Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth

Overview

Strengthening the Seafood Industry

Executive Order 13921, issued by President Donald Trump on May 7, 2020, titled "Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth," primarily aims to bolster the domestic seafood industry in the United States. The order arises from a context where over 85% of seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported, despite the country's rich aquatic resources. The order is geared towards fostering a competitive, sustainable, and efficient seafood sector by removing regulatory hindrances, enhancing aquaculture production, and combating illegal fishing. Fundamentally, the EO aspires to revitalize the American seafood market, reduce dependency on imports, and create jobs within the sector.

Environmental & Economic Balance

The EO underscores the importance of achieving a balance between economic growth and environmental stewardship. It mandates the streamlining of regulatory processes concerning offshore aquaculture and fisheries to enhance efficiency, transparency, and predictability. In doing so, it also highlights a commitment to sustainable practices that do not compromise ecological integrity. The executive order emphasizes the removal of outdated regulations and the need for updated strategic planning to support innovative aquaculture projects. This push is framed within an agenda to ensure food security and sustainability in seafood production.

Structural and Strategic Approaches

Structurally, the EO tasks different government agencies with specific roles to ensure its objectives are met. The Secretary of Commerce is pivotal, tasked with reviewing regulatory barriers and proposing actions to ease domestic fishing burdens while increasing production. Additionally, the EO calls for the establishment of Aquaculture Opportunity Areas, where environmental impacts are assessed, and industry engagement is facilitated. By enhancing regulatory transparency and combatting illegal fishing, the EO seeks to facilitate market access for domestically produced seafood and ensure fair trade practices globally.

Comprehensive Regulatory Reforms

The EO’s reach extends into reshaping processes for aquaculture permitting, stressing a "One Federal Decision" approach to simplify multilateral authorization procedures. The clear directive for agencies to minimize duplicative efforts speaks to administrative efficiency and cost-effectiveness, creating a more predictable and supportive business environment for the seafood industry. Aquaculture specific nationwide permits are also explored to further streamline operations and expand the seafood domestic market with specific focus on finfish, seaweed, and multi-species aquaculture activities.

International Implications and Collaboration

On the international front, the EO propels the U.S. into a more active role in global maritime domain cooperation and seafood trade regulation. Emphasizing the need for intergovernmental and international partnerships to counter illegal activities, it pushes for regulatory alignment to elevate American seafood standards globally. Further, the EO seeks to improve global market access and reduce technical barriers affecting U.S. seafood exports, which involves collaboration across international agencies.

Legal and Policy Implications

Constitutional and Regulatory Frameworks

EO 13921 operates within the constitutional powers granted to the Executive Branch to regulate commerce, including the international seafood trade. By addressing regulatory inefficiencies, the EO underscores a preference for leveraging legal frameworks like the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, without fundamentally altering their statutes. This approach reinforces the EO's intention to streamline existing laws rather than introduce new legislative changes.

Interagency Coordination and Efficiency

A significant policy shift introduced by this EO is the directive for interagency coordination under the "One Federal Decision" process. By assigning lead agency roles, specifically designating NOAA for aquaculture projects in the exclusive economic zone, the order mandates a unified and expedited environmental review, something that indicates a broader move towards administrative efficiency. This must, however, dance with legally mandated environmental procedures, ensuring no shortcuts undermine long-term environmental safeguards.

Adaptation of National Plans

The EO’s call to reassess and potentially revise the National Aquaculture Development Plan marks a strategic shift in national policy, focusing on obstacles within legal and regulatory frameworks that inhibit aquaculture growth. Updating this plan to incorporate current challenges and opportunities, especially concerning offshore aquaculture, reflects a policy adaptation aimed at modernization of national aquaculture policy.

International Maritime Policy

From an international law perspective, strengthening adherence to the UN's Port State Measures Agreement hints at a policy commitment to global maritime governance. This rediscovery and emphasis on international agreements suggest a broader policy intent to engage competitively on a global platform, aligning U.S. standards with global sustainability norms while promoting equitable market conditions for American products overseas.

Trade Policy Adjustments

The EO strategically guides U.S. trade policy concerning seafood, prioritizing fair and reciprocal trade practices and reducing barriers through negotiations. By establishing an Interagency Seafood Trade Task Force, the EO aims to unify various agency efforts behind a comprehensive strategy that aligns with existing trade laws and policies. This initiative could involve updates to custom regulations and international negotiation strategies to enhance U.S. seafood competitiveness globally.

Who Benefits

Domestic Seafood Industry

Principally, the immediate beneficiaries of EO 13921 are American fishermen and aquaculture producers, who are expected to enjoy reduced regulatory barriers. Streamlined permitting processes are designed to cut through red tape, thus allowing these stakeholders to increase productivity and explore new ventures confidently. The emphasis on sustainable practices further offers a dual economic-environmental benefit—promoting growth without sacrificing resource health.

Job Creation and Economic Growth

The broader U.S. economy also stands to benefit from job creation within the seafood sector, fulfilling part of the EO's goal to "get more Americans back to work." This bears significance amid economic downturns, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, by potentially revitalizing coastal communities heavily reliant on marine-based industries. Enhanced production capacities and sustainable fisheries could drive economic growth and diversify rural economies.

Consumers and Food Security

American consumers are set to benefit from increased production of domestically sourced seafood that might also be more reasonably priced due to diminished reliance on imports. Enhanced seafood safety standards through regulatory consistency assure consumers of quality, thereby contributing to national food security. Initiatives to equalize import standards may benefit consumers through exposure to improved product quality across the board.

Environmental Conservationists

Environmental groups, albeit cautiously, stand to gain from increased focus on sustainable aquaculture and proactive measures against illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. These conservation efforts align with long-term sustainability goals, addressing ecosystem health while bolstering industry oversight. The EO's targeted efforts to combat illegal activities support broader conservation aims.

International Trade Stakeholders

The directive to craft a comprehensive seafood trade strategy signifies potential gains for international trade intermediaries dealing with seafood products. These stakeholders could enjoy clearer trade policies and reduced export barriers, offering competitive market access and enhancing the global reputation of U.S. seafood.

Who Suffers

Regulatory Bodies and Administrative Challenges

Federal agencies tasked with implementing the EO may experience increased workload and tight timelines due to intensified interagency coordination requirements. There is also the inherent challenge of balancing expedited processes with the need to maintain comprehensive environmental reviews. Any administrative misalignments could lead to bottlenecks, negatively impacting agency efficacy and oversight quality.

Environmental Advocacy Groups

There could be significant pushback from environmental advocacy groups concerned with the EO’s inclination towards reducing regulatory barriers, which can sometimes result in weakened protections for aquatic ecosystems. The pressure to hasten permits and cut perceived red tape could inadvertently risk inadequate environmental assessments.

Import-dependent Seafood Industries

Industries heavily reliant on seafood imports might incur short-term disruptions or increased compliance costs resulting from enhanced regulatory scrutiny of foreign seafood. The EO's emphasis on aligning international seafood safety standards to domestic levels could compel these industries to undertake adjustments to meet compliance requirements.

International Seafood Producers

Foreign seafood exporters to the U.S. may see heightened entry barriers due to stringent enforcement of the same standards imposed on domestic products. This regulatory paralleled emphasis might introduce additional compliance costs and operational complexities, impacting their market competitiveness.

Non-Domestic Fisheries

Non-U.S. fisheries engaged in illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing practices will face intensified scrutiny and enforcement measures. As the EO aims to curtail these activities, such entities could encounter heightened resistance from international coalitions, impacting their operational viability and trade capabilities.

Historical Context

Precedents and Deregulatory Initiatives

EO 13921 represents a continuation of President Trump's broader deregulatory agenda, advancing the administration's goals of reducing bureaucratic encumbrances in various sectors, including environmental protections. This aligns with other executive actions taken to streamline processes and enhance economic productivity within traditionally regulated industries such as energy and manufacturing.

Evolving Fisheries Policy Trends

The emphasis on aquaculture reflects a growing trend under the Trump administration and preceding administrations to augment the nation’s food security through enhanced domestic production capabilities. Historical policies have slowly recognized the importance of aquaculture due to overfishing and biodiversity loss in wild-capture fisheries, thus embracing regulated aquaculture as a strategically viable alternative.

Alignment with International Trade Tactics

EO 13921’s focus on fair and reciprocal seafood trade is in line with Trump’s protectionist trade policies that characterized his administration. From imposing tariffs to renegotiating trade deals, prioritizing U.S. industry interests was a staple objective, thereby translating into trade strategies that aimed to leverage U.S. seafood's global competitiveness.

Environmental Considerations and Backlash

The EO exists within a larger context of conversation around environmental regulations. Trump's tenure witnessed active efforts to dismantle previous environmental policies that were perceived as stifling economic progress. This EO fits into that spectrum, seeking to reduce perceived over-regulation while setting a tone of job creation and economic rejuvenation, albeit with criticism from environmentalists.

National Security and Resource Sovereignty

The attention to illegal fishing ties into national security paradigms, similarly emphasized across broader Trump administration policies to secure American resources and curb illegal activities. Maritime domain awareness was a recurring theme as the U.S. navigated its geopolitical interests, asserting sovereignty, and securing resources through stringent policies.

Potential Controversies or Challenges

Legal Disputes and Environmental Concerns

A prominent controversy surrounding EO 13921 stems from environmental groups advocating for rigorous scrutiny of projects potentially harmful to ecosystems. Legal challenges could arise from perceived inadequacies in environmental impact assessments expedited as per the EO’s direction. Past disputes related to expedited NEPA reviews could foreshadow similar litigation challenging the balance between regulatory efficiency and environmental stewardship.

State-Federal Jurisdictional Clashes

There's a potential for jurisdictional challenges between state and federal authorities, particularly concerning aquaculture development along coastal waters. Differing environmental regulations and priorities could clash, especially where state policies impose stricter standards than federal guidelines suggest, potentially leading to interstate legal challenges or conflicts in resource management strategies.

International Trade Disagreements

International trade partners might contest the EO if it leads to perceived trade imbalances due to the increased regulatory demands on foreign seafood. This could escalate to disputes within trade agreements or organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO), where trade barriers might be scrutinized under fair trade principles, risking retaliatory measures from impacted nations.

Implementation and Compliance Challenges

Practical challenges in executing the EO's extensive requirements for interagency cooperation might also hinder effective implementation. Aligning various departments with disparate mandates and resources could stretch capabilities thinly, resulting in partial compliance or delays. Efficiency mandates notwithstanding, agencies must still work within their statutory mandates, which could lead to operational friction.

Public Perception and Transparency

Public skepticism around the transparency and accountability of streamlined regulatory processes could form yet another axis of challenge. Stakeholder engagement and community apprehensions—concerning the implications for biodiversity, food safety, and local economies—may generate political and social pressures, affecting EO benchmarks and timelines.