Fisheries to vote on proposed blue crab harvest rules – Coastal Review

Report on Proposed Blue Crab Fishery Restrictions in North Carolina

Introduction: Balancing Conservation and Economic Stability

A newly formed coalition of North Carolina coastal counties has formally opposed new restrictions on the commercial harvest of blue crabs. This opposition highlights a critical challenge in resource management: balancing the ecological objectives of Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Life Below Water) with the socio-economic necessities outlined in SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). The N.C. Coastal Counties Fisheries Coalition submitted a resolution against the proposed measures ahead of a key Marine Fisheries Commission meeting, citing concerns over the lack of current scientific data and the potential economic impact on local communities.

Fishery Management Framework and Sustainable Harvest Goals

Regulatory Context: Amendment 3 and SDG 14

The current management of the blue crab fishery is governed by the Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan Amendment 3, adopted in 2020. The primary objective of this amendment is to align with SDG 14.4, which calls for an end to overfishing and the restoration of fish stocks to produce maximum sustainable yield.

• Stated Goal: To end overfishing and achieve sustainable harvest.
• Implementation: A legislatively mandated 10-year stock rebuilding period is underway.
• Current Status: Official documents indicate “little evidence suggesting management measures have been successful in ending overfishing or achieving sustainable harvest” at the halfway point of the rebuilding period.

The adaptive management framework within Amendment 3 is intended to implement measures that reduce fishing mortality and rebuild the spawning stock, reflecting a commitment to science-based conservation as promoted by SDG 14.a.

Proposed Restrictions and Stakeholder Response

New Management Measures

To address the lack of progress, the Division of Marine Fisheries staff has proposed several new restrictions to take effect on January 1:

1. A statewide, year-round prohibition on crab trawling.
2. A 30-bushel trip limit from September to December for waters north of the Emerald Isle bridge.
3. A 15-bushel hard crab trip limit from September to December for waters south of the bridge.

Coalition’s Opposition and Socio-Economic Concerns

The N.C. Coastal Counties Fisheries Coalition, a partnership of 15 coastal counties formed to advocate for the fishing industry (an example of SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals), has voiced strong opposition. The coalition argues that the proposed measures threaten the economic foundation of their communities.

• Economic Impact (SDG 8): Currituck County Commissioner Janet Rose noted that for watermen currently catching 50-60 bushels a day, the proposed 30-bushel limit represents a 40-50% reduction in harvest.
• Community Viability (SDG 11): This reduction is projected to negatively affect not only the fishermen but also ancillary businesses such as crab picking houses and the towns that depend on the fishery for economic stability.
• Formal Action: The coalition approved a resolution to oppose any further restrictions until the 2026 blue crab stock assessment is completed.

The Critical Role of Scientific Data in Policy-Making

Dispute Over Stock Assessment Validity

A central point of contention is the scientific basis for the proposed regulations. The recommendations are based on a stock assessment with a terminal year of 2016, which indicated the stock was overfished. However, stakeholders argue this data is outdated and insufficient for implementing drastic new measures.

• Data Deficiency: Glenn Skinner, Executive Director of the N.C. Fisheries Association, stated that an attempt to update the stock assessment with more recent data “went haywire” and was determined to be unusable.
• Lack of Current Status: Consequently, Skinner asserts, “we do not have a stock assessment for blue crab. Therefore, we do not have a stock status to say if it’s overfished or if overfishing is occurring.”
• Call for Scientific Integrity (SDG 14.a): The coalition insists that a reliable, new benchmark stock assessment must be completed before further regulating the state’s most valuable commercial fishery. This aligns with the principles of SDG 14.a, which emphasizes the need to increase scientific knowledge to inform sustainable management.

Upcoming Marine Fisheries Commission Meeting Agenda

Key Topics for Discussion

The Marine Fisheries Commission meeting will address the blue crab issue and other topics pertinent to the sustainable management of marine resources. The agenda reflects ongoing efforts to manage coastal ecosystems in line with SDG 14.

• History of southern flounder management.
• Analysis of southern flounder populations using fishery-independent data.
• Management changes for striped bass in the Tar-Pamlico and Neuse rivers.
• Overview of new reporting requirements for recreational and commercial fishermen.
• Update on the 2026 revision to the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

• SDG 14: Life Below Water: This is the most prominent SDG, as the entire article focuses on the management of the blue crab fishery, efforts to end overfishing, achieve sustainable harvest, and rebuild fish stocks. It deals directly with the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The article addresses the economic implications of fishing regulations on coastal communities. It highlights concerns that proposed restrictions on blue crab harvesting could negatively impact the livelihoods of commercial fishermen (“watermen”), the viability of “crab picking houses,” and the local economies of towns that depend on the fishing industry.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article illustrates the formation and actions of multi-stakeholder partnerships. The creation of the “N.C. Coastal Counties Fisheries Coalition” by lawmakers from 15 counties to collectively influence policy and engage with the Marine Fisheries Commission is a clear example of a public partnership aimed at achieving a common goal.

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

• Target 14.4: “By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing… and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks…” The article is centered on this target. It explicitly mentions the goal of Amendment 3 “to end overfishing and achieve sustainable harvest in the blue crab fishery” and discusses the implementation of management measures based on a stock assessment to “rebuild the spawning stock.”
• Target 14.a: “Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity…” The article highlights a critical need for better scientific data. The consultant for the coalition states, “we do not have a stock assessment for blue crab,” explaining that the previous attempt to update it “went haywire.” The call to “produce a reliable stock assessment” before implementing further regulations directly relates to increasing scientific knowledge to inform management.
• Target 8.5: “By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all…” The concerns raised by the coalition connect to this target. A county commissioner notes that cutting the daily catch from “50 to 60 bushels a day” to a “30-bushel trip limit” represents a “40 or 50% cut” in potential income for fishermen, which directly threatens their employment and economic well-being.
• Target 17.17: “Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships…” The formation of the “N.C. Coastal Counties Fisheries Coalition” by elected officials from numerous coastal counties to draft a joint resolution and engage with the Marine Fisheries Commission is a direct manifestation of this target. It is a public partnership created to address a shared economic and environmental issue.

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

• Indicator for Target 14.4 (Proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels): The article is replete with references to this. The key metrics mentioned are the “blue crab stock assessment,” the status of the stock being “overfished and overfishing was occurring,” the “stock rebuilding period,” and the goal to rebuild the “spawning stock closer to the spawner abundance target.” The success or failure of the management plan is measured by these stock status indicators.
• Indicator for Target 14.a (Availability of reliable scientific data): The article implies an indicator related to the quality and timeliness of scientific assessments. The central conflict revolves around the fact that the current management decisions are based on a stock assessment with a “terminal year of 2016” and that the attempt to update it failed. The successful development of a “new benchmark stock assessment,” as mentioned in the article, would be a clear indicator of progress.
• Indicator for Target 8.5 (Economic viability of the fishing sector): The article provides concrete, though anecdotal, economic indicators. The daily catch rates (“50 to 60 bushels a day”) and the proposed trip limits (“30-bushel trip limit”) serve as direct measures of the potential economic impact on individual fishermen. The continued operation of “crab picking houses” is an implied indicator of the health of the broader local industry.
• Indicator for Target 17.17 (Functioning of multi-stakeholder partnerships): The existence and actions of the “N.C. Coastal Counties Fisheries Coalition” serve as an indicator. Specific measures of its function mentioned in the article include the number of counties invited (15), the frequency of its meetings, and its concrete outputs, such as approving and submitting a “resolution opposing any further restrictions.”

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Summary

Source: coastalreview.org