Bill Overview
Title: South Pacific Tuna Act of 2022
Description: This bill revises federal requirements for U.S. commercial fishing vessels operating in the South Pacific.
Sponsors: Rep. Case, Ed [D-HI-1]
Target Audience
Population: People employed or affected by the U.S. commercial tuna fishing industry
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill specifically targets U.S. commercial fishing vessels operating in the South Pacific region.
- It modifies federal requirements, which could affect operational practices and compliance costs for the fishing industry.
- The impact will largely be on businesses involved in tuna fishing and their employees.
- Downstream businesses, such as distributors and retailers that deal with tuna products, might also be indirectly affected.
- The South Pacific region itself may experience environmental or economic changes due to altered fishing practices from U.S. vessels.
Reasoning
- The policy specifically applies to U.S. commercial fishing vessels operating in the South Pacific, thus the primary impact will be on those directly involved in this sector.
- Given the budget constraints, the policy is likely focused on supporting adaptation costs for fishing vessels and compliance with new federal requirements related to sustainable fishing practices.
- The ripple effects may extend to industries reliant on the supply of tuna, such as processing plants and retailers in the U.S., but the direct financial support may not reach them significantly.
- A segment of the American populace might experience indirect effects through potential changes in tuna prices if supply dynamics change.
- A balanced selection of interviewees would include direct participants in the industry, indirect participants, and a control group with no apparent tie to the industry to establish a baseline for comparison.
Simulated Interviews
Commercial Fisherman (San Diego, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Adapting to new regulations is always challenging, but if it means sustainability, it's worth it.
- Concerned about potential increased operational costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Tuna Distributor (Las Vegas, NV)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy might increase costs temporarily, but sustainability is crucial.
- Long term, this could stabilize tuna sources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Marine Biologist (Honolulu, HI)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New policy focuses on sustainable fishing practices—very positive.
- Environmental benefits are invaluable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Fish Market Owner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supply fluctuations are always a concern.
- Policy may lead to short-term disruptions but long-term benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Chef (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Focus on sustainability may alter the quality and price of tuna.
- Supportive of environmental protection efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Environmental Activist (Boston, MA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation is a step in the right direction for ocean health.
- Happy to see government prioritizing sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Restaurant Chain Owner (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If regulations cause tuna prices to rise, it impacts our business model.
- Open to supporting sustainable practices if they are manageable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Policy Analyst (Houston, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy reflects a necessary shift to maintain fish stocks.
- Careful monitoring of economic impact needed.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Student (Oklahoma City, OK)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a positive change for marine conservation.
- Hope it inspires future careers in sustainable fisheries.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired (Portland, OR)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Retirement insulates me from direct effects, but sustainability is always a good thing.
- Interested to see long-term industry changes.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $10500000 (Low: $7350000, High: $15750000)
Year 3: $11500000 (Low: $8050000, High: $17250000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- This bill may necessitate capital investments or modifications by fishing vessels, impacting their operational costs.
- Environmental impact assessments and benefits are not well quantified but are substantial motivators for the policy.
- The interconnectedness of supply chains in fishing means that downstream impacts could have broader implications.