In the 1980s and ‘90s, neoliberal economists around the world started pushing for fishery quota management systems, arguing that market-driven solutions could solve the problems of overfishing and overcapacity.
Australian blogger and former financial analyst Joshua Van Der Neut bought into his family’s Patonga-based fishing business in Australia two years ago and is taking a hard look at the quota management systems that have been implemented in most of that country’s fisheries.
In his recent blog, More Fishers, Not Fewer, Van Der Neut argues that quota management is not true capitalism and does far more harm than good.
“Consolidation isn’t conservation,” he writes. “When policy architects or lobby groups push to ‘rationalize’ the fishing fleet, the result is often the same: fewer operators, more concentration, and more bureaucratic control. But fewer fishers does not mean less effort — it means effort in fewer hands. The total take may stay the same, but the structure changes dramatically.”
Van Der Neut writes that in quota systems, ownership becomes centralized, small towns lose economic activity, quota trading replaces traditional fishing knowledge, access becomes limited to corporate license holders, and consumers become dependent on imports or frozen alternatives.
“It’s not a more ‘sustainable’ system — it’s just one that’s easier to administer. For some, that’s the goal. But for seafood consumers and local communities, it’s a raw deal.” He adds that “we export both the environmental burden and the economic opportunity. This is not protection. It’s abdication.”
Van Der Neut’s brother Dane also contributes to their website, and their blogs resonate with fishermen around the world, including here in the U.S.
Beginning in the early 1990s, U.S. fishermen resisted Individual Tranferable Quota (ITQ) management systems, and Congress enacted a moratorium on those systems that lasted from 1996 to 2004. New England groundfish fishermen held out until 2010 when Jane Lubchenco, then administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under President Obama, forced them to accept catch shares, leading to many of the outcomes Van Der Neut cites.
Van Der Neut has put fresh eyes on an old debate that, for many, has appeared settled in favor of quota management. He writes that competition among more numerous smaller fishing enterprises provides the best outcomes for the fishermen and consumers.
“Competition creates value on the water and at the table,” he states. “In any healthy market, competition drives innovation, efficiency, accountability, and quality. Fisheries are no exception. When there are more active fishers — independently owned, locally embedded, and market-driven — the benefits flow.”
According to Van der Neut, those benefits include greater diversity and availability of local seafood, competitive pricing that puts downward pressure on margins, robust regional employment, and generational succession. He points out that having more fishermen means more resilient supply chains that don’t hinge on one operator, and adaptive, real-time decision making based on local knowledge.
While Van Der Neut acknowledges that the value that quota shares have acquired means they are unlikely to go away, he believes government or other entities need to create pathways for the next generation to enter fisheries and acquire quota.
“We used to be 20 boats here in Patonga, now we’re four. We’re going to lose our fisheries if there are no options for young people to come into the business,” Van Der Neut says. “And then consumers will no longer have access to local fish.”
