Forced Labor: Better Communication Could Improve Trade Enforcement Efforts Related to Seafood

The United States, which relies on imports for most of the seafood it consumes, imported about $40 billion in fishery products in 2018. Seafood imports often involve complex supply chains, which may include forced labor. A 2017 United Nations report estimated that there are 24.9 million people in forced labor around the world, 12 percent of whom work in the agriculture and fishing sectors.

Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended in 2016, prohibits the importation of goods, including seafood, produced or manufactured, wholly or in part, in any foreign country by forced labor, among other things.

GAO was asked to review CBP's enforcement of section 307. This report examines (1) the process CBP uses to enforce section 307 for seafood imports and the results of its civil enforcement actions; and (2) the external sources of information CBP uses to help carry out enforcement of section 307 for seafood imports and stakeholder perspectives on CBP's communication of its information needs. GAO reviewed laws and CBP documents pertaining to section 307 enforcement and interviewed officials from CBP, other federal agencies, and 18 NGO stakeholders. GAO selected NGOs with various goals and missions related to seafood and forced labor.

The Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) uses a four-phase process to enforce section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which prohibits imports produced with forced labor, including seafood. CBP's Forced Labor Division, established in 2018, largely carries out this process. In phase 1, CBP assesses leads when deciding to initiate a case involving potential forced labor. In phase 2, CBP investigates cases using a variety of information to determine whether evidentiary standards have been met. In phase 3, CBP reviews information for legal sufficiency and, in phase 4, may take action at a port of entry to detain imports in violation by issuing a withhold release order. Between 2016 and March 2020, CBP issued one order for seafood, prohibiting tuna shipments from a specific fishing vessel from entering U.S. commerce.

CBP uses information from external sources to help enforce section 307 for seafood imports but may miss opportunities to obtain key information from stakeholders. CBP officials said they use media reports and information from federal agencies and stakeholders to develop forced labor cases. For example, CBP initiated the case that resulted in the seafood order based partly on media reports and investigated it using vessel data from the Department of Commerce. CBP officials said that stakeholders such as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) often have firsthand accounts of forced labor—valuable information for investigations. However, most stakeholders told GAO that they do not have a clear understanding of the information CBP needs to investigate seafood cases because CBP has not communicated such information. For example, CBP's website provides general information about what individuals can submit if forced labor is suspected but does not provide specific types of information that could be useful. With better communication to stakeholders about the types of information it needs to develop forced labor cases, CBP may be able to improve its enforcement efforts.

GAO recommends that CBP better communicate to stakeholders the types of information stakeholders could collect and submit to CBP to help the agency initiate and investigate forced labor cases related to seafood and, as appropriate, other goods. CBP agreed with GAO's recommendation.

The U.S. government and others have raised concerns about the use of  forced labor in various points of the seafood supply chain, which includes  commercial fishing vessels and seafood processing plants. For example,  in 2015, several media reports identified significant problems with forced  labor used in shrimp peeling sheds in Thailand and aboard fishing  vessels operating offshore from southeastern Asian countries. A 2017  United Nations International Labor Office report estimated that there are  24.9 million people in forced labor around the world, 12 percent of whom  work in the agriculture and fishing sectors. Additionally, the U.S.  Department of State’s 2019 Trafficking in Persons report identified more  than 40 countries with human trafficking associated with the seafood  supply chain.

The United States relies on imports for much of the seafood it consumes.  For instance, in 2018, the United States imported about $40 billion of  fishery products, including fresh, frozen, and canned seafood as well as  fish byproducts such as oil and fishmeal. According to the Department of  Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),  approximately 90 percent of the seafood eaten in the United States  comes from abroad.

In 2016, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015  (TFTEA) was enacted. The act, among other things, amended section  307 of the Tariff Act of 1930. As amended, section 307 prohibits the  importation of goods, wares, articles, and merchandise that has been  mined, produced, or manufactured, wholly or in part, in any foreign  country by forced labor. The Department of Homeland Security’s U.S.  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for enforcement of  section 307 and has the authority to detain shipments at a U.S. port of  entry to determine compliance with U.S. law, including whether imports  may be in violation of section 307. In enforcing potential section 307  violations, CBP may use information compiled by other federal agencies,  including the Department of Labor, Department of State, and NOAA. CBP  may also use information from stakeholders, such as nongovernmental  organizations (NGOs) and the public.

You asked us to review CBP’s enforcement of section 307 to combat  forced labor for seafood imports. This report examines (1) the process  CBP uses to enforce section 307 for seafood imports and the results of its  civil enforcement actions, and (2) the external sources of information CBP  uses to help carry out enforcement of section 307 specific to seafood  imports and stakeholder perspectives on CBP’s communication of its  information needs.

To examine the process CBP uses to enforce section 307 for seafood  imports, we reviewed laws, regulations, documents, and data pertaining  to CBP’s section 307 enforcement. We also interviewed CBP officials in  the Office of Trade and Office of Field Operations who are involved in  forced labor enforcement. In reviewing agency documents and  interviewing CBP officials, we identified steps in CBP’s process to enforce  section 307.

To describe the results of CBP’s civil enforcement actions, we reviewed  enforcement actions CBP took from February 2016—when TFTEA was  enacted—through March 2020, the most recently available information at  the time of our review. We reviewed the list of civil enforcement actions  pertaining to all commodities that CBP published on its website. In  addition, we collected and analyzed information specific to seafood from a  spreadsheet that CBP uses to track cases, which contains information on  all of its active, suspended, and inactive forced labor investigations  pertaining to section 307. CBP provided us with updated versions of this  case-tracking spreadsheet in July 2019, November 2019, and March  2020. We assessed the reliability of the data by discussing each  seafood case with CBP officials to understand the data represented in the  various fields, such as how the seafood case originated and the outcome  of the case. Based on our interviews with CBP officials, we determined  that the seafood case data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of  describing CBP’s enforcement actions.

To describe the external sources of information CBP uses to help carry  out enforcement of section 307 specific to seafood imports, we  interviewed CBP officials to learn about the types of information they  obtain from external sources and how CBP uses that information. We  also interviewed various federal agencies and stakeholders who collect  information that could be relevant to CBP’s enforcement of section 307.  We identified these agencies by interviewing CBP officials about who they  interact with for information on section 307 cases.

Federal agencies. We interviewed officials from the Department of  Justice, Department of Labor, Department of State, NOAA, U.S.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Agency for  International Development to understand what information on forced  labor these agencies collect and share with CBP. We also reviewed  the Departments of State and Labor’s reports on human trafficking  and forced labor and documents from NOAA that CBP could use to  help carry out enforcement of section 307.

Stakeholders. We interviewed representatives from 18 NGOs, each  of which has interests in various aspects of forced labor in the  seafood industry. We selected NGOs using internet searches for  groups that have an interest in seafood and forced labor and  recommendations from federal agency officials and NGO  representatives we interviewed. More specifically, we selected NGOs  with various goals and missions, including (1) helping U.S. seafood  importers remain compliant with section 307 or (2) assisting survivors  of forced labor overseas. We asked representatives from each of the  NGOs we interviewed a standard set of questions that addressed,  among other things, information they share with CBP.

To examine stakeholder perspectives on CBP’s communication of  information needs to enforce section 307 for seafood, we reviewed CBP  documents and interviewed CBP officials about how they communicate  their information needs to stakeholders, specifically regarding the types of  information they need to initiate and investigate forced labor cases.  Additionally, we interviewed representatives of 18 NGOs about the extent  to which they understood CBP’s information needs for enforcement of  section 307, the extent to which they shared information with CBP about  potential forced labor they identified, and factors that may affect sharing  information with CBP. Statements these stakeholders made are not  generalizable to all stakeholders but provide perspectives on information  related to enforcing section 307. We also compared the agency’s existing  communication efforts to federal standards for internal control, as  appropriate. Appendix I provides more detailed information on our  objectives, scope, and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2019 to June 2020  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing and Forced Labor

Prevalence of Forced Labor in Thailand  A 2020 report by the United Nation’s  International Labor Organization included  research on hundreds of Thai workers  employed on seafood vessels or in processing  facilities. The report found that nearly 10  percent of interviewees shared circumstances  of involuntary work and coercion that, taken  together, constituted forced labor. The report  concluded that if its selection of interviewees is  representative of workers employed across the  Thai seafood industry, it would indicate that  tens of thousands of workers in Thai fishing  and seafood processing are working in forced  labor conditions.

Fishing activities are vulnerable to a number of illicit practices, including  illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and forced labor. IUU  fishing is a broad term that includes a variety of fishing activities with  social, economic, and environmental impacts and concerns all aspects  and stages of the capture and marketing of fish, according to the United  Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization. Examples of IUU activities  include fishing without a license or in excess of quota for certain species;  failing to report catches or making false reports on catches; and  conducting unauthorized transshipments, such as transfers of fish to  cargo vessels at sea or port, according to NOAA. IUU fishing poses a  threat to food security and socioeconomic stability in many parts of the  world, according to NOAA documents, and many crew members on  fishing vessels that engage in IUU fishing are from poor or  underdeveloped areas. In addition, the Food and Agriculture Organization  has noted that activities of those engaging in IUU fishing can constitute,  lead to, or be associated with organized crime or other crimes, such as  human trafficking, that may include forced labor.

The International Labor Organization—an agency within the United  Nations that, among other things, sets labor standards—has identified  common indicators of forced labor in any work sector, as shown in figure  1. The presence of a single indicator in a given situation may, in some  cases, indicate the existence of forced labor; in other cases, several  indicators taken together may point to forced labor, according to an  International Labor Organization document.

Forced labor can occur at various points along the seafood supply  chain—which can be long and complex—with limited visibility at various  points, making it difficult to detect (see fig. 2). For example, forced labor  may occur if workers are held on fishing vessels for long durations without  adequate breaks or the ability to return to land. It may also occur in later  stages of seafood processing, such as during filleting and canning the fish  for export and sale to consumer, according to an NGO report.  Additionally, various NGO reports indicate that during the harvesting and  processing stages, seafood caught with forced labor may be combined  with legally caught seafood, making illegal shipments more difficult to  identify. For example, companies may combine catches from several  smaller boats onto a bigger vessel before transporting it to shore for  processing. Moreover, some seafood supply chains have an additional  layer of complexity because low-value fish may not be directly exported  but, rather, used as feed for farm-raised seafood that could eventually be  imported into the United States. Forced labor related to this type of  situation can be difficult to detect because the source of feed for farm- raised fish is an early step in a supply chain that occurs well before the  seafood is imported into the United States, according to CBP officials.

Laws and Regulations Relevant to Detaining Seafood Imports Produced by Forced Labor and Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing

Federal law prohibits the import of goods made with forced labor. In  particular, section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 prohibits the importation of  goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or  manufactured, wholly or in part, in any foreign country by convict labor,  forced labor, or indentured labor under penal sanctions. TFTEA,  enacted in February 2016, among other things, amended section 307 of  the Tariff Act of 1930 by repealing an exception referred to as the  consumptive demand clause. The consumptive demand clause  permitted the importation of certain forced labor-produced goods if they  were not produced “in such quantities in the United States as to meet the  consumptive demands of the United States.” determination that merchandise was produced with forced labor in  violation of section 307, the Commissioner will publish a formal finding.

Various other laws and regulations are also relevant to IUU fishing and  the importation of illegally harvested seafood into the United States. For  example, under the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Act, among  other things, the Secretary of Commerce is charged with identifying and  certifying countries that have fishing vessels engaged in IUU. According  to NOAA officials, a negative certification may result in restrictions on the  importation of some fish and fish products at a port of entry. NOAA also  administers and enforces a number of statutes that include prohibitions  on the importation of illegally harvested seafood, most notably the  Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the  Lacey Act.

Under these authorities and others, NOAA enforces a number of trade  monitoring programs. For example, NOAA administers the Seafood  Import Monitoring Program (SIMP), which establishes permitting, data  reporting, and recordkeeping procedures for the importation of 13 species  of fish and fish products identified as being at particular risk of IUU fishing  or seafood fraud. NOAA also implements the Tuna Tracking and  Verification Program, which monitors domestic cannery production and  importation of all frozen and processed tuna products to ensure  compliance with federal requirements regarding dolphin-safe  certification.

Federal Agencies’ and Stakeholder Involvement and Interest in Forced Labor and Seafood- Related Efforts

A number of federal agencies and stakeholders are involved in or have an  interest in forced labor and seafood-related efforts. In particular, CBP is  responsible for enforcing violations of section 307 as part of its overall  efforts to deter and detect violations of U.S. customs and trade laws at  the more than 300 ports of entry into the United States. CBP’s  enforcement efforts include, but are not limited to, actions to identify,  detain, seize or exclude illegitimate imports, including imports produced  by forced labor, counterfeits, and goods evading customs duties. After  passage of TFTEA in 2016, CBP initiated new efforts to emphasize and  focus on enforcement of section 307. Specifically, CBP formally  established its Forced Labor Division in March 2018, within its Office of  Trade. Since its inception, the Forced Labor Division has grown in size,  according to CBP officials, with about 12 staff onboard as of the end of  2019, mainly comprised of analysts and international trade specialists.

The Forced Labor Division does not have staff in other countries, but CBP  can leverage foreign attachés from other CBP offices, to the extent they  are available, to assist with enforcement of section 307, according to CBP  officials. Staff in the Forced Labor Division also collaborate with others  throughout CBP, including the Office of Field Operations, which, among  other things, oversees operations at U.S. ports.

Other federal agencies, such as the Department of State and the  Department of Labor, conduct activities and collect information related to  forced labor. According to CBP officials, CBP may use information from  these federal agencies to help support its enforcement of section 307 for  particular cases, including those involving seafood. Also, since the  enactment of TFTEA in 2016, a number of working groups or task forces  have been established, primarily involving U.S. federal agencies, to share  information collected related to forced labor and imports, in general, as  well as illegal activities involving fishing more specifically, in some cases  (see app. II).

In addition, numerous stakeholders, such as NGOs, also have an interest  in combating forced labor, including forced labor related to the seafood  industry. Often stakeholders’ interests in forced labor include other human  rights issues or are broader than specific commodities such as seafood.  Stakeholders may provide a variety of services to advocate for workers  and identify potential forced labor. For example, some NGOs investigate  potential human rights abuses of workers in the seafood industry while  others focus on collecting data to help other interested stakeholders  identify cases of forced labor. Other NGOs may work with importers who  have interests in corporate social responsibility by helping them identify  potential issues in their supply chain and comply with U.S. laws, including  section 307.

CBP’s Process to Enforce Section 307 Has Resulted in One Seafood-Related Withhold Release Order as of March 2020 CBP Uses a Four-Phase Process to Enforce Violations of Seafood and Other Imports Produced with Forced Labor under Section 307

CBP enforces section 307 involving seafood imports generally following  the same process it uses for any other goods suspected of being  produced with forced labor imported into the United States, such as  apparel, electronics, or consumer products. CBP carries out its process  through its Forced Labor Division, in collaboration with other offices  across CBP. According to CBP documents and officials, the process CBP  uses to enforce section 307 generally includes four phases: (1) assessing  leads to determine whether to initiate a case; (2) investigating cases; (3)  reviewing information for legal sufficiency to propose a WRO; and (4)  implementing the WRO and detaining shipments (see fig. 3). An importer  has several options if CBP detains its shipment, including contesting the  WRO or deciding not to enter the good into U.S. commerce.

Phase 1: Initiation. CBP analysts within the Forced Labor Division  assess leads for credibility when deciding whether to initiate cases  involving potential forced labor at any point in the supply chain for a  particular good. According to CBP officials, an analyst would examine,  for example, whether an allegation made by an external party is  credible, the goods in question are being imported into the United  States, and sufficient information is available on potential forced labor  to initiate and build a case. CBP officials told us that they do not have  the resources to gather firsthand information on labor practices such  as on fishing vessels or processing operations overseas, but that they  can initiate cases based on information obtained from external  sources. For example, CBP may receive information through its e- allegations system, which is CBP’s online mechanism for the public to  report any suspected violations of trade laws or regulations related to  the importation of goods into the United States. In addition, CBP  may receive an allegation directly from external entities, such as  NGOs; letters from industry or other concerned parties; and  information from other U.S. government agencies. Publicly available  information, such as media reports or NGO publications, can also  serve as leads for CBP to self-initiate a case. If CBP’s initial  evaluation shows further evaluation is warranted, CBP initiates a case  and moves to the next phase.

Phase 2: Investigation. CBP analysts investigate cases by collecting  information from various sources to help determine whether the  evidence “reasonably but not conclusively” indicates that goods being  imported into the United States were produced with forced labor,  according to CBP officials. For example, analysts may ask other  federal agencies for information, such as import data, or speak with  NGOs that may have information about a particular good or supply  chain overseas. CBP officials also said they may investigate the  strength of the information collected as part of their case  development. In doing so, they said the Forced Labor Division uses  the International Labor Organization’s forced labor indicators, among  other standards, to help evaluate the sufficiency of evidence for forced  labor conditions. If there is insufficient evidence to continue  investigating a case, the Forced Labor Division may either close or  suspend it pending further information, according to CBP officials. If  there is sufficient evidence to propose a WRO, the case moves to the  next phase.

Phase 3: Legal review. CBP’s Forced Labor Division prepares a  package, which includes an assessment of evidence and a  justification for a proposed WRO for the goods suspected to be  produced with forced labor, and submits it to CBP’s Office of Chief  Counsel for legal review. To propose a WRO, CBP officials said that  the package must provide sufficient evidence to reasonably but not  conclusively indicate a violation of section 307. This entails having  sufficient supply chain information showing importation of a good  harvested, produced, or otherwise manufactured with forced labor,  according to CBP officials. During its legal review, the Office of Chief  Counsel may request additional information or have discussions with  the Forced Labor Division. If the Office of Chief Counsel determines  there is insufficient evidence to proceed with a WRO, then the Forced  Labor Division may choose to close the case or suspend it and  consider whether to seek additional information for the case. If the  Office of Chief Counsel determines there is sufficient evidence to  proceed with a WRO, then the Forced Labor Division prepares a  WRO package to be presented to the CBP Commissioner for review  and approval.

Phase 4: Implementation. Once the CBP Commissioner issues a  WRO, CBP is responsible for implementing the parameters of the  WRO. According to CBP officials, numerous officials within CBP,  including those at U.S. ports and the Centers of Excellence and  Expertise, are responsible for implementation. CBP officials located  at U.S. ports screen import data to identify, hold, and detain  shipments associated with a WRO.

When CBP detains a shipment subject to a WRO at a port of entry, the  importer has the option to reexport the shipment to a different country.  Alternatively, officials said the importer can contest the detention and  provide additional information to show that the shipment did not contain  forced labor elements. If CBP determines the importer has provided  sufficient evidence, it allows the shipment to enter into U.S. commerce.  Should the importer not provide additional information, the shipment can  be excluded (not admitted into U.S. commerce) and/or seized and  destroyed in certain circumstances, according to CBP officials. A WRO  remains in place until the circumstances surrounding the original WRO  change to indicate that forced labor is no longer part of the production or  manufacturing process, and the CBP Commissioner revokes the order,  according to CBP documents. CBP officials said the agency can also  issue civil penalties to importers for forced labor violations for importing  goods in violation of section 307, where appropriate.

CBP Tracks Cases of Suspected Forced Labor Violations and Issued One Withhold Release Order for Seafood as of March 2020

CBP’s Forced Labor Division tracks its cases of suspected forced labor  violations, including seafood cases, in a case-tracking spreadsheet  throughout the various phases of the enforcement process. The  spreadsheet notes the status of each case as (1) open and active, (2)  suspended, or (3) closed/inactive. At any given time, the Forced Labor  Division may be working on a number of seafood cases that are in  various phases of the enforcement process, according to CBP officials.  Further, officials said the status of these cases changes as new  information becomes available. Data CBP provided to us showed a small  number of open and active cases as well as suspended cases that were  related to seafood. CBP officials stated that they suspended these  seafood cases partly because they lacked personnel to obtain additional  information to further investigate the cases. In other instances, they said  they may suspend cases while waiting for additional information, which  may take significant time to obtain.

From February 2016—when TFTEA was enacted—through March 2020,  CBP issued 13 WROs for goods suspected of violating section 307, of  which one involved seafood, according to CBP data (see table 1). The  seafood-related WRO was for all seafood imports caught by the fishing  vessel Tunago No. 61, registered in Vanuatu, an island nation in Oceania.  After issuing the WRO in February 2019, CBP detained multiple  shipments of seafood, according to CBP data, but revoked the order at  the end of March 2020. CBP’s other WROs cover a variety of goods  such as cotton, toys, food, and agricultural products. Six of the 13 WROs  included imports from China, while several WROs included goods from  African countries. As of March 2020, CBP officials said they had not  issued any civil penalties for forced labor violations involving seafood  imports.

CBP Uses Information from a Variety of External Sources to Enforce Section 307 for Seafood but May Be Missing Opportunities to Obtain Key Information from Stakeholders

CBP Uses Information from Media Reports, Other Federal Agencies, and Stakeholders to Initiate and Investigate Forced Labor Cases

CBP officials told us they obtain and use information from a variety of  external sources, including media reports, other federal agencies, and  stakeholders, that can help them initiate new forced labor-related cases  or advance existing ones.

CBP officials said that media reports can be a catalyst for its Forced  Labor Division to initiate or investigate a case. For example, CBP officials  noted that forced labor in Thailand’s shrimp industry had been in the  news since 2015, and in response, CBP collected additional information  from companies importing shrimp from Thailand. Additionally, the Forced  Labor Division initiated the case that resulted in the seafood-related WRO  based partially on news reporting, according to CBP officials. CBP  officials also told us that they have formed working relationships with  journalists that can be helpful in obtaining information to initiate or  investigate cases.

CBP also uses information on an as-needed basis from a variety of  federal agencies to initiate and investigate cases, according to CBP  officials.

NOAA. CBP can use certain data collected through NOAA’s trade  monitoring programs to help the agency support specific forced labor  cases for seafood, according to CBP officials. For example, in the  case of the seafood-related WRO, CBP officials told us they used  vessel names collected through NOAA’s Tuna Tracking and  Verification Program to link specific shipments of tuna to the vessel in  question, which CBP officials said was essential information to  confirm imports were being made to the United States. This  information was available because the seafood in question was one of  the species of fish subject to NOAA trade monitoring programs that  generate data CBP can access; however, not all species of fish are  included in these programs.

Through its trade monitoring programs, NOAA collects harvest-related  data, such as the name of the fishing vessel and the species of fish  caught, but NOAA officials told us the agency does not collect data  specific to labor conditions. NOAA officials and other stakeholders  said that there have been discussions regarding potentially expanding  the scope of data collected through NOAA’s trade-monitoring  programs, such as SIMP, to collect labor-related data. However, the  officials noted some potential difficulties in doing so. For example,  NOAA officials said that they would need to determine what specific  information would be feasible to collect from importers and how it  would collect, review, and validate such information. Some NOAA  officials raised concern that collecting data on labor conditions may be  outside NOAA’s mission; as such, the agency may not have a clear  use for the data once collected.

The Department of Labor. CBP officials told us they may use reports  published by the Department of Labor for context to inform section  307 investigations, including those involving seafood. CBP officials  also said they may reach out to the department on an as-needed  basis to seek additional information. According to Department of  Labor officials, the department also contacts other U.S. government  agencies, including CBP, on an ad-hoc basis to share information.

The Department of State. CBP officials said they may use reports  published by the Department of State for contextual information in  their enforcement of section 307, including investigation of cases  involving seafood. CBP officials also said that the Department of  State may include CBP in official communications from embassies  discussing potential instances of forced labor. Department of State  officials also said that they may reach out to CBP on a case-by-case  basis regarding issues of potential forced labor detected in the course  of their work overseas.

CBP officials said they may use information from stakeholders to initiate  or investigate cases. For example, CBP officials stated that they have  reached out to NGOs to obtain clarification on sources used in NGOs’  reports for specific cases. Stakeholders can also submit information or  allegations proactively to the agency. CBP officials said that firsthand  information collected in-country, including victim accounts, can be  beneficial for initiating or investigating forced labor cases. We found many  stakeholders collect such information. For example, a representative from  one NGO told us that its organization conducts interviews with laborers  from fishing vessels once the vessels dock to gather information on labor  payment practices, which can serve as an indicator of potential forced  labor.

However, CBP officials said they also face challenges using information  provided by stakeholders because information is often insufficient to  initiate or investigate a forced labor case. For example, CBP officials said  that information they receive from NGOs might not provide sufficient  detail on the supply chain that includes the alleged forced labor, including  the manufacturer or vessel committing forced labor, or the connection to a U.S. importer. Additionally, these officials told us that information from  stakeholders may conflate poor working conditions with forced labor.

CBP May Be Missing Opportunities to Obtain Key Information Stakeholders Collect Related to Seafood and Forced Labor

Firsthand Account of Abuse and Potential  Forced Labor Involving Workers on Fishing  Vessels  In its 2019 Seabound report, Greenpeace  included testimonials of migrant fishers that  detailed abuse and violent conditions on  fishing vessels: “I witnessed horrible torture.  We were working even on midnights. When  the Fishing Master was angry, he hit my  friend’s head near his left ear. After that he  was forced to continue working until the work  was finished and only then was he allowed to  rest. In the morning when we woke up for  breakfast, we found him dead in his room. The  Captain wrapped up my dead friend’s body  with a blanket and then stored him in the  freezer.”

According to stakeholders we interviewed and our review of information  on CBP’s website, CBP has not clearly communicated its information  needs externally. Representatives from 14 of the 18 NGOs we  interviewed indicated that they had some uncertainty about the types and  level of information CBP needs to investigate forced labor cases in the  seafood industry. For example, representatives from one NGO said it was  not clear what constituted a credible allegation for CBP, or what  information CBP needs to make a section 307 determination. Additionally,  representatives from two NGOs managing a grant program designed to  support nonprofit organizations collecting firsthand evidence of forced  labor said that they were unable to obtain specific guidance from CBP on  the types of information the agency needs. As a result, these  representatives said they could not communicate to potential grantees the  specific kinds of information that would be most useful to submit to CBP.  In asking CBP officials about this, CBP confirmed that the NGOs had  reached out but they misunderstood the goals of the grant program at the  time.

CBP could improve the quality of information it receives from  stakeholders, including NGOs, by better communicating what information  is most useful to initiate and investigate forced labor cases, including  those involving seafood, according to stakeholders. Of the 14  stakeholders that told us there was uncertainty, 11 indicated that  additional or clearer information about the agency’s information needs  could result in more reporting of information to CBP. For example,  representatives from one NGO said there was reluctance among  stakeholders that may have limited resources to develop an allegation  without knowing whether it is helpful, and that they would be more likely  to do so with a better understanding of CBP’s needs. Similarly,  representatives from another NGO said it is not worth dedicating the time  and resources to develop an allegation without a clear sense of the types  of information CBP is looking for to investigate its forced labor cases.  Many of these stakeholders indicated that they are collecting firsthand  information about potential forced labor in seafood supply chains in  countries where labor violations are prevalent, which is information CBP  officials told us could benefit forced labor investigations.

CBP officials said they have communicated in general about their  information needs for forced labor cases, and that requisite information  varies by case, including for seafood cases. The agency’s website  contains some information, including a reference to a regulation  identifying information individuals are to submit to CBP when making a  forced labor allegation. However, CBP does not indicate what specific  information to submit such as the timing or location of alleged forced labor  activities. Similarly, CBP does not provide examples of the type of  information—such as photos or testimonials from victims—that could be  useful information for initiating or investigating cases.

In addition, CBP officials said that their e-allegations system provides a  means for stakeholders to submit allegations of potential forced labor,  among other things, to the agency. However, as of April 2020, the  instructions for submitting an allegation do not include specifics on the  types of information CBP needs to initiate or investigate cases, such as  whether photographs or firsthand accounts of forced labor could be  helpful. CBP officials agreed with the need to better communicate to  stakeholders the types of information that are helpful for initiating or  investigating forced labor cases. They said that the Forced Labor  Division had begun considering how it might do so but, to date, had yet to  identify further details such as the approach it might take.

Federal standards for internal control establish that management should  externally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve an  agency’s objectives. For example, an agency should use appropriate  methods to communicate quality information so that external parties can  help the agency achieve its objectives. With better communication to  stakeholders about the types of information it needs to initiate and  investigate forced labor cases, CBP may be able to improve its  enforcement efforts through enhanced information from stakeholders.

The exploitation of labor in the seafood supply chain is a global issue that,  according to a recent United Nations report, affects millions of people  working in the fishing sector. With the United States importing billions of  dollars’ worth of seafood in 2018 and reliant on those imports for much of  the seafood it consumes, it is important that CBP take action to detect  and prevent imports produced with forced labor from entering the country.  Following the enactment of TFTEA in February 2016, CBP created the  Forced Labor Division and placed an increased emphasis on detecting  forced labor in imports, including seafood. CBP officials told us they do  not have the resources to gather firsthand information on labor practices.  To this end, CBP uses information from a variety of sources, including  external stakeholders such as NGOs, to initiate and investigate cases.  However, stakeholders are unclear about the types of information CBP  needs to initiate and investigate cases because CBP has not clearly  communicated this information. As a result, CBP may be missing  opportunities to obtain key information that stakeholders collect specific to  forced labor in the seafood industry—information that could enhance  CBP’s enforcement efforts.

The Acting Commissioner of CBP should better communicate to  stakeholders the types of information stakeholders could collect and  submit to CBP to help the agency initiate and investigate forced labor  cases related to seafood and, as appropriate, other goods.  (Recommendation 1)

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Commerce,  Homeland Security, Justice, Labor, State, and the U.S. Agency for  International Development for review and comment. We received written  comments from the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S.  Agency for International Development, which are reproduced in  appendixes III and IV, respectively. The Department of Homeland  Security concurred with our recommendation and noted that CBP is  committed to continued collaboration and communication with  stakeholders about the types of information needed to develop forced  labor cases and improve enforcement efforts of section 307 of the Tariff  Act of 1930, as amended. CBP described the actions it plans to take to  address the recommendation, including steps to improve collaboration  and information sharing during meetings with working groups. In addition,  the Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, Justice, Labor, and  State provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretaries of Commerce, Homeland Security, Justice,  Labor, and State; and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for  International Development. In addition, the report is available at no  charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov or Kimberly  Gianopoulos at (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov. Contact points  for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be  found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key  contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.

The objectives of this report are to examine (1) the process U.S. Customs  and Border Protection (CBP) uses to enforce section 307 for seafood  imports and the results of its civil enforcement actions and (2) the external  sources of information CBP uses to help carry out enforcement of section  307 specific to seafood imports and stakeholder perspectives on CBP’s  communication of information needs.

To examine the process the Department of Homeland Security’s CBP  uses to enforce section 307 for seafood imports, we reviewed laws,  regulations, and CBP documents and data pertaining to section 307  enforcement. These laws included section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930  and the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA).  We interviewed CBP officials from the Office of Trade and Office of Field  Operations, in both Washington, D.C., and the field, who are involved in  forced labor detection and enforcement about the steps in CBP’s process  to enforce section 307. In addition, we interviewed officials from U.S.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement to learn about their involvement in  addressing section 307. We examined CBP’s efforts to enforce section  307 since TFTEA was enacted, in February 2016, through March 2020,  the most currently available information at the time of our review. We  examined CBP’s enforcement of section 307 but did not include other  forced labor laws in the scope of our review.

To describe the results of CBP’s civil enforcement actions, we looked at  enforcement actions CBP took from February 2016—when TFTEA was  enacted—through March 2020. We reviewed CBP’s list of civil  enforcement actions pertaining to all commodities it published on its  website. In addition, we collected and analyzed information specific to  seafood from a spreadsheet that CBP uses to track cases, which contains  information on all of its active, suspended, and inactive forced labor  investigations pertaining to section 307. CBP provided us with updated  versions of this case-tracking spreadsheet in July 2019, November 2019,  and March 2020. To assess the reliability of the data, we interviewed  CBP officials about the accuracy and completeness of the data and  discussed each seafood case to understand the data represented in the  various fields, such as how the seafood case originated and what the  outcome of the case was. We also discussed in detail the information that  led to the one seafood withhold release order (WRO) CBP issued in  February 2019. Based on our interviews with CBP officials, we  determined that the seafood case data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of describing CBP’s enforcement actions.

To describe the external sources of information CBP uses to help carry  out enforcement of section 307 for seafood, we conducted interviews with  CBP officials, including officials in the Office of Trade, which includes the  Forced Labor Division, and the Office of Field Operations, to learn about  the types of information they gather from external sources and how they  might use that information. In addition, we interviewed various other  federal agencies and stakeholders that collect information that could be  relevant to CBP’s enforcement of section 307. We identified these  agencies by interviewing CBP officials about the external sources of  information they use to help enforce section 307 cases.

Federal agencies. We interviewed the following agencies:

Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration (NOAA),

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and

U.S. Agency for International Development.

We also interviewed officials from NOAA about the Seafood Import  Monitoring Program and other trade-related programs that collect data  aimed at preventing illegal, unreported, and unregulated seafood from  entering the United States. In addition, we reviewed documents provided  by NOAA that focused on trade programs that CBP could use as a source  of information to help carry out enforcement of section 307. We  interviewed officials from the Departments of State and Labor about each  agency’s reports on human trafficking and forced labor and obtained  copies of and reviewed their reports.

Stakeholders. We interviewed current and former representatives  from 18 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that have interests in  forced labor in the seafood industry. Our original scope included 19  NGOs, but we eliminated one NGO from our scope since an official  from this organization told us its responses would not vary from those  we received from a larger parent NGO, and officials we interviewed  did not have separate viewpoints on the extent to which they  understood CBP’s information needs. We identified NGOs using  internet searches for groups focused on seafood and forced labor and  the recommendations of officials from federal agencies and NGOs we  interviewed. We also selected NGOs that represented a variety of  goals and missions, including those focused on helping U.S. importers  remain compliant with section 307 and those focused on assistance to  survivors of forced labor overseas. We asked representatives from  each NGO a standard set of questions that addressed, among other  things, information they may share with CBP. Statements these  stakeholders made are not generalizable to all stakeholders but  provide perspectives on information for enforcing section 307.

To describe stakeholder perspectives on CBP’s communication of  information needs, we interviewed stakeholders about their perspectives  of CBP’s information needs. Specifically, we asked about the extent to  which they understood CBP’s information needs for enforcement of  section 307, the extent to which they have shared information with CBP  about potential forced labor they have identified, and factors that may  affect their sharing information with CBP. In some cases, NGO  representatives we interviewed told us their organizations were unable to  share information with CBP because of external factors, such as  nondisclosure agreements or differing information collection objectives,  but they noted that CBP actions could affect the likelihood of other  stakeholders sharing information. Statements these stakeholders made  are not generalizable to all stakeholders but provide perspectives on  information sources. We also interviewed CBP officials about the extent  to which information stakeholders provided was sufficient to use in  initiating and investigating section 307 cases.

To evaluate CBP’s communication of its information needs to initiate or  investigate forced labor cases as part of its section 307 enforcement  process, we interviewed CBP officials about how the agency  communicates its information needs to initiate or investigate forced labor  cases as part of its section 307 enforcement process. We also reviewed  CBP documents and the agency’s website to identify what information  CBP provided to the public about its information needs. We compared the  agency’s existing communication efforts to federal standards for internal  control, as appropriate. We assessed the agency’s procedures to  determine whether CBP communicated information to external parties  through appropriate methods. We also assessed the quality of available  information to ensure it was appropriate, current, complete, and  accessible, among other things.

Appendix II: Working Groups Focused on Forced Labor and Combating Illegal Activities in the Fishing Industry

Since the enactment of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act  of 2015 (TFTEA), a number of working groups or task forces have been  established, primarily involving U.S. federal agencies, to focus on forced  labor and imports in general as well as combating illegal activities in the  seafood supply chain more specifically in some cases.

Interagency Working Group on Forced Labor. The Department of  Homeland Security established this working group in 2017.  According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials, the  group’s purpose is information sharing and collaboration on forced  labor topics with interagency partners, which include officials from the  Departments of Labor, State, and Justice and the National Oceanic  and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), among other federal  agencies. CBP officials stated that the group generally meets monthly.

Task Force on Human Trafficking in Fishing in International  Waters. In 2017, the Senate Appropriations Committee directed the  Department of Justice to lead a multi-agency task force to examine  the issue of human trafficking in seafood supply chains and report to  Congress on the status of such issues, along with any related funding,  policy recommendations, and legal decisions. Department of Justice  officials said they launched the task force in October 2018, and it  includes officials from NOAA; the Departments of Homeland Security,  Justice, State, Labor, and Treasury; and the Office of the United  States Trade Representative. Department of Justice officials said they  drafted a report that identified relevant legal and jurisdictional issues,  with recommendations to help further efforts to limit human trafficking  in fishing in international waters. As of March 2020, the draft was  undergoing interagency review and no publication date had been  specified, according to the officials.

Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee Forced  Labor Working Group. The Commercial Customs Operations  Advisory Committee is a longstanding public-private partnership  between the federal government and the private sector. It advises the  Department of Homeland Security on matters involving commercial  operations, including significant changes that are proposed to CBP  regulations, policies, or practices. After the enactment of TFTEA, a  working group within the committee’s Intelligent Enforcement  Subcommittee—the Forced Labor Working Group—began discussing  a variety of issues related to the implementation of section 307,  according to CBP officials. The officials said that in 2017 the Forced  Labor Working Group sought information from several  nongovernmental organizations knowledgeable about labor and  human rights in sectors involving seafood and other goods to obtain  their insights that could then be shared with CBP.

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contacts named above, Alyssa M. Hundrup (Assistant  Director), Christine Broderick (Assistant Director), Christina Werth  (Assistant Director), Andrea Riba Miller (Analyst in Charge), and Emily  Norman made key contributions to this report. Martin De Alteriis, Patricia  Moye, Sheryl Stein, Sara Sullivan, and Nicole Willems also contributed to  the report.

Forced labor is a global problem affecting millions of people, according to the United Nations. U.S. law prohibits imports produced with forced labor, including seafood.

Customs and Border Protection, responsible for enforcement, established a forced labor division in 2018 to focus on identifying such imports.

CBP uses information from external sources to help identify seafood imports produced with forced labor, but may be missing opportunities to obtain information from those sources. We recommended that CBP better communicate the types of information these sources could collect and submit to CBP, to help with its enforcement efforts.