Southern Shrimp Alliance Calls for Urgent Review of Shrimp Permit Moratorium

The Southern Shrimp Alliance (SSA) filed formal comments last week supporting a proposed extension of the federal commercial shrimp permit moratorium in the Gulf, along with specific actions. The comments respond to a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposal that would keep the moratorium in place through October 2036.

What is a Limited Access Permit Moratorium?

A limited access permit moratorium caps the number of federal commercial shrimp vessel permits available in the Gulf, with permits terminated and removed from the pool when they are not renewed. No new permits are issued beyond the existing supply. A fisherman looking to enter the fishery must buy or transfer a permit from someone already holding one, rather than applying for a brand-new permit from NMFS.

Why Support a Cap When the Fleet Has Shrunk?

The domestic shrimp fleet is not overcapitalized. The U.S. shrimping fleet has decreased from roughly 4,000 vessels fishing annually before 2001 down to a fraction of that number today. So why keep a system that limits new entrants when there is plenty of room to let more boats in?

SSA’s comments lay out the answer. 

Current permit losses stem from a flood of unfairly traded imports that depress U.S. shrimp prices. Rising operating costs compound the industry’s difficulty. In 2023, the average Gulf shrimp vessel posted a negative net cash flow of $4,885 and negative operating revenue of $14,635, according to a NOAA Fisheries Snapshot released this year. The data shows an industry under extreme economic pressure, not one with excess capacity. Eliminating a limited access permit would remove the current value (~$5,250) of permits held by current fishermen at a time when they are financially unstable.  These permits are often held and accompany boat sales.  An immediate removal of the cap would negate an asset for shrimpers who have remained in the industry under extreme economic duress.

The U.S. shrimp industry is working hard to address the unfair trade. Trade remedies targeting subsidized shrimp imports from Ecuador, India, and Vietnam; dumped shrimp from China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam; and new Section 301 tariffs on imported goods due to forced labor have some stabilizing effect on the market. But much more must be done, including combatting unfair practices like the abuse of banned antibiotics and the support from international financial institutions for excess foreign shrimp aquaculture capacity. Should a competitive, level playing field ever be established, domestic production of wild-caught shrimp can be substantially increased very quickly, likely drawing new entrants into the Gulf shrimp fishery. Continuation of the current permit moratorium system means that, should the shrimp industry’s condition recover, re-entry into the commercial fishery would take place in a manner that prevents overcapitalization.  

Trigger Actions Needed

Nevertheless, current market circumstances indicate that the shrimp industry’s condition is more likely to deteriorate in the near term rather than improve. Accordingly, SSA raises an urgent need for action to preserve current permits. Amendment 17B to the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan set a minimum threshold of 1,072 valid permits and requires a review panel to convene once the permit count drops to 1,175. As of the filing date of SSA’s comments, the floor has nearly been passed. NMFS’s database showed 1,076 non-expired permits and a total of 1,177 total permits (including those that have expired but have not yet been terminated), approaching the number triggering required action under the current amendment.

Much of that decline traces to a policy of automatically terminating permits that go unrenewed. Nearly 40% of all moratorium permits have been permanently removed this way in under two decades. The reason a permit holder misses a renewal window is irrelevant, even if it has nothing to do with abandoning the fishery. This policy needs to reviewed immediately.

SSA’s Recommendations

SSA’s comments support extending the moratorium, but pair that request with a list of specific requests:

1. Adopt an extension. Extend the moratorium to prevent a return to open access, protect permit value, maintain historical effort limits, and provide stability while the Council reassesses the permit threshold. 
2. Convene the review panel described in Amendment 17B. Because the current permit estimate is already at the 1,175 trigger, NMFS and the Council should convene the existing Amendment 17B panel to review the 1,072 threshold, the details of the reserve pool, and other appropriate management measures before the minimum is reached. 
3. Direct the panel to reassess the 1,072 threshold. The Amendment 17B panel should use current shrimp landings, effort, catch per unit effort, vessel economics, geographic coverage, processing capacity, working-waterfront needs, and the best available bycatch data. Active-vessel data should inform the analysis but should not be used to reduce the rights or value of valid or renewable permits held by non-active participants. 
4. Prepare the Amendment 17B reserve pool. The panel should complete the reserve-pool details contemplated by Amendment 17B so the process is ready if the permit total reaches 1,072. 
5. Report permit status and active participation separately. Publish annual counts of valid, renewable, active, transferred, expired, terminated, and reserve-pool permits, together with total, cumulative landings and days fished. NMFS should reconcile SERO records with trip-ticket data. 
6. Evaluate the entire domestic supply chain. Assess impacts on processors, docks, ice and fuel suppliers, vessel repair businesses, dealers, and coastal communities. The proposed rule’s analysis should not dismiss these consequences merely because they are characterized as indirect under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 
7. Conduct a genuine new-entrant and succession analysis. Survey fleet age, retirement expectations, crew-to-owner pathways, vessel and insurance costs, financing constraints, permit availability, and regional access. The analysis should distinguish paper availability from practical accessibility. 
8. Require an interim review. Although the moratorium should be extended, because we are at the minimum permit threshold, complete a formal public review as soon as possible to determine whether the threshold, reserve pool, reissuance rules, or other provisions should be changed. 
9. Preserve adaptive authority. State clearly in the final rule that the Council may revise the threshold, activate or expand the reserve pool, reissue permits, or otherwise modify the program before the moratorium’s extension concludes if participation, domestic production, infrastructure, or community viability deteriorates.

A permit moratorium protects the value of existing permits (both active and non-active participants) and would prevent a rush of new entrants from undermining any recovery that the industry might enjoy with a level playing field. But a cap only works if it manages the fishery toward long-term health, not a shrinking pool of permit holders losing the boats, processors, and waterfront businesses that keep the domestic shrimp industry running. Regulators should act now before permit attrition pushes the fishery below the floor set to protect it.

Read SSA’s comments: https://shrimpalliance.com/document/shrimp-permit-moratorium-comments