Saving NEMO Will Not Save Reefs - or Livelihoods

By the IMARCS Foundation

When Congress reintroduced the “Saving NEMO Act” (H.R. 2176) in March 2025, it was billed as a sweeping measure to protect fragile coral‐reef ecosystems by restricting trade in reef species listed under Appendix II of CITES. In reality, the bill erects an almost unworkable regulatory framework for importers, breeders, and hobbyists: any marine organism—from clownfish and tangs to stony corals—could be barred from interstate commerce unless the Interior Secretary, in consultation with Commerce, certifies within 90 days that trade poses “no substantial risk” to wild populations. Although a delisting mechanism is mentioned, its onerous reporting, permitting, and traceability requirements would effectively shut down most existing mariculture and aquaculture operations, creating a de facto ban on the aquarium industry and the captive breeding that has proven a cornerstone of sustainable reef management.

Some proponents want to see all reef species banned from aquariums and tanks, regardless of their origin, and many claim that eliminating trade in captive‐bred species will specifically reduce harvest pressure on wild reefs. But decades of scientific evidence contradict this logic. Responsible aquaculture provides millions of reef animals to the aquarium trade without touching natural populations—each clownfish or coral fragment grown in hatcheries spares its counterpart on a vulnerable reef. Much like many other ideologies, the thinking behind a blanket ban on reef species fails to account for human nature: removing cultured alternatives will not stop the trade but will instead drive it underground and push collectors back into the field, intensifying extraction from already stressed habitats and accelerating the decline the Saving NEMO Act purports to prevent.

The human cost would be equally stark. The U.S. saltwater aquarium industry underpins an estimated 50,000 jobs—from hatchery and hatchling technicians, to shipping and logistics providers, to local dive‐charter operators and retailers. In today’s economic climate, eliminating lawful mariculture instantly jeopardizes these livelihoods, creating even more financial stress and reducing scientific research in the field. When people lose the incentive and the resources to breed and study reef organisms, reef conservation itself suffers.

 

Lastly, and perhaps most crucially, this bill would have a devastating effect on research that involves these organisms—which in turn would result in missed opportunities that could affect and improve the world in ways that we do not yet even fully understand. Under the guise of protecting marine organisms, we would miss out on countless potential advances that could help to not only protect their environments, but also to address climate change, provide sustainable food systems, or precipitate flourishing and more vibrant ecosystems. 

At the IMARCS Foundation, our research partnerships span Micronesian clam farms, Vietnamese restoration projects, and Japanese mariculture facilities. We’re testing heat‐tolerant zooxanthellae from giant clams to potentially reverse coral bleaching, reintroducing clams in Nha Trang Bay to jump‐start habitat recovery, and investigating whether elevated‐pH mariculture can turn clams into blue carbon sinks. None of these innovations, which could lead to invaluable environmental benefits, would survive the Saving NEMO Act’s bureaucratic morass. Outlawing and sidelining mariculture will not safeguard reefs. Instead, it will silence the very science and stewardship that hold them together.

Rather than dismantle an emerging conservation ally, Congress should build on existing certification and permitting programs, expand enforcement against illegal harvest, and incentivize high‐value aquaculture research. That approach protects wild stocks, sustains tens of thousands of jobs, and accelerates the restoration science we urgently need. Anything less will deepen reef degradation and inflict lasting economic harm on the communities that depend on a healthy ocean.

The real way to save Nemo is not to ban his captive‐bred cousins, but to empower the science and industry that have already shown they can and do protect our reefs—and the people whose futures are tied to them.

 

 

 

References: