Overview
Title
To combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing at its sources globally.
ELI5 AI
S. 688 is a bill that seeks to stop bad fishing practices around the world by keeping lists of boats that break the rules and not letting them come to the U.S., while also working with other countries to make fishing fair and safe.
Summary AI
S. 688 aims to fight illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and its associated problems, like forced labor, on a global scale. The bill proposes creating a public blacklist of foreign vessels and owners involved in IUU fishing, prohibiting them from accessing U.S. ports and services, and blocking imports of seafood from these sources. It also encourages international cooperation to combat IUU fishing and imposes sanctions on individuals and entities involved in these practices. The bill also focuses on supporting global efforts to build capabilities for sustainable fishery management and improved enforcement against IUU fishing.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The "Fighting Foreign Illegal Seafood Harvests Act of 2025" aims to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing worldwide. It proposes the establishment of a blacklist for foreign vessels involved in IUU fishing-related activities, imposes sanctions on entities engaging in such practices, and encourages international cooperation to address the issue. Additionally, the bill sets out enforcement provisions, encourages better data collection and sharing strategies, and promotes investment in the fisheries sector to build sustainable fishing capacities. This comprehensive legislation attempts to tackle not only the environmental aspects of illegal fishing but also its connections to forced labor and maritime security.
Summary of Significant Issues
Although the bill sets out ambitious goals, several critical issues may hinder its effectiveness:
Vague Definitions and Processes: The bill relies heavily on terms that may lack clear definitions, like "IUU fishing" and "substantial control" over a vessel. These ambiguities can result in inconsistent enforcement and interpretation challenges, impacting the fairness of the blacklist system.
Oversight and Enforcement Concerns: Sections of the bill, notably those involving sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, provide broad powers without specific oversight mechanisms. This lack of defined checks and balances may lead to uneven application or misuse of authority.
Coordination and Implementation Challenges: The bill proposes collaboration with numerous stakeholders, including foreign governments and multiple U.S. agencies. Without distinct roles and responsibilities clearly outlined, coordination may face hurdles in execution, leading to inefficient resource allocation.
Investment Strategy Gaps: While encouraging investment in sustainable fisheries, the bill lacks clear criteria or metrics to evaluate effectiveness. This may lead to inefficient use of funds if investments do not yield the intended positive outcomes.
Transparency and Information Sharing: Provisions around transparency and information dissemination — particularly concerning the sharing of non-binding agreements — lack detailed procedures for ensuring accountability and clear knowledge-sharing pathways.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the "FISH Act of 2025" could positively impact the public by addressing environmental and social issues associated with IUU fishing. Sustaining fish stocks is vital for ecological balance and for supporting industries reliant on marine resources. However, the ambiguity of terms and lack of clear processes could mean inconsistent enforcement, possibly affecting the credibility and effectiveness of the bill's enforcement measures.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Fishing Industry: The legitimate fishing industry could benefit from this bill as it seeks to level the playing field by punishing illegal activities that undercut responsible fishing practices. However, certain industry players might face challenges complying with new regulations if the criteria remain vague.
International Stakeholders: Foreign governments and international organizations involved in fisheries management may need to navigate complex diplomatic and regulatory landscapes. This could foster international collaboration but may also strain relations if national interests conflict with adherence to new U.S. policies.
Government Agencies: U.S. agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Customs and Border Protection would take on increased responsibilities, which may require additional resources and coordination. The bill assumes these agencies are adequately equipped, though operational realities may reveal otherwise.
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): NGOs focusing on marine conservation and labor rights may find the bill aligns with their objectives, offering a framework to partner with governments and advocate for environmental protection and human rights. However, effective contributions may hinge on clarity and specificity within the bill's processes.
In conclusion, while the "FISH Act of 2025" is a well-intentioned legislative proposal addressing crucial environmental and social issues associated with illegal fishing, achieving its goals will require resolving the ambiguities and structural challenges identified within its current draft.
Financial Assessment
The bill S. 688, titled the "FISH Act of 2025," contains several financial allocations and references that outline how money is being used or intended to be used to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing on a global scale.
Financial Allocations Summary
The bill authorizes direct financial appropriations aimed at enhancing enforcement and regulatory efforts:
Section 4: Authorization of Appropriations - This section authorizes $20,000,000 to be appropriated annually to the Department of Commerce from fiscal year 2025 through 2030. These funds are designated for activities related to establishing and maintaining a blacklist of vessels involved in illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. This significant allocation is intended to support the infrastructure and resources required to enforce the provisions outlined in the bill.
Section 12: Reports - An additional authorization of $4,000,000 is provided to support a study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. This study is meant to evaluate the occurrence and costs associated with IUU fishing and forced labor, as well as the effectiveness of response strategies.
Relation to Identified Issues
The financial allocations in the bill are designed to support measures that aim to enhance the United States' ability to counteract IUU fishing. However, several issues arise when examining these allocations in relation to the bill's broader goals and potential execution challenges:
Oversight and Effectiveness - Despite the substantial financial appropriations, there are concerns that the bill lacks specific oversight mechanisms or criteria to ensure these funds are used effectively. For instance, without clear guidelines on how the $20,000,000 annual appropriation is to be allocated among various activities or how the success of these activities will be measured, there is a risk of inefficient use of resources. This concern parallels the issue in Section 10 regarding investment in the fisheries sector without defined criteria or metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of such investments.
Consistency in Application - The appropriations for creating and maintaining a blacklist are linked to the criteria for adding vessels, which could be inconsistent or biased due to undefined terms like "clear and convincing evidence." The lack of detailed appeal processes could undermine the fairness of listings, potentially leading to unfocused spending that fails to target the most significant offenders.
Enforcement and Accountability - Section 5 of the bill imposes sanctions and penalties under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, yet the allocations do not include clear accountability measures. This could result in ineffective enforcement, as the financial resources might not align with specific regulatory or accountability mechanisms to ensure fair application of sanctions.
Overall, the financial elements of the bill reflect a strong commitment to combat IUU fishing but require more detailed oversight and criteria to ensure that the allocated funds achieve their intended purposes effectively and fairly.
Issues
The bill lacks clear definitions or details regarding several critical terms and processes, which could lead to enforcement challenges and ambiguity in interpretation. For example, the term 'IUU fishing' is reliant on an international document, and the phrase 'substantial control' in defining a 'beneficial owner' is vague. The imposition of sanctions and blacklisting processes in Section 4 and Section 5 rely on these terms, leading to potential inconsistencies in application.
The provision granting the President authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in Section 5 may be overly broad, lacking specific limitations or oversight mechanisms. This could lead to uneven enforcement of sanctions or deviations from the intended goals of the bill.
The criteria for adding foreign vessels and individuals to the IUU vessel list in Section 4 are not explicitly defined, particularly 'clear and convincing evidence,' which could lead to biased or inconsistent listings. Additionally, the appeal process for entities listed is not sufficiently detailed, raising concerns about fairness and due process.
The bill's reliance on coordination with a broad range of entities, as outlined in Section 3, could complicate implementation efforts. Without clearly defined roles and responsibilities among the numerous stakeholders involved, there could be challenges in resource allocation and execution of the bill's objectives.
The introduced sanctions and penalties in Section 5 lack explicit enforcement and accountability measures. For example, the penalties for violations under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act require clearer guidelines to ensure uniform and fair application.
The bill encourages investment and technical assistance in the fisheries sector (Section 10) but fails to define specific criteria or metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of these investments. This lack of oversight can lead to potential misuse of funds or ineffective spending strategies.
The sanctions' exceptions (Section 5) lack comprehensive criteria, especially concerning humanitarian exceptions and authorized intelligence activities, which could result in unintended exploitation or abuse of these provisions.
Information sharing and transparency issues arise in multiple sections of the bill. For instance, Section 6 mentions 'transparency for non-Binding instruments,' but without clear procedures for ensuring it. This could lead to opaque practices and a lack of accountability.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In Section 1 of this act, it is stated that the official name of the law is the "Fighting Foreign Illegal Seafood Harvests Act of 2025," which is also abbreviated as the "FISH Act of 2025."
2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section defines terms used in the legislation, including “Administrator” as the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “beneficial owner” as someone who controls or owns a significant portion of a vessel, and “fish” as finfish, crustaceans, and mollusks. Other terms like “forced labor,” “IUU fishing,” “regional fisheries management organization,” “seafood,” and “Secretary” are also defined with references to their established meanings in existing laws and agreements.
3. Statement of policy Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The policy of the United States involves working with foreign governments, communities, and industries to address illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and its connections to forced labor and maritime security issues. The U.S. also aims to prevent IUU fishing at its sources and support the enforcement of international agreements like the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries agreement to ensure sustainable fish stocks.
4. Establishment of a black list (IUU vessel list) Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the creation of a public "black list" of foreign vessels engaged in illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing activities, detailing criteria for inclusion, consequences such as port access restrictions and import bans, procedures for nominations and removal, and definitions of relevant terms. It requires the publication of this list, enforcement measures, and regulations to maintain it, authorizing funding through 2030.
Money References
- “(i) Authorization of Appropriations.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Commerce to carry out this section $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2030.”.
5. Imposition of sanctions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury to impose sanctions, like blocking property and revoking visas, on foreign individuals or entities involved in illegal fishing or trading of endangered fish species. It includes exceptions for intelligence activities, international agreements, vessel safety, and humanitarian aid, and gives the President authority to waive these sanctions in the national interest or make rules for their implementation.
6. Agreements Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section encourages the President to consider the effects of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and forced labor when negotiating international agreements. It also urges the U.S. government to promote international efforts to combat these issues by encouraging treaty adoption and engaging in initiatives with various global organizations.
7. Enforcement provisions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines efforts to enhance the enforcement against illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. The Coast Guard is encouraged to increase vessel boardings, and a report must be provided to Congress on these activities and their findings, which includes details about international agreements and actions taken or needed for compliance.
8. Improved management at the regional fisheries management organizations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill enhances efforts to combat illegal fishing by updating the Maritime SAFE Act to include strategies for improving enforcement against illegal fishing and related abuses, such as forced labor. It also directs the Secretary of State to work with the Coast Guard and others to identify gaps in international fisheries management and improve high seas inspection programs.
9. Strategies to optimize data collection, sharing, and analysis Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines strategies for better data collection, sharing, and analysis to stop illegal and unethical seafood practices from entering the U.S., focusing on creating less burden on legal seafood trade. It involves identifying important data, overcoming data-sharing obstacles, collaborating on enforcement, improving investigative capacities, and making recommendations for automated systems and information dissemination.
10. Investment and technical assistance in the fisheries sector Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section encourages U.S. government officials and agencies to increase their support for programs aimed at improving fisheries management and tackling illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and forced labor, especially in regions and countries identified as priorities. Additionally, an interagency group is tasked with analyzing the United States' ability to help other countries build their fisheries capabilities and explore potential collaborations to enhance local fisheries science, management, and enforcement.
11. Preventing importation of seafood and seafood products from foreign vessels using forced labor Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner, working with the Secretary, must create a plan to use government data for spotting seafood imports from foreign ships using forced labor. They also need to share details about this plan on their website.
12. Reports Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the requirement for several studies and reports related to fishing practices and industries. It includes examining the impact of new technologies on illegal fishing activities, the influence between Russian and Chinese fishing industries and their effects on the U.S. market, and analyzing illegal fishing and forced labor within the fishing industry, with specified timelines and funding for these studies.
Money References
- “(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $4,000,000.”.