Bill Overview
Title: Illegal Fishing and Forced Labor Prevention Act
Description: This bill sets forth and revises federal law concerning activities to combat human trafficking and illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing in the seafood industry. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shall expand the Seafood Import Monitoring Program to apply to all seafood and seafood products imported into the United States. The Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, Labor, and Health and Human Services must jointly execute a memorandum of understanding to codify and improve interagency cooperation on seafood safety, preventing illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing and human trafficking, including forced labor, and seafood fraud prevention, enforcement, and inspections. NOAA shall engage with each flag, coastal, port, and market nation that exports seafood to the United States to collect information sufficient to evaluate the effectiveness of such nation's management of fisheries and control systems to prevent illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing.
Sponsors: Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2]
Target Audience
Population: People working in the seafood industry globally, particularly in regions prone to illegal fishing and forced labor
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill targets illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing activities globally, aiming to improve regulations and monitoring to prevent these activities.
- The legislation will impact workers in the seafood industry, particularly those in regions with high incidents of human trafficking and forced labor.
- A significant portion of the seafood imported into the U.S. is from countries with limited regulations against illegal fishing and forced labor.
- NOAA's expanded monitoring program directly involves foreign nations that export seafood to the U.S., potentially impacting their labor practices and economic activities.
- Consumers of seafood in the U.S. may be indirectly impacted by changes in availability and potentially prices of seafood products.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a high-risk sector with a significant global footprint, but the budget constraints suggest its direct impact may be limited to primary import channels and key geopolitical partners.
- Given the nature of illegal fishing and forced labor issues, the policy might indirectly affect U.S. consumers and workers in the seafood industry through increased compliance costs, potential shifts in seafood availability, and pricing impacts.
- Simulated scenarios need to include a diverse set of stakeholders, from direct industry workers to consumers and regulatory agency employees, capturing the range of direct and indirect policy impacts.
- The program size and reach will be critical in determining the scope of its effectiveness, focusing more on high-risk regions and major sources of U.S. seafood imports.
- We anticipate variability in the immediate to long-term impact based on the complex international supply chains involved in the seafood industry.
Simulated Interviews
Seafood Importer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the increased regulatory burden and how it will affect my operations.
- I support fair labor practices, but the implementation needs to be pragmatic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Fishery Worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better regulation might improve working conditions, which is important to me.
- There might be short-term disruptions, but the long-term benefits are necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Chef at a Seafood Restaurant (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ethically sourced seafood is crucial, but I hope it doesn’t hike up prices.
- Our clientele values sustainability, so this could actually be beneficial for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
NOAA Inspector (New Bedford, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a much-needed policy to strengthen monitoring and compliance.
- Our job will get busier, but it’s for a worthy cause.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Consumer Rights Advocate (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in the right direction for consumer rights and ethical sourcing.
- I hope it leads to more informed consumers and better industry practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Environmental Policy Analyst (San Diego, CA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill could enhance international cooperation and regulatory scrutiny.
- It’s a positive move, but requires robust implementation strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Marine Biologist (Boston, MA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m hopeful this will lead to healthier marine ecosystems and fisheries.
- Science-based regulations are crucial for sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Seafood Retailer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m concerned about how changes will affect our supply chains and stock levels.
- Transparency in sourcing could be beneficial to our brand.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Seafood Exporting Consultant (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could complicate my clients’ operations if not managed well.
- Enhanced compliance might lead to fairer practices over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
University Student (Portland, OR)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this inspire the next generation to push for ethical environmental management.
- There are concerns about practical implementation but overall optimistic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $43000000 (Low: $33000000, High: $57000000)
Year 3: $42000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $56000000)
Year 5: $41000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $55000000)
Year 10: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $54000000)
Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Key Considerations
- Balancing initial costs with long-term savings and benefits will be key to understanding the act's financial impact.
- Enforcing new regulations requires the effective cooperation of international stakeholders and diplomatic engagements.
- Potential resistance or non-cooperation by foreign exporters concerning data-sharing and compliance may affect program effectiveness.