Appendix D: VARIABLE NAME Mean (1970) Marine Scientists 81.74 Z of fish hectares 29.83 Total fish hectares 843693.58 Land pressure 21.85 Population 21103.78 GNP per capita .80 Calories per capita 103.49 World Fish Fleet 10529.45 (1980) Marine Scientists 168.98 Z Fish Hectares 36.19 Total Fish Hectares 778513.56 Land Pressure 35.48 Population 25431.90 GNP per capita 3.48 Calorie per capita 106.16 World Fish Fleet 15257.14 2 Students Tertiary Ed. Global Variables Standard Deviation 205.267 114.39 3971472.64 85.30 79420.65 .98 16.22 37139.25 408.52 136.94 1722951.14 155.11 94561.97 4.95 17.85 49446.54 Low Income Nations Variable Name mean Standard Deviation 81 99 99 168 174 174 137 60 64 110 110 167 173 161 141 71 Valid cases valid cases (1970) Marine Scientists Z Fish Hectares Total fish hectares land pressure Population GNP per capita calorie per capita World fish Fleet Z Students Tertiary Ed. (1980) Marine Scientists ZFish Hectares Total Fish Hectares Land Pressure Population GNP per capita Calorie per capita World Fish Fleet Z Students Tertiary Ed 79 125.49 6.93 210663.19 4.78 43514.80 .19 93.44 2898.50 .82 56.75 71.15 418765.06 5.9 54313.38 .71 92.83 2985.83 1.41 310.91 10.46 479649.77 5.97 152003.33 .43 11.15 5685.22 1.45 142.82 297.58 852513.81 8.3 183459.20 2.42 12.79 7123.36 1.74 10 17 17 39 41 41 35 36 21 21 38 40 35 36 34 Variable Name (1970) Marine Scientists Z Fish Hectares Total Fish Hectares land pressure Population GNP per capita calorie per capita World fish Fleet Z Students Tertiary Ed. (1980) Marine Scientists ZFish Hectares Total Fish Hectares Land Pressure Population GNP per capita Calorie per capita World Fish Fleet Z Students Tertiary Ed. 80 Middle Income Nations Mean 21.07 39.77 805620.78 24.67 9079.05 .49 100.23 6605.38 .82 55.26 27.99 634799.98 39.80 11673.00 1 .76 104.17 12918.06 9.41 Standard Deviation 27.88 141.77 3462988.45 82.05 17822.50 .41 12.68 20385.39 1.45 77.98 47.58 1237505.99 151.35 23106.87 1.49 14.15 30432.26 8.35 valid cases 45 62 62 96 98 98 73 34 36 34 67 67 96 98 91 76 43 61 81 Industrial Market Nations Variable Name Mean Standard valid Deviation cases (1970) Marine Scientists 180.86 307.95 21 Z Fish Hectares 22.39 48.68 16 Total Fish Hectares 1488236.80 2506658.70 16 land pressure 7.3 7.8 20 Population 30068.14 47481.25 22 GNP per capita 2.67 .89 22 calorie per capita 126.61 7.51 20 World fish Fleet 20613.95 59917.08 19 Z Students 180.86 307.95 21 Tertiary Ed. (1980) Marine Scientists 453.47 706.59 17 ZFish Hectares 36.78 76.25 16 Total Fish Hectares 1544230.66 3032357.28 16 Land Pressure 7.97 8.40 20 Population 32457.18 52442.26 22 GNP per capita 10.36 2.85 22 Calorie per capita 128.52 8.43 20 World Fish Fleet 26559.84 84285.13 19 Z Students 27.02 8.59 20 Tertiary Ed Country ference Fish Low Income Nations Total Fish Z fish 82 Appendix E: of Land Pressure Hectares Hectares Difference land Pressure -.428 Gambia .185 Guinea Guinea .300 Mozambique 1.548 Sierra -.560 Somalia -.758 Sudan -.004 Togo -.362 Tanzania .184 Zaire -.186 Madagascar -.189 Comoros .180 Cape -.535 China India .732 Bangladesh Pakistan Verdes (Peo) Burma .294 Haiti Bissau Leona 5774 97621 55584 46367 9622 35376 207493 134934 24176 8317 7672 2010637 3490064 433063 929328 875810 16968 11 20 10 10 .311 .133 .331 .105 .230 .286 .415 -.022 .441 .271 .206 .215 .301 .282 .257 -0046 83 Maldives 41085 1370 51 .426 Algeria 1.233 Congo 1.648 Egypt .911 Gabon 5.939 Ghana -.206 Ivory Coast -.500 Kenya .561 Morocco .601 Nigeria 2.563 Senegal -.018 So.Africa -.169 Mauritania -.884 Jordan 1.772 Tunisia .656 Cameroon .280 Liberia .804 Mauritius .049 Reuion -.089 Philippines -.010 Thailand .106 Korea,Rep .761 Iran 8.147 Iraq 1.880 Yemen,Rep 84 Middle Income Nations 152170 2 3 .207 46321 7 2 .610 41733 2 15 .206 81739 28 2 -.166 1592383 146 11 .176 115324 4 3 .085 49872 3 9 .280 529081 9 3 .263 2541960 9 3 .513 845042 16 1 .330 953393 7 2 .280 30037 16 9 1.037 5888 - 3 .324 112145 4 2 .277 65107 1 1 .326 47940 38 15 .232 17959 18 10 .146 1691 13 10 .212 1344241 19 7 .320 3533743 22 3 -.034 2679181 130 19 .261 140690 1 2 .315 45474 1 2 .248 15743 1 2 .588 1.848 Isreal -.244 Lebanon -.077 Brazil 1.251 Argentina .144 Columbia .143 Peru -.851 Venezuela -.356 Chile 1.234 Ecuador 5.639 Uruguay Guyana 1.550 Suriname Turkey 1.912 Yugoslavia -.023 Romania Portugal -.259 Greece -.129 Cyprus -.644 Malta 42554 6691 2002540 456094 100493 4969837 381292 6388985 1817776 111713 49836 4319 504128 200799 1191178 1733065 108047 4831 3632 85 13 160 12 120 104 14 11 12 58 28 12 ll 26 -0003 .328 .103 .142 .092 .057 .324 _0001 .348 -0017 .044 -0306 .270 .140 .089 .094 .077 .008 .039 Appendix E: cont’d Mexico 1.471 Cuba -.896 Guatemala -0160 Dominica .573 El Salvador .896 Honduras .125 Nicaragua 3.833 Jamaica -.316 Costa Rica .671 Panama 2.464 Indonesia 1.056 3061564 466797 4700 16781 15652 11816 36512 26639 30094 932956 2661501 Papua N Guinea 23707 -.587 Trinidad -.144 Guadeloupe Barbados .242 Bahamas .237 St Lucia Grenada .565 St Vincent -.406 Dominica -.369 St.Kitts 1.779 Fiji 1.779 Solomon Is. 3.355 Belize -.774 3402 25331 3334 3874 1380 2383 667 1252 2757 25623 5718 491 14 13 11 204 19 67 10 194 28 48 18 34 17 14 10 150 17 121 25 22 12 .326 -0899 .113 .245 .064 .296 .276 .102 .290 .182 .156 .056 -0074 -0581 .200 .107 .195 .195 .405 .047 Japan .415 Germany Fed. -.420 Italy -.094 U.K. -0393 France -.436 Spain -.232 Netherlands -.058 Belgium -.250 Sweden -.268 Denmark 1.065 Finland .439 Norway Ireland .657 Iceland Greenland U.S. -0057 Canada -0291 Industrial Market Nations 12284468 483400 636332 660230 493766 2446343 226794 96156 188743 1306792 137586 37158 3827191 939041 286 27 7 8 7 6 10 8 3 3 16 2 27 17 11 12 6 3 50 2 6 2 - 5 4 3 - 29 2 1 2 1 .277 .000 .257 .033 .062 .146 .078 .050 .055 .050 .087 .057 .322 -0014 .110 .056 88 Appendix E: cont’d Austria - - 5 .045 Switzerland - - 17 .008 Australia 281584 1 - .081 -0010 New Zealand 662107 152 8 .353 20.470 Bermuda - - - - 89 Bibliography Alexander, Lewis. "The Disadvantaged States and the Law of the Sea," MARINE POLICY (July, 1981): 185-193. Alexander, Paul. "Innovation in a Cultural Vacuum: The Mechanization of Sri Lanka Fisheries," HUMAN ORGANIZATION (Winter, 1975): Vol. 34. No.4. 333-344. Altman, Irwin and Joachim, Wohlwill. BEHAVIOR AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT New York: Plenam Press, 1983. Amin, Samir. UNEQUAL DEVELOPMENT. New York: Monthly Rewiew Press, 1976. Amin, Samir. "Self-Reliance and the qu International Economic Order, " MONTHLY REVIEW (July-August, 1977): 1- 21. Anderson, Charles. THE SOCIOLOGY OF SURVIVAL. Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1976. Axinn, George. "The Development Cycle: New Strategies From an Ancient Concept, " INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT REVEIW (1977/4) 9-15. Boulding, Kenneth. THE MEANING OF THE 20TH CENTURY. New York: Harper and Row. 1965. Borgstrom, Georg. "New Methods of Appraising the Role of Fisheries in World Nutrition," FOOD SCIENCE (Spring, 1962): 33-47. Borgstrom, Georg. THE HUNGARY PLANET. New York: Mac- millan Company, 1965. Brown, E.D. "Delimitation of Offshore Areas Hard Labour and Bitter Fruits at UNCLOS III,"MARINE POLICY (July, 1981): 172-184. Carson, Rachel, L. Silent Spring, Haugton Miffen, Boston, 1962. "Cash and Crime, come to Shetlands on the Crest of North Sea 011 Boom," NEW YORK TIMES, Monday, January 4, 1982. Catton, William. OVERSHOOT. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1980. Clark, Calen. "The Economic or Overexploitation," SCIENCE 1973. 181: 630-634. Chase-Dunn, Christopher. "Comparative Research on World-System Characteristics," INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 90 QUARTERLY (dECEMBER, 1979): 601-623. Chase-Dunn, Christopher. "The Effects of International Economice Depandence on Development and Inequality," INTERNATIONAL STUDIES QUARTERLY (December, 1979): 601-623. Capes, Parzival. "The impact of UNCLOS III on manage- ment of the World Fisheries," MARINE POLICY (July, 1981): 155-163. Cottrell, Fred. ENERGY AND SOCIETY. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1955. Dahlberg, Kenneth. "Ecological Effects of Curent Developmental Processes in Less Developed Countries." Eckholm, Erik. LOSING GROUND New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1976. Evans, Peter., and Timberlake, Michael. "Dependence, Inequality, and the Growth of the Tertiary: A Comparative Analysis of Less Developed Countries," AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW (August1980): Vol.45. 531-552. Forman, Shepard. "Cognition and the Catch: The Loca- tion of Fishery Spots In a Brazilian Coastmfl. Village," ETHNOLOGY. 1971, 417-426. Frank,Andre. REFLECTIONS ON THE WORLD ECONOMIC CRISIS. New York: Hutchinson &Co., 1981. Fraser, Alex. "Limited Entry: Experience of the British Columbia Salmon Fishery," FISHERY RESEARCH BOARD (March, 1979): 754-769. Fry, Paul. "The Law of the Sea," MARINE POLICY (july, 1981): 7-12. Gibbs, Jack and Browning, Harley, "The Division of Labor, Technology, and Organization of Production in Twelve Countries," AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVEIW, (February, 1966): Vol.31. 81-93. Gibbs, chk, and Martin, Walter, "Toward a Theoretical System of Human Ecology." PACIFIC SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW (Spring, 1959): 29-35. Gulland, J.A. "Problems and Priorities in Providing Re- search Input to Fishery Decisions," DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNA- TIONAL LAW JOURNAL. 1977. V01. 4. Number 1. 27-370 Hardesty, Donald. "The Human Ecological Niche," 91 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST (74): 458-466. Hardesty, Donald. "The Niche Concept: Suggestion For Its Use in Human Ecology," HUMAN ECOLOGY. Vol. 3. No.2. Hawley, Amos. HUMAN ECOLGOY. New York: The Ronald Press Company. 1950. Henkin, Louis. "Politics and the Changing Law of the Sea," POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. (March, 19/4): 46-67. Hollick, Ann. U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND THE LAW OF THE SEA. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 1981. Hollist, Ladd and Rosenau, James. WORLD SYSTEM STRUCTURE. London: Sage Publications 1972. Jacobson, Jon. "Marine Scientific Research Under Emerg- ing Ocean Law," OCEAN DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL. 1981. Vol. 9. Number 3-4. 187-199. 1981. Kenyon, Peter. "The Nature and Extent of World Poverty,"in HUMAN ECOLOGY AND WORLD DEVELOPMENT, pp.180-211. Edited by Anthony Vann, and Paul Rogers. London: 1974. Knauss, John. "Marine Policy for the 1980’s and Beyond," MARINE POLICY. (July, 1981): 3-6. 'Knecht, Robert. "Coastal Zone Management: The First Five Years and Beyond," COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 1979. V0106. N040 259-2670 Luke, Ronald. "Managing Community Acceptance of Major Industrial Projects," COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 1980, V01. 70 NOQZ-B-Ao 276-2960 Maiolo, John and Orbach, Michael. MODERNIZATION AND MARINE FISHERIES POLICY. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science Publishers. 1982. Miles, Edward. "IOC Data and Information exchange Im- plications of the Law of the Sea Convention" MARINE POLICY (April, 1983): 76-89. Morris, Michael and Ferreira, Penelope, "Latin America, Africa, and the Third United Naitons Conference on the Law of The Sea: Annotated Bibliography," OCEAN DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 1981, Vol. 9. Number 1-2. 101- 185. 92 National Academy of Sciences. POSTHARVEST FOOD LOSSES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Washington, D.C. 1978. "Newfoundland Ends Talks with Ottawa on Offshore Control," WALL STREET JOURNAL, February 18,1982. Nieman, Thomas. "The Visual Environment of the New York Chastal Zone: User Preferences and Pewrception," COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL (January, 1980): 45-61. Odum, Eugene. ECOLOGY New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1975. Odum, Eugene. FUNDAMENTALS OF ECOLOGY Philadelphia, Sauders Co., 1953. Odum, Howard and Odum,Elisabeth, ENERGY BASIS FOR MAN AND NATURE New York: McGtaw-Hill Book Company, 1976. "Oil Wealth Worries Ivory Coast Leader," NEW YORK TIMES, February 15, 1982. Ophuls, William. ECOLOGY AND THE POLITICS OF SCARCITY. CALIFORNIA, fREEMAN AND CO. 1977. Organization For Economic Co-operation and Development. MARITIME TRANPORT. 1971. 85-109. Pohl, Reynaldo. "Latin America’s Influence and Role in the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea," OCEAN DEVELOP- MENT AND INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 1979. Vol.7. No. 1-2. 65- 87. Quinn, James. "Topical Summary of Current Literature on Human Ecology," THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY (July, 1940): 191-226. Sakiyama, Tereyi. "Policies in Pollution, Aquaculture and Coastal Management in Japan," MARINE POLICY. (January, 1979): 21-39. Schumacher, E.F. SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL. New York: Harper and Row, 1973. Shapero, Harvy. " The Coastal Access Rights Movement IN Japan." COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, Vol. 4, Number 1. 1-430 Steinbeck, John. The Grapes of Wrath. New York, Viking Press, 1937. 93 Swanson, Gerald and Seymour, John. "An Alternative Perspective on Common Property Resource Allocation Decisions in the Coastal Zone," COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL. 1978. Vol.4, Number 1/2. 25-45. Syder, David. "Structural Position in the World System and Economic Growth. 1955-1970: A Multiple-Network Analysis of Transnational Interaction," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY (March, 1979): 1096-1126. Svalastoga, Kaare. "Space, Population, Energy, and In- formation in Seven Nations," INTERNATIONAL JOUNRNAL OF COM- PARATIVE SOCIOLOGY. XVII, 1-2. 30-47. Teich, Albert. TECHNOLOGY AND MAN’S FUTURE. New York: St. Martins Press. 1972. Treves, Tullio. "The Adoption of the Law of the Sea Convention." MARINE POLICY (January, d1983): 3-13. United Nations. DRAFT FINAL ACT OF THE THIRD UNITED NA- TIONS CONFERENCE ON THE LAW OF THE SEA. AJCONF. 62/121 (October, 1982). Velencia, Mark. "Southeast Asia: National Marine In- terests and Marine Regionalism," OCEAN DEVELOPMENT AND INTER- NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL. Vol.5, Number 4. 1978. 421-449. Wenk, Edward. The Politics of the Ocean. University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1972. Wilkinson, Richard. PROVERTY AND PROGRESS. New York: Praeger Publishers. 1973. Woodhouse, Edward. "Re-Visioning the Future of the Third World," WORLD POLITICS. (October, 1972): 1-33. Young, Crawford. IDEOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982. Zuleta, Bernardo. "The Law of the Sea: Myths and Realities," MARINE POLICY (July, 1981): 28-30. "lllllllllllllllllllll“