Bill Overview
Title: FISH Act of 2022
Description: FISH Act of 2022 This bill addresses illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (IUU fishing). For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration must establish, publish, and put vessels on a U.S. black list that denies port privileges, certain travel through, delivery of supplies, delivery of services, or transshipment in the exclusive economic zone for vessels that have conducted IUU fishing and vessels that have the same owner as a vessel on the black list. The President shall impose sanctions with respect to each foreign person that the President determines is the beneficial owner of a vessel on the black list. Further, the U.S. Coast Guard must (1) increase its observation and boarding of vessels on the high seas that are suspected of IUU fishing, and (2) coordinate with regional fisheries management organizations to determine what corrective measures each nation has taken after its vessels have been boarded for suspected IUU fishing.
Sponsors: Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]
Target Audience
Population: People dependent on marine resources impacted by IUU fishing
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The FISH Act of 2022 targets illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, a global issue impacting marine environments worldwide.
- It establishes measures such as blacklisting foreign vessels involved in IUU fishing that deny them access to U.S. ports and economic zones.
- The legislation requires the U.S. Coast Guard to actively monitor and board vessels suspected of IUU activities on international waters, suggesting a primary focus on regions with high IUU activity.
- Global efforts to manage IUU fishing involve multiple nations and their regional fisheries management organizations, indicating a wide geographical and populational stake in the Act's outcomes.
- IUU fishing affects millions of global fishing industry workers, fishing-dependent communities, and consumers due to its impact on fish stocks and marine ecosystems.
Reasoning
- The FISH Act is designed to target illegal fishing activities which primarily harm marine resource sustainability, thus affecting communities dependent on fishing.
- Immediate effects of the policy would be more pronounced in communities and individuals directly involved in the fishing industry - both commercially and recreationally, as well as those involved in maritime enforcement.
- The policy will likely have indirect effects on consumers across the U.S. although these might not be immediately obvious in terms of wellbeing scores.
- The allocated budget indicates a substantial enforcement effort, meaning individuals involved in regulation and law enforcement will see a positive impact regarding job creation and security.
- Consumers desiring sustainably sourced seafood may perceive positive long-term benefits if the act successfully curtails IUU fishing.
- The wide geographical impact of IUU fishing, and the U.S.' stake in the fishing industry, impacts various demographic groups differently, from coastal communities to inland consumers reliant on seafood.
Simulated Interviews
Commercial Fisherman (Alaska)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could help sustain fish stocks, which is crucial for my business.
- I'm concerned about how quickly these measures will take effect and if they'll truly rein in IUU fishing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
Coast Guard Officer (California)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased patrolling responsibilities are challenging but necessary.
- FISH Act could help protect marine environments better, which is close to my personal interests.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Seafood Distributor (New York)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act might initially disrupt supply chains.
- Long term, it's a good move for sustainability and market stability.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Marine Biologist (Florida)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a significant step in preserving marine biodiversity.
- It aligns with the global fight against IUU fishing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Recreational Angler (Maine)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that this policy helps improve the fish stocks in our waters.
- Accessibility to certain fishing areas might change, which is concerning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Seafood Restaurant Owner (Louisiana)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If it works, it helps the credibility and sustainability of the industry.
- Could face immediate supply disruptions, which worries me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Environmental NGO Worker (Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act provides a framework to battle a long-standing issue in marine conservation.
- We may see initial resistance from certain stakeholders, but it's a necessary change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
College Student (Massachusetts)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a positive step in terms of environmental policy and protection.
- As a consumer, access and prices might change slightly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Washington)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Effective enforcement will be key to success.
- May inspire more robust global cooperative efforts on this front.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Seafood Retailer (Michigan)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Initial supply issues might be challenging, but transparency and sustainability could boost consumer trust.
- Potentially new standards and practices could be beneficial long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $85000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $110000000)
Year 3: $90000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $120000000)
Year 5: $95000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $130000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $140000000)
Year 100: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Key Considerations
- Effectiveness depends heavily on international cooperation and compliance.
- Costs and savings greatly influenced by changes in IUU fishing activities and responsive policies by other nations.
- Possible diplomatic implications due to imposed sanctions.