Letter: The Chesapeake’s menhaden must be protected from overfishing – The Baltimore Banner

Report on the Sustainability of the Chesapeake Bay Menhaden Fishery in Relation to UN Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

An analysis of the industrial reduction fishery for Atlantic menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay reveals significant conflicts with multiple United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 14 (Life Below Water), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). The practice, conducted exclusively in Virginia by a single company, involves the annual harvest of over 100 million pounds of a keystone forage fish without scientific validation of its sustainability. This report outlines the ecological and socio-economic impacts and recommends a moratorium on the fishery pending further research.

Ecological Degradation and SDG 14: Life Below Water

The industrial harvesting of menhaden directly threatens the marine ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay, undermining the objectives of SDG 14, which aims to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources.

• Keystone Species Depletion: Menhaden are a critical food source for predator species, including osprey and striped bass. The removal of over 100 million pounds annually disrupts the food web and impacts the health of these populations.
• Unsustainable Harvest Levels: Virginia’s harvest limit is set at 51,000 metric tons within the bay. However, there is no available scientific research to confirm if this level is sustainable, directly contravening the principles of Target 14.4 (end overfishing and implement science-based management plans).
• Ecosystem Health: The large-scale removal of menhaden compromises the bay’s overall ecological integrity, affecting biodiversity and the resilience of the marine environment, which is a core focus of Target 14.2 (sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems).

Socio-Economic Disparities and SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

The current fishery model creates an economic imbalance that conflicts with the goal of promoting sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth as outlined in SDG 8.

1. Impact on Local Livelihoods: The industrial fishery has been linked to a severe decline in resources for local commercial fishers. According to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the state’s bait harvest plummeted from 3.5 million pounds in 2022 to 1 million pounds in 2024, directly impacting the livelihoods of watermen who rely on menhaden for bait.
2. Disproportionate Economic Contribution: The reduction fishery, operated by Omega Protein, employs several hundred people. In contrast, the broader recreational fishing industry in the Chesapeake Bay, which depends on a healthy ecosystem, supported 15,500 jobs and generated $2 billion in economic impact in 2022.
3. Prioritizing Sustainable Economies: Protecting the menhaden population would support the larger, more sustainable economic engine of recreational fishing and local bait harvesting over a single industrial operation with a narrow economic benefit.

Unsustainable Production and SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

The method of “reduction fishing” represents an unsustainable pattern of production that is misaligned with SDG 12.

• Resource Inefficiency: The process uses spotter planes and massive nets to capture menhaden in bulk, which are then “reduced” into fish meal and oil supplements. This industrial-scale extraction from a sensitive ecosystem without proven sustainability violates Target 12.2 (achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources).
• Lack of Precautionary Principle: Continuing a massive industrial harvest in the absence of scientific data confirming its sustainability is contrary to responsible production principles.

Recommendations for Sustainable Management

To align the management of the Chesapeake Bay’s menhaden population with the Sustainable Development Goals, the following actions are recommended:

1. Implement an immediate moratorium on the industrial menhaden reduction fishery within Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay waters.
2. Commission independent, comprehensive scientific research to determine a sustainable harvest level that protects the ecological function of menhaden and the health of the entire bay ecosystem.
3. Revise fishery management policies to prioritize the long-term ecological health and the broad economic benefits derived from a healthy bay, in accordance with SDG 14 and SDG 8.

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 primary goal addressed, as the article focuses on the overfishing of menhaden, the health of the Chesapeake Bay marine ecosystem, and the need for sustainable fishery management.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth – The article connects the environmental issue to economic impacts, contrasting the jobs provided by the industrial fishery with the larger number of jobs and economic value generated by recreational fishing, which is threatened by the practice.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production – The article discusses the “reduction fishing industry,” a specific production pattern that unsustainably consumes a natural resource (menhaden) to produce fish meal and oil.
• SDG 15: Life on Land – The article links the marine issue to life on land by mentioning the impact on “starving osprey,” a bird species that depends on the menhaden fish for food, thus highlighting the interconnectedness of marine and terrestrial ecosystems.

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

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Target 14.2: By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts. The article highlights the adverse impacts of industrial fishing on the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, affecting species like osprey and striped bass.
   • Target 14.4: By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing… and implement science-based management plans. The article directly addresses this by questioning the sustainability of the 51,000 metric ton harvest limit, noting the absence of scientific confirmation, and calling for a pause on fishing until research proves it is sustainable.
   • Target 14.a: Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity… in order to improve ocean health. The call for “sorely needed research can prove it’s sustainable” is a direct appeal to fulfill this target.
2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • Target 8.9: By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs. The article points out that recreational fishing, a form of tourism, supports 15,500 jobs and generates $2 billion, which is being undermined by the unsustainable industrial fishery.
3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Target 12.2: By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources. The central theme of the article is the unsustainable management of the menhaden fish stock by the reduction fishing industry.
4. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity… and prevent the extinction of threatened species. The mention of “starving osprey and our declining striped bass” directly relates to the loss of biodiversity and threats to species due to the depletion of their food source.

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 implies this indicator is not being met by stating, “we have no science available to confirm if this is a sustainable level” for the current harvest. The 51,000 metric ton harvest limit serves as a quantitative measure of fishing pressure.
• Indicator for ecosystem health (Target 14.2): The article implies indicators through the observed effects on other species, such as the “declining striped bass” and “starving osprey,” which could be measured through population surveys.
• Indicator for local economic impact (Targets 14.4 & 8.9): The sharp decline in Maryland’s bait harvest, which “dropped from 3.5 million pounds in 2022 to 1 million pounds in 2024,” serves as a specific, measurable indicator of the reduced availability of menhaden for small-scale fisheries.
• Indicator for economic contribution of related sectors (Target 8.9): The article provides clear quantitative indicators for the economic value of recreational fishing, which “supported 15,500 jobs and generated $2 billion in economic impact” in 2022.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: thebanner.com