The administration of U.S. Donald Trump has set plans in motion to shutter the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in a move that some experts are warning will have long-lasting effects on the U.S.’s own seafood sector.
Kevin Fitzsimmons, an aquaculture specialist and an environmental science professor at the University of Arizona, has consulted on USAID aquaculture projects in Myanmar, among other locations, and said that the recent funding freeze will have negative ripple effects across the globe.
“Efforts to carefully control overharvesting of fisheries resources and efforts put forth by aquaculture projects to become more careful with available resources are being cut. The short-term gains for deregulating fisheries will be followed by overharvest in coming years. The de-regulators will certainly have moved on before having to accept any blame,” he told SeafoodSource. “The U.S. aquaculture sector, meanwhile, will suffer from a lack of trained staff in coming years and research on improved techniques, technologies, and new species will be delayed. Countries that continue to invest in fisheries and aquaculture will reap the benefits, and U.S. industries will fall further back behind China, Vietnam, Europe, and others.”
As for Fitzsimmons’s own projects, he has seen their budgets “shredded” by the cuts to U.S. foreign aid spending and sees even further cuts pending.
“This entails frozen funds, staff layoffs, and scrambling around to find alternative funding for students. One of my projects was canceled ‘with no opportunity for appeal of the decision.’ In another, the funds are frozen, and the USAID person coordinating the program has been ordered to return to the U.S.,” he said. “In the larger sphere, projects are being canceled and frozen that affect all kinds of fisheries and aquaculture efforts. I have been on the phone with and emailed various agencies and project leaders, and the most common response is, ‘I wish I knew more and could answer your questions.’ There seems to have been no planning or thought given to process or procedure.”
Fitzsimmons added that even though some project contracts have wording about reimbursement, the lack of planning or thought given to process or procedure to which he referred leaves that possible compensation in limbo.
“My university has to spend the funds first and request reimbursement. All expenses are audited by the university and then the federal agency,” he said. “At present, we do not even know if funds spent on the contract will be reimbursed as was in the contract signed by the university and the federal government.”
USAID-backed projects have focused on improving myriad seafood issues, including combating illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and bolstering fisheries management and labor standards.
For example, in 2015, then-Secretary of State John Kerry announced the USAID Oceans program, which aimed to combat IUU activities through strengthened fisheries management, digitization of documents, and “increased attention to human welfare and gender equity issues within the fisheries sector.”
Additionally, U.S.-based firm Tetra Tech led the implementation of a regional collaboration between USAID, the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, the Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries, and Food Security, and 10 member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
Another project that enjoyed USAID backing – the Joint Analytical Cell (JAC) – was a collaboration by three data-driven campaign groups aiming to give lower-income coastal nations better access to fisheries intelligence, data analysis, and capacity building assistance in the battle against IUU fishing.
More recently, USAID invested more than USD 73 million (EUR 70 million) “to conserve marine biodiversity and promote sustainable fisheries in priority biodiversity areas” in fiscal year 2022, with the funding spread over 25 countries, including in Peru, Ecuador, and the Philippines. The agency also invested USD 23 million (EUR 22 million) in efforts to combat IUU fishing that year.
Fitzsimmons views U.S. aid programs, though sending money to other countries, as ultimately benefiting the U.S. and unintentionally furthering goals that even the Trump administration has laid out, such as limiting immigration.
“USAID, Peace Corps, Farmer to Farmer volunteers, and more have supported hundreds of thousands of small businesses to start up and build free market economies that have raised the standard of living for millions around the world,” he said. “These kept potential migrants in their home countries and turned many into consumers of U.S. trucks, boats, and farm tools. I can guarantee that lack of U.S. investment will induce them to buy from China or the E.U. instead.”
Others besides Fitzsimmons are also worried about the impact USAID cuts may have on projects seeking to improve labor standards in fisheries.
“It is too early to understand the ramifications in the short to medium terms or the impact of the unintended consequences,” David Hammond, executive director at U.K.-based Human Rights at Sea International, said. “But, the historic lack of funding to drive and improve human rights’ protections at sea remains of deep concern to all those of us who wish to assure human sustainability alongside environmental sustainability at sea.”
