Sustainable Development and New Zealand Fisheries Management: The Quota Management System and the need for inclusive development

“Sustainability, and can people make a living doing it, that’s all that matters, ok?”- Dr Daniel W. Bromley, Professor of Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin (Bhana, 2020).

Both broad and ambitious in its scope, the 1987 definition of sustainable development according to the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) demonstrated a growing concern for global environmental issues: “Development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 43). A widespread acceptance that human economic development plays a role in environmental degradation has ensured the long-term relevance of the concept of sustainable development. Nevertheless, its broad appeal also means that it lacks conceptual rigour, and there is much debate about how best to encourage sustainable change. In this essay, I draw upon theories of sustainable development, analysing the differences between an approach which focuses mostly on economic growth, and a more inclusive approach encompassing ideas of ecological and social well-being. Using these theories to assess the efficacy of fisheries management in New Zealand I examine the Quota Management System (QMS), exploring how a more inclusive approach could help achieve sustainable development.

At its core, sustainable development must consider the economy, the environment and society. While these “three pillars” (Elliot, 2013, p. 20) of sustainable development are generally described as equally important, the reality is that “achieving strong sustainability, which implies no trade-offs between the economic, social and ecological goals, is rare” (Gupta & Vegelin, 2015, p. 434). Social and ecological goals are often sidelined in favour of economic development as some see continuous economic growth as sustainable development in itself. Yet this view sees the natural environment “as a realm to be exploited in a process of growing economic expansion” (Magdoff & Foster, 2010). Ecological economics, on the other hand, attempts to merge environmental and economic concerns into one analytical framework (Overton, 1999, p. 6). This requires that natural renewable resources are used at or below sustainable rates of regeneration, and that the maximum economic outputs are achieved with minimum inputs (Overton, 1999, p. 7). Yet ecological economics, considered ‘green growth’ by some, is firmly rooted in neoliberal principles and ignores the “pillar” of society essential to successful sustainable development (Elliot, 2013, p. 20; Gupta & Vegelin, 2015, p. 435).

With the knowledge that neoliberal development ideas have paralleled unsustainable rates of natural resource extraction, sustainable development must adopt a more inclusive approach; one that places more emphasis on environmental and societal concerns and does not measure success in terms of economic growth. To be truly sustainable, short-sighted macro-economic policies must be swapped out for systems that demonstrate consistent stability over a long period of time. Inclusive development “requires understanding and addressing the multilevel drivers of inequality, exclusion and vulnerability” (Gupta & Vegelin, 2015, p. 439). It also recognises that ecological degradation is related to increasing inequalities within society, and although often caused by the wealthy and those in power, it affects minorities and poorer people at a higher rate. Inclusive development calls into question wealth distribution, the concentration of which “leads to inequality through direct and indirect resource expropriation”, as well as rethinking the management of public goods (Gupta & Vegelin, 2015, p. 439). Neoliberal ideas of privatisation and securitisation are seen as drivers of inequality, and inclusive development encourages a shift in “the ideological foundations of society” (Gupta & Vegelin, 2015, p. 439).

Thirty three years since the WCED (1987) gave their definition of what sustainable development should encompass, there is a widespread concern that our current actions are in fact “compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 43). One industry where this concern is apparent is New Zealand’s fisheries management. In the words of documentary filmmaker Mike Bhana (2020), “on our current path, our grandchildren are unlikely to experience what we’ve seen and so often taken for granted”. The current system of fisheries management in New Zealand is the QMS, a framework in which fishers own or lease the right to catch a percentage of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of a particular species of fish (Simmons et al., 2017). Introduced in 1986, these Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs), and the QMS in general, were part of an economic shift towards “privatisation, removal of subsidies, reliance on market forces” and free-market principles driven by neoliberal policy imperatives (Dewees, 1998, p. 134; McCormack, 2012, p. 175). Intended to remedy the problems caused by the “common property nature of fishery resources”, the TAC within the QMS is supposed to ensure sustainability (Dewees, 1998, p. 133; Simmons et al., 2017). However, due to the single-species approach of the QMS it is often argued that it “inherently conflicts with broader ecosystem-based approaches” and therefore cannot ever be truly sustainable (McCormack, 2012, p. 174). There is some evidence to suggest that the QMS has increased the net economic return from the fishery, however, the broader environmental effects of commercial fishing in general cannot be ignored (Cullen, 1996, p. 31). With over 80 per cent of quota owned by just five large companies, the focus on profit and growth has resulted in a myriad of unethical behaviours. From dumping catches to high-grading and unreported bycatch, the industry is fraught with deceptive conduct and flawed processes (Simmons et al., 2017). 

Economic and environmental anthropologist Fiona McCormack (2012) argues that “the definition of sustainability informing the New Zealand QMS focuses on a restricted notion of biological sustainability and a narrow interpretation of economic efficiency, to the exclusion of social concerns” (p. 193-194). With the focus on maximum sustainable yield, the QMS is a system of ‘green growth’ or ecological economics that is firmly rooted in neoliberal ideas of privatisation, of which there are negative societal consequences. As stated by Dr Daniel W. Bromley, Professor of Applied Economics at the University of Wisconsin, “none of this ever happens in a political vacuum” (cited in Bhana, 2020). Conceived at the height of neoliberalism in the 1980s, the QMS is “based on the historically naive notion that economic and social activities inhabit distinct compartmentalised domains” (McCormack, 2012, p. 194-195). For many working within the industry, the privatisation of New Zealand’s fisheries enabled new categories of inequality within the industry (McCormack, 2012, p. 196). LegaSea spokesperson Sam Woolford believes that the QMS is “a broken system that gifts a precious natural resource (fish), which is owned by all New Zealanders, to a select few to generate huge profits while small-scale operators and iwi are left out in the cold” (cited in Bhana, 2020, 27 July). This has resulted in a number of disenfranchised fishers, with power imbalances between quota holders and other interested parties creating disparities of wealth and influence (Wallace, 1999, p. 68).

Inclusive development encourages “a process of change through which sustainable and equitable improvements are made to the quality of life for all or most members of a society” (Bailey & Jentoft, 1990). Accordingly, social scientists have noted the need to address social issues within fisheries management in order to establish a more balanced distribution of economic benefits (Singh-Renton, 2001, p. 234). These issues include: the removal of small-scale fishers, including Māori fishers, from commercial fishing; a loss of jobs, specifically in the regions; restrictions on customary fishing rights; loss of identity due to changes in the cultural practices that are associated with fishing, and; loss of the ability for fishers to reproduce their way of life (Bhana, 2020; McCormack, 2016, p. 182). These issues can all be traced back to the QMS. In 1986 when the QMS was established, there were more than 6,000 registered fishing vessels in New Zealand. Today, there are approximately 1,100. This is because the QMS eliminated smaller boats, replacing them with larger vessels using more environmentally destructive fishing methods (Bhana, 2020). These larger boats were centralised in the bigger ports, resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs and the destruction of regional fishing fleets. It is also argued that the QMS does not work for Māori; “it may be working for some quota holders, but that trickle down has not happened and in the meantime, [Māori have] lost the customary access” (Bhana, 2020). 

It is clear that more attention needs to be paid to the ecological and social concerns within fisheries management in New Zealand. An inclusive development approach that focuses primarily on the well-being of the environment and the community, rather than economic growth, would ensure that future generations are able to enjoy and make a living from fisheries. First, a return to smaller, less environmentally destructive fishing boats and methods would create jobs, encourage regional growth, minimise by-catch and do less harm to the marine environment. Localised commercial fishers “appeal to tradition” and “affiliation with place”, meaning that they are more likely to protect the local resource base, allowing fish stocks to return to viable harvest levels (McCormack, 2012, p. 195). Second, implement a resource rental as opposed to quota ownership, with money generated funnelled back into science and conservation (Bhana, 2020). Third, ensure that Māori are given the status promised under Te Tiriti o Waitangi as partners in governance.

In the words of Environmental Anthropologist Dr Niels Einarsson, “people’s lives and human welfare get in the way of pure economic logic or neoliberal pure economic logic” (cited in Bhana, 2020). The past thirty years have proven that a fisheries management system focused on economic growth is not only unsustainable ecologically, but also socially. Rooted in neoliberalism, the ecological economics of the QMS do not deliver on promises of sustainable fisheries. Furthermore, social concerns are ignored and inequalities grow along with the economic success of the fishery. In contrast, “inclusive development questions the need for continuous economic growth in a business-as-usual paradigm” (Gupta & Vegelin, 2015, op. 435). The QMS has “undermined jobs and livelihoods”, and done little to nothing to improve fish stocks in New Zealand (Simmons et al., 2017). What is needed is a new system of governance that not only focuses on sustainable fish stocks and healthy marine ecosystems, but also the well-being and security of the people. 

References:

Bailey, C., & S. Jentoft. (1990). Hard choices in fisheries development. Marine Policy. 14(4): 333-344.

Bhana, M. (2020). The Price of Fish [Documentary]. TV3. https://www.threenow.co.nz/shows/the-price-of-fish/S2260-341

Bhana, M. (2020, 27 July). The Price of Fish - At Whatever the Cost: Documentary Highlights Failings of Quota Management System. Scoop. https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK2007/S00538/the-price-of-fish-at-whatever-the-cost-documentary-highlights-failings-of-quota-management-system.htm

Cullen, R. (1996). Lessons about “Tradable Quota” from New Zealand. Choices. 11(3): 29-31.

Dewees, C. M. (1998). Effects of Individual Quota Systems on New Zealand and British Columbia Fisheries. Ecological Applications. 8(1): 133-138.

Elliott, J.A. (2013) ‘What is Sustainable Development?’. In Elliott J.A. An Introduction to Sustainable Development, 4th edition.  (pp. 8-56). London: Routledge, 

Ellwood, W. (2010). Nature’s bottom line. New Internationalist. July/August: 4-6.

Gibbs, M. T. (2008). The historical development of fisheries in New Zealand with respect to sustainable development principles. The Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development. 1(2): 23-33.

Gupta, J. & Vegelin, C. (2015). Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. Int Environ Agreements. 16: 433-448.

Lorek, S. & Spangenberg, J. H. (2014). Sustainable consumption within a sustainable economy - beyond green growth and green economics. Journal of Cleaner Production. 63: 33-44.

Magdoff, F. & Foster, J. B. (2010). What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism. Monthly Review. https://monthlyreview.org/2010/03/01/what-every-environmentalist-needs-to-know-about-capitalism/

McCormack, F. (2016). Quota Systems: Repositioning Value in New Zealand, Icelandic and Irish Fisheries. In Angosto-Ferrandez, L. F., & Presterudstuen, G. H. (Eds). Anthropologies of Value. Pluto Press.

McCormack, F. (2012). The Reconstitution of Property Rights in New Zealand Fisheries. Anthropological Quarterly. 85(1): 171-201.

Overton, J. (1999). Sustainable Development and the Pacific Islands. Strategies for Sustainable Development: Experiences from the Pacific. London: Zed Books: 1-15.

Simmons, G., Robertson, B., Whittaker, D. H., Slooten, E., McCormack, F., Bremner, G., Haworth, N., Thrush, S. F., & Dawson, S. (2017). New Zealand fisheries quota management system: on an undeserved pedestal. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/new-zealands-fisheries-quota-management-system-on-an-undeserved-pedestal-82210

Singh-Renton, S. (2001). Introduction to the Sustainable Management Concept in Fisheries. FAO Fisheries Reports: 229-234.

Wallace, C. (1999). Environmental Justice and New Zealand’s Fisheries Quota Management System. NZJ Envtl. L. 3: 33-68.

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Webster, S. (2002). Maori Retribalization and Treaty Right to New Zealand Fisheries. The Contemporary Pacific. 14(2): 341-376.