Report on North Carolina Coastal and Marine Fisheries Management

An Analysis in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals

A state-mandated study by the North Carolina Collaboratory, involving researchers from four UNC System universities, has evaluated the state’s fisheries management framework. The analysis, conducted ahead of the 25th anniversary of the Fisheries Reform Act (FRA) of 1997, assesses the state’s progress toward ensuring the long-term viability of its marine resources, a core objective aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Life Below Water).

Assessment of Management Efficacy and Alignment with SDG 14

The research indicates that while North Carolina has established robust management protocols that compare favorably with other states, it is falling short of achieving the core objectives of the FRA. This gap highlights significant challenges in meeting targets for sustainable fishing and marine ecosystem health as outlined in SDG 14.

Key Findings on Sustainable Fisheries Management

• Status of Fish Stocks (SDG 14.4): Despite a rigorous management structure, several key species are failing to meet sustainability benchmarks. Stock assessments indicate that blue crab, southern flounder, striped bass, and striped mullet are classified as overfished, with harvest rates for these species, plus spotted seatrout, deemed too high (overfishing). This directly contravenes SDG 14.4, which calls for an end to overfishing and the restoration of fish stocks.
• Institutional Inefficiency (SDG 16): The process for developing and updating Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) is excessively slow, with an average of seven years between a plan’s inception and its first amendment. This time lag impedes adaptive, science-based management, undermining the principles of effective and accountable institutions (SDG 16) necessary for sustainable resource governance.
• Ecosystem Health and Habitat Degradation (SDG 14.2): The report identifies significant, long-term degradation of coastal and estuarine habitats and a decline in water quality since the FRA was enacted. These trends, driven by development, climate variability, and other human activities, threaten the foundation of the marine ecosystem, working against SDG 14.2, which aims to sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems.
• Governance and Stakeholder Engagement (SDG 16 & 17): A breakdown of trust and communication between state managers and key stakeholder groups has been identified as a significant hurdle. This lack of effective partnership and inclusive decision-making hinders progress toward building the strong institutions (SDG 16) and multi-stakeholder partnerships (SDG 17) required for successful sustainability initiatives.

Recommendations for Achieving Sustainable Fisheries and Marine Health

The report outlines five primary recommendations designed to address the identified shortcomings and align North Carolina’s fisheries management more closely with global sustainability targets.

1. Enhance Scientific Capacity (SDG 14.a): Increase the number of stock-assessment scientists within the Division of Marine Fisheries. This action directly supports SDG 14.a (Increase scientific knowledge) by enabling more frequent and timely stock assessments, which are fundamental for informed, science-based policy.
2. Strengthen Governance and Transparency (SDG 16): Establish an independent science and statistical committee and redesign the Marine Fisheries Commission to improve management outcomes. This recommendation aims to build more effective, accountable, and transparent institutions (SDG 16) by improving the process for setting catch limits, enhancing stakeholder engagement, and resolving disputes.
3. Adopt an Ecosystem-Based Management Approach (SDG 14.2): Transition toward a holistic, ecosystem-based approach to assess the health of fisheries and the environmental drivers affecting them. This aligns with the integrated nature of SDG 14, recognizing that sustainable fisheries depend on the health of the entire marine ecosystem.
4. Halt and Reverse Habitat Degradation (SDG 14.2 & SDG 11): Implement policies to stop and reverse the loss of critical coastal habitats and improve monitoring of habitat extent and water quality. This is essential for achieving SDG 14.2 and supports efforts for sustainable communities (SDG 11) by balancing development with environmental protection.
5. Protect Critical Nursery Areas (SDG 14.4): Re-evaluate the state’s nursery designation system and create an adaptive framework for protecting these vital areas. This targeted action is crucial for ensuring the long-term viability of fish stocks and achieving the goals of SDG 14.4.

Report Scope and Legislative Context

Clarification Regarding Shrimp Trawling Legislation

The Collaboratory’s Executive Director issued a formal clarification stating that the research study and its recommendations did not address, advocate for, or oppose a ban on shrimp trawling. This statement was made to correct misinformation suggesting the report’s findings influenced a recent legislative proposal. The clarification reinforces the scientific independence of the study, a critical component of evidence-based policymaking that supports the principles of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

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 goal is central to the article, which focuses on the health of marine fisheries and coastal habitats in North Carolina. It discusses issues like overfishing, the status of fish stocks (blue crab, southern flounder), habitat degradation, and the need for ecosystem-based management to ensure the long-term viability of coastal fisheries.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article extensively covers the governance and institutional aspects of fisheries management. It points out weaknesses in the current system, such as a “significant time lag in the implementation of new data,” a “breakdown of trust and communication among managers and key stakeholder groups,” and the slow process of updating management plans. The recommendations for an independent science committee, enhanced transparency, and better stakeholder participation directly relate to building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions.

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

1. Target 14.2: By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts… and take action for their restoration…

   The article directly addresses this target by highlighting that coastal habitats face pressures from “fishing, development, climate variability and other human activities.” It recommends “adopting an ecosystem-based management approach,” “stopping or reversing patterns of habitat loss and degradation,” and “protecting critical nursery areas.”

2. Target 14.4: By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing… and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks…

   This target is a core theme. The article explicitly states that several species, including “blue crab, southern flounder, spotted seatrout, striped bass and striped mullet are experiencing overfishing.” It also notes that some stocks are “overfished.” The entire study aims to provide recommendations for better management based on scientific findings to achieve the goals of the Fisheries Reform Act, which is to ensure the long-term viability of fisheries.

3. Target 14.a: Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology… in order to improve ocean health…

   The article strongly supports this target. A “top recommendation” is to “Hire more fisheries scientists” and increase the Division of Marine Fisheries staff. This is intended to ensure that “stock assessments and fisheries management plans are regularly updated,” directly linking increased research capacity to improved management and ocean health.

4. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   The article identifies a lack of institutional effectiveness, noting that the process for updating fishery management plans “is relatively slow, which potentially limits the efficacy of science- and process-based public trust resource management.” Recommendations for an “independent science and statistical committee” and enhancing “management transparency” are aimed at making the governing institutions more effective and accountable.

5. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

   This target is relevant due to the article’s mention of a “breakdown of trust and communication among managers and key stakeholder groups.” A key recommendation is to implement “new approaches for enhancing the division’s outreach with stakeholder participation, trust, and management transparency” and to address how “stakeholders can be engaged.”

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

1. Indicator for Target 14.2: The article implies the use of indicators such as the extent and quality of coastal and estuarine habitats. The recommendation to require “improved monitoring of habitat extent and water quality” and to re-evaluate the “nursery designation system” points directly to these metrics for measuring ecosystem health.
2. Indicator for Target 14.4: The article explicitly mentions the use of quantitative stock assessments to produce “estimates of stock biomass and the harvest rate.” This directly corresponds to SDG indicator 14.4.1 (Proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels). The article provides a clear status for several species (e.g., blue crab, southern flounder) as being “overfished” or “experiencing overfishing.”
3. Indicator for Target 14.a: A clear indicator mentioned is the number of stock-assessment scientists and staff within the Division of Marine Fisheries. The primary recommendation to “increase the Division of Marine Fisheries staff” makes this a direct measure of research capacity.
4. Indicator for Target 16.6: An implied indicator for institutional effectiveness is the time required to update and implement fishery management plans. The article quantifies this, stating, “the average time between the first plan and amendments is seven years,” suggesting this lag is a key problem to be addressed.
5. Indicator for Target 16.7: An implied indicator is the level of stakeholder trust and participation in the management process. The identified “breakdown of trust and communication” and the recommendation to enhance “stakeholder participation” suggest that measuring the quality and frequency of this engagement would be a key metric of progress.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: coastalreview.org