Marine Mammal Protection Act: NOAA Fisheries Lets Foreign Fishermen Off Easy

On Tuesday, NOAA Fisheries announced which foreign fisheries are permitted to continue selling to American consumers under the import provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The announcement continues the application of weaker standards to foreign seafood suppliers compared to what is required of American fishermen. Foreign fleets are permitted access to the U.S. market while operating under conditions that would shut down U.S. commercial fisheries.

 

About the Law

The MMPA was enacted in 1972 and its import provisions will be enforced broadly for the first time on January 1, 2026.

After decades of inaction, environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) petitioned NOAA Fisheries to enforce the MMPA’s import provisions in 2008.  In response, the agency began a rulemaking process and, as the agency observes, “[t]he U.S. commercial fishing industry supported the rulemaking because it wanted fisheries in other nations to be subject to the same standards of marine mammal conservation as U.S. commercial fisheries.”

Despite broad support for enforcement of the MMPA’s import provisions, NOAA Fisheries did not take action to fully implement the rule until this year while continuing to rigorously enforce the MMPA on domestic commercial fisheries.

Under the MMPA, it is unlawful to import seafood “caught in a manner which the [federal government] has proscribed for persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, whether or not any marine mammals were in fact taken incident to the catching of the fish.” (16 U.S.C. § 1372(c)(3)).  The MMPA further requires the U.S. government to “ban the importation of commercial fish or products from fish which have been caught with commercial fishing technology which results in the incidental kill or incidental serious injury of ocean mammals in excess of United States standards.” (16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(2)).

Simply put, at the time of its enactment over half a century ago, the MMPA set the same rules for everyone.

“The MMPA’s intent is clear: if American fishermen can’t do it, neither can foreign fishermen,” said John Williams, executive director of the Southern Shrimp Alliance. “After 50 years of non-enforcement, NOAA finally acts – only to rubber-stamp foreign operations that would never pass muster for a U.S. fishery.”

While U.S. commercial fishermen operate under strict observer requirements, gear restrictions, and constant monitoring, NOAA Fisheries has approved foreign competitors with:

• Documented adverse impacts on marine mammal populations
• Questionable or missing observer programs
• Claims of zero interactions with any marine mammals that simply cannot be true

 

Legality of Methodology in Doubt

Last week, the U.S. Court of International Trade issued a ruling holding that NOAA Fisheries’ affirmative comparability finding under the MMPA’s import provisions for New Zealand’s commercial fisheries was unlawful.  Reviewing the agency’s decision memorandum regarding that comparability determination, the federal court found that NOAA Fisheries had failed to:

• Establish that the Government of New Zealand regulated commercial fisheries with anything comparable to the zero mortality goal of the MMPA;
• Assess whether the Government of New Zealand employed a standard in regulating commercial fisheries comparable to the negligible impact standard required by the MMPA;
• Identify any evidence underpinning the conclusion that the Government of New Zealand enforced a bycatch limit comparable to what the agency imposed on U.S. commercial fisheries under the MMPA;
• Support the conclusion that the monitoring programs employed by the Government of New Zealand involving critically endangered species were comparable to that imposed by the agency on U.S. fishermen;
• Explain how the Government of New Zealand’s stock assessment program for marine mammals was comparable to United States standards; and
• Address record evidence that New Zealand’s commercial fisheries had bycatch of several marine mammal species.

 

The Court heavily criticized the lack of reference to any evidence supporting the conclusions reached by NOAA Fisheries.

Similarly, minimal support was provided by the agency for the comparability determinations issued by NOAA Fisheries yesterday.  As with the comparability determination on New Zealand, the agency’s public release fails to explain how foreign fisheries are regulated by anything comparable to the requirements imposed on domestic commercial fishermen.

 

Overall Findings for Shrimp Fisheries

Over 98% of the value of imported wild-caught warmwater shrimp in 2024 came from just seven countries. NOAA Fisheries approved almost all of their operations, even when those same fisheries have been documented as harming marine mammals:

• Argentina (61.3% of total wild-caught shrimp imports) – Approved
• Mexico (25.4%) – Approved, except for blue shrimp and yellowleg shrimp fisheries
• Ecuador (4.9%) – Approved
• Peru (2.3%) – Approved
• Panama (1.8%) – Approved
• Nigeria (1.5%) – Approved
• Guyana (1.0%) – Approved

 

While NOAA Fisheries denied a “comparability” finding for commercial shrimp fisheries in Bangladesh, Chile, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Mozambique, Senegal, Somalia, South Korea, and Turkey, these ten countries collectively only exported roughly $540,000 in wild-caught shrimp to the U.S. market last year.

 

Examples of the Double Standards

A cursory review of NOAA Fisheries’ comparability determinations raises substantial concerns about the standard applied by the agency to these foreign shrimp fisheries:

• Argentine Red Shrimp (Fishery ID # 53): The Monterey Bay Aquarium advises consumers to “avoid” Argentine red shrimp because, in part, of its adverse impact on marine mammal populations. NOAA Fisheries issued a Final Report approving it anyway without addressing this concern.
• Mexico’s Gulf Shrimp Fisheries (Fishery ID # 1866 and 1867): NOAA Fisheries approved two Mexican trawl operations, claiming they’re “analogous to the Southeast U.S. shrimp trawl fishery, which is a Category 2 fishery on the U.S. List of Fisheries and is comparable given its observer monitoring.”  However, the Final Report only identifies an observer program in place for one of these two fisheries (Fishery ID # 1867). NOAA Fisheries also repeats, without further comment, an unbelievable claim from the Government of Mexico that “there are no documented interactions with marine mammals in [the shrimp trawl] fishery.” 
• Peru’s Marine Shrimp Fishery (Fishery ID # 2197): Last year, the Southern Shrimp Alliance and the Port Arthur Area Shrimpers’ Association jointly petitioned the U.S. Department of State to revoke the Section 609 certification awarded to Peru’s shrimp fisheries based on reports of incidental takes of sea turtles and a lack of any evidence that measures had been adopted by the Peruvian government to mitigate this harm.  In May, the State Department revoked Peru’s Section 609 certification “because its sea turtle protection program is no longer comparable to that of the United States.”  Published reports also indicate that commercial fisheries in Peru have adversely impacted marine mammal populations, yet NOAA Fisheries issued a comparability finding despite noting that there is no observer program in place for the country’s commercial shrimp fishery.    

 

Bottom Line for U.S. Fisheries

NOAA Fisheries evaluated roughly 2,500 different commercial fisheries in 135 countries. Beginning on January 1, 2026, seafood from some foreign commercial fisheries will be banned for failing to qualify for a “comparability” finding.

Most of this seafood is from small players that barely export to the United States anyway. For example, NOAA Fisheries reported that the eight countries that applied for comparability findings but were denied for all fisheries collectively shipped roughly 0.05% of the total value of edible seafood imports into the United States last year, valued at less than $13 million.

The largest foreign wild-caught seafood suppliers who compete with American fishermen for sales in the U.S. market? They’re mostly getting a pass from NOAA Fisheries with standards far below what must be met by U.S. commercial fisheries.

In the Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness Executive Order of April 17^th, President Trump explained that: “Most American fish stocks are healthy and have viable markets. Despite these opportunities, seafood is one of the most heavily regulated sectors in the United States. Federal overregulation has restricted fishermen from productively harvesting American seafood . . .”  The imbalance between what NOAA Fisheries demands under the MMPA from U.S. commercial fisheries versus foreigners supplying our market is inconsistent with the goals of the Executive Order.  

“American fishermen who operate under strict restrictions imposed to protect marine mammals should not be forced to compete for sales in the U.S. market against foreign fishermen who face no similar limitations,” said Blake Price, SSA’s Deputy Director and former gear development fisheries biologist for the NOAA Fisheries Harvesting Systems Unit. “Protecting migratory marine mammals from harm in U.S. waters, but welcoming seafood from foreign commercial fishing industries that kill those same marine mammals while outside of U.S. waters makes little sense.”