Atlantic Commission’s Decision to Lower Menhaden Catch Limit Frustrates Fishers, Conservationists – ecoRI News

Report on Atlantic Menhaden Fishery Management and Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary

This report details the decision by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) Atlantic Menhaden Management Board on October 28 to reduce the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for the Atlantic menhaden fishery. The decision reflects a complex effort to balance ecological health with economic stability, directly engaging with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most notably SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

2.0 Management Decision and Rationale

2.1 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) Reduction

The Board voted to implement a 20% reduction in the coast-wide TAC for the 2026 fishing season. This decision lowers the catch limit from the 2025 level of 230,000 metric tons to less than 190,000 metric tons.

2.2 Scientific Basis for the Decision

The reduction was prompted by a new stock assessment which revised key biological parameters for the menhaden population. The primary drivers for the recommended cut include:

• Change in Natural Mortality Calculation: A revised model indicated a lower natural mortality rate for menhaden than previously assumed. This adjustment resulted in a significantly lower overall biomass estimate, approximately 60% lower than in the previous assessment.
• Ecosystem-Based Management: With a lower estimated population, the previous catch limits were deemed insufficient to support the needs of predator species, particularly striped bass. The ASMFC’s modeling suggested a TAC reduction was necessary to increase the probability of reaching population targets for key predators, thereby maintaining ecosystem balance.
• Initial Recommendation: The scientific stock assessment initially suggested a TAC reduction of over 50% was necessary to adequately support the striped bass population and fulfill menhaden’s role as a critical forage species.

3.0 Stakeholder Perspectives and Debate

The decision-making process highlighted a significant divergence between the perspectives of the fishing industry and conservation groups.

1. Conservationist Position: Environmental and conservation organizations, such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, argued that the 20% reduction was insufficient. They contended that the Board failed to fully adhere to the scientific advice, thereby jeopardizing the ecological role of menhaden and the broader health of the marine ecosystem that depends on them.
2. Fishing Industry Position: Representatives from the commercial fishing industry, including the New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association, opposed a drastic cut. They emphasized the severe socioeconomic impacts, citing potential loss of income, jobs, and stability for fishing communities. Industry advocates argued for a more moderate reduction (e.g., 10%) to mitigate economic disruption.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Implications

SDG 14: Life Below Water

The ASMFC’s action is a direct implementation of SDG 14, which aims to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources.

• Target 14.4 (Sustainable Fishing): The TAC reduction is an explicit regulatory measure to end overfishing and restore fish stocks. By adjusting catch limits based on new scientific assessments, the Board aims to ensure the menhaden population remains at biologically sustainable levels.
• Target 14.2 (Protect and Restore Ecosystems): The decision reflects a shift towards an ecosystem-based management approach. The primary justification for the cut was not that menhaden are overfished, but that a larger biomass is required to support predator populations, thereby protecting the structure and function of the broader marine ecosystem.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

The debate surrounding the TAC reduction underscores the challenges of achieving SDG 8, particularly in industries reliant on natural resources.

• Target 8.5 (Full and Productive Employment): The fishing industry’s concerns about the socioeconomic impact of a significant catch reduction highlight the direct link between environmental policy and employment. The final 20% compromise, rather than the scientifically recommended 50%, reflects an attempt to balance ecological goals with the need to protect livelihoods and prevent economic hardship in the fishing sector.

SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

The management of the menhaden fishery is relevant to SDG 12, which promotes sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.

• Target 12.2 (Sustainable Management of Natural Resources): Menhaden are a key industrial fish, processed into fish meal and fish oil for agriculture and aquaculture. Ensuring the long-term sustainability of the menhaden stock is critical for maintaining these production chains responsibly and avoiding resource depletion.

4.0 Conclusion and Future Outlook

The Atlantic Menhaden Management Board ultimately voted in favor of a 20% TAC reduction for 2026, with only Virginia and Pennsylvania dissenting. This decision represents a compromise between scientific recommendations for a larger cut to protect the ecosystem and industry calls to prevent severe economic disruption. The catch limit will be subject to future review, indicating an ongoing process of adaptive management aimed at balancing the interconnected goals of environmental sustainability, economic viability, and ecosystem health as outlined in the SDGs.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on the management of the Atlantic menhaden fishery primarily addresses two Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a connection to a third.

• SDG 14: Life Below Water: This is the most central SDG discussed. The entire article revolves around the conservation and sustainable use of a marine resource (menhaden). The debate focuses on setting catch limits to ensure the health of the menhaden stock and the broader marine ecosystem that depends on it, such as predator species like striped bass. The article details the actions of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to “sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems.”
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The article explicitly highlights the economic dimension of the fishery management decision. It discusses the “socioeconomic impact to the industry” and the concerns of fishers who argued that a drastic 50% cut would “sharply decrease landings, income, and jobs.” The plea from a retired fisher to consider the workers who “have to go back home and tell their wives or tell their children” directly connects the policy decision to the livelihoods and economic well-being of those employed in the fishing sector.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s content, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 14.2: By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans.
   • Explanation: The article’s focus on menhaden’s role as an “important ecological species” for predators like striped bass, osprey, and marine mammals directly relates to managing the broader ecosystem. The decision to reduce the catch limit is meant to “really support those predator species” and “provide enough menhaden to fill their role in the ecosystem,” which aligns with protecting the marine ecosystem to avoid adverse impacts.
2. Target 14.4: By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing… and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible…
   • Explanation: The ASMFC’s action to reduce the total allowable catch (TAC) is a direct example of regulating harvesting. The entire process is guided by “science-based management plans,” as evidenced by the reliance on a new “stock assessment,” complex “models,” and new calculations for “natural mortality.” The debate among board members, such as the representative from Massachusetts who stated, “we need to be as willing to take reductions when the science indicates that that’s warranted,” underscores the commitment to this target.
3. Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all…
   • Explanation: The article highlights the tension between conservation and economic stability. The concerns raised by fishers about the potential for the catch limit reduction to “sharply decrease landings, income, and jobs” directly address the employment aspect of this target. The final decision of a 20% cut, rather than the scientifically suggested 50% cut, represents a compromise that attempts to balance ecological needs with the “socioeconomic impact to the industry,” thereby considering the goal of maintaining employment.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions and implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Total Allowable Catch (TAC): This is a direct, quantitative indicator of management action. The article specifies the change from “230,000 metric tons set for the 2025 TAC” to “less than 190,000 metric tons” for 2026. This measures the level of regulated harvesting (Target 14.4).
• Fish Stock Biomass: The article discusses this as a key scientific indicator. The change in the stock assessment was driven by a new calculation of biomass, which was found to be “about 60% higher in the previous assessment than the current assessment.” The biomass level is a primary indicator for assessing the health of a fish stock (Target 14.4).
• Population Levels of Predator Species: The health of the striped bass population is used as an implied indicator of ecosystem health. The article notes that a larger cut to the menhaden catch was suggested to “maintain targets for the striped bass population,” linking the management of menhaden directly to the well-being of another key species (Target 14.2).
• Income and Employment in the Fishing Sector: These are implied socioeconomic indicators. The article references the negative impact on “landings, income, and jobs” as a major concern for fishers. Measuring changes in these figures would provide a way to assess the socioeconomic consequences of the management decision (Target 8.5).

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: ecori.org