Regulatory Cost Analysis

Click here for fact sheets and infographics.

Competitiveness of U.S. Aquaculture within the Current U.S. Regulatory Framework

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13657305.2013.812158

Increased attention has been paid in recent years to both positive and negative effects of increasing numbers of regulations on businesses in the United States. The decline in U.S. aquaculture has been attributed in part to increasing volumes of imports and high feed prices. However, there is increasing concern that the U.S. regulatory environment, as compared to that of international competitors, may also have contributed to this decline. More than 1,300 laws apply to U.S. aquaculture and even though the majority has been issued by individual states and apply only to specific types of aquaculture businesses in that state, the cumulative regulatory burden has increased over time.

The Costs of Regulations on US Baitfish and Sportfish Producers

Open Access – https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jwas.12416

The US regulatory environment has been characterized as complex due to the greater than 1300 laws promulgated at local, state, and federal levels. Recent declines in the growth rate of US aquaculture have been attributed, in part, to a complex, overlapping, and inefficient regulatory framework. This study is the first to examine this question by quantifying the farm‐level regulatory burden and its economic effects in an aquaculture industry sector. A survey was conducted of baitfish and sportfish producers in the 13 major production states in the USA to identify the direct and indirect costs of regulation on producers.

Effects of Regulations on Technical Efficiency of U.S. Baitfish and Sportfish Producers

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13657305.2018.1454539?journalCode=uaqm20

The stringency of the regulatory environment has been shown to negatively affect the growth of aquaculture. A technical efficiency analysis of baitfish/sportfish production in the United States was performed using a stochastic production frontier model and a jointly estimated maximum-likelihood procedure.

Is There an Economic Incentive for Farmer Participation in a Uniform Health Standard for Aquaculture Farms? An Empirical Case Study

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167587717308322

The growth of aquaculture, both in terms of the volume of production and the diversity of species and production systems, has created challenges for effective animal health policies. This paper presents results of a case study of the costs to a sector of U.S. aquaculture in which producers raising fish that are sold and shipped live contend with widely differing requirements for testing and certification of aquatic animal health. These are compared to related costs under a proposed uniform standard.

Regulatory Costs on US Salmonid Farmers

Open Access – https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jwas.12604

The economic effects of the implementation of regulations on aquaculture farms in the United States, while of concern, are not well understood. A national survey was conducted of salmonid (trout and salmon) farms in 17 states of the United States to measure on‐farm regulatory costs and to identify which regulations were the most costly to this industry segment.

Regulatory Costs on Pacific coast shellfish farms

Open Access – https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13657305.2020.1781293

A survey was conducted of the Pacific coast shellfish industry (Washington, Oregon, and California) to assess the on-farm economic effects of regulations. The total annual regulatory burden for the Pacific coast, excluding non-cash opportunity costs, was estimated at $15.6 million (increased farm costs due to regulation), with an additional $110 million in annual lost sales revenue (markets lost due to regulatory action or trade barriers) and $169.9 million in additional lost opportunities (due to regulatory barriers to expansion or diversification); average annual costs were estimated to be $240,621 per farm and $68,936 per hectare.