debateus.org file · web viewdebateus.org

Earliest Bird ’14 Aquaculture Aff

Aquaculture Affirmative

1


FYI

2


ResolutionResolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans.

3


Strategy guide

This aff is pretty straightforward- don’t let the long-ish plan text fool you. It has Congress set up a system of financial incentives and permits (green lights) for offshore fish farming and specifies that the NOAA (a federal agency) has control over the process. I’ve included a list of terms to know that explains some of the more technical details of things like IMTA and the EEZ.

The most likely form of financial incentives that the plan gives would be trading credits mentioned in the Troell and Chopin 1AC cards, which reward producers for sustainable practices that cut down on waste.

If you need to cut down on time in the 1AC, feel free to re-highlight or cut out some impacts.

Have fun debating!

4


Terms to knowWhat is aquaculture?http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/Sustainable_Marine_Aquaculture_final_1_07.pdf

The FAO has defined aquaculture as “the farming of aquatic organisms, including fish, mollusks, crustaceans and aquatic plants. Farming implies some form of intervention in the rearing process to enhance production as well as ownership of the stock being cultivated” (FAO 2000).

The difference between aquaculture and fisheries is that aquaculture involves harvesting all marine life (shrimp, oysters, etc.), while fisheries mainly involve fish.

What is integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA)?http://www.samsrsl.co.uk/aquaculture/integrated-multi-trophic-aquaculture

Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) is a practice in which the by-products (wastes) from one species are recycled to become inputs (fertilizers, food and energy) for another…The major benefit of IMTA is the ability to reduce wastage while producing new cash-crops, ultimately resulting in improved operational sustainability…When IMTA is implemented correctly, fed aquaculture species (e.g. finfish/shrimps) are grown alongside selected organic extractive species (e.g. suspension feeders/deposit feeders/herbivorous fish) and inorganic extractive species (e.g. seaweeds). For example, the wastes emitted from the cage culture of salmon would be assimilated by shellfish and seaweed, which are also of commercial value.

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/eez.html

The U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extends no more than 200 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline and is adjacent to the 12 nautical mile territorial sea of the U.S., including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or possession over which the United States exercises sovereignty. Within the EEZ, the U.S. has: Sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources, whether living and nonliving, of the seabed and subsoil and the superjacent waters and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds; Jurisdiction as provided for in international and domestic laws with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations, and structures, marine scientific research, and the protection and preservation of the marine environment; and Other rights and duties provided for under international and domestic laws.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a US federal agency that deals with (you guessed it) issues surrounding the oceans and atmosphere.

Aquaponics deal with growing fish and plants in unison.

5

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/eez.html

http://www.samsrsl.co.uk/aquaculture/integrated-multi-trophic-aquaculture


1AC

6


1ACObservation 1 is Inherency:

Global aquaculture is at a crossroads- new positive trends are key to solidify the industryThorsen 4-14-14 [Øistein Thorsen, Principal Consultant, Benchmark Sustainability Science, MSc in International Political Economy from the London School of Economics (LSE), spent several years at the United Nations representing Oxfam International, joined Oxfam in Oxford in 2006 working on global agricultural trade, “Investing in Aquaculture’s Future,” http://www.globalaginvesting.com/news/blogdetail?contentid=4070]

Aquaculture is at a crossroads. According to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the last three decades have seen

global food fish aquaculture production expand “by almost 12 times, at an average annual rate of 8.8 per cent.” As a relatively new industry facing the pressure of driving higher rates of production per unit area, it has the opportunity to learn from others’ mistakes and embrace the development of a new set of sustainable management practices . Continued industry success and global expansion, Øistein Thorsen from Benchmark Sustainability Science argues, will come from identifying investment and early development opportunities focused on addressing aquaculture’s challenges around disease,

feed and waste management. Disease: Like all forms of farming, aquaculture is a sector full of risks. The artificial ecosystems that aquaculture creates pose many challenges that can be addressed through equipment, tech nology and best stewardship practices that aim to

accommodate the natural behaviors and environment of the farmed species. Facilitating welfare-focused fish production models can mitigate disease pressures and as a result produce better fish growth, more efficient food conversion, increased resistance to disease, and overall increases in survival . In this regard fish welfare is not simply an altruistic agenda, but rather the backbone of a healthy business. As a result opportunities will grow for developing health solutions that move away from reliance on antibiotics and other disease treatments to those focused on prevention – including vaccines and probiotics.¶ Feed: For the majority of finfish aquaculture operations, feed is generally the most costly input, and a rising one at that. In response to these increasing costs and environmental impacts associated with overfeeding, technologies monitoring food waste and effectively regulating food delivery have been developed and continue to evolve. This is just one example of how technological innovations coupled with good stewardship practices are driving industry profitability and sustainability. With regards to the larger issue of feed raw ingredient sourcing, such a quick fix has not been identified, though there are signs of progress. In 2004 one third of the world’s fish catch was used to produce fishmeal and fish oil primarily for the aquaculture industry according to WWF. The good news is that the industry’s reliance on fishmeal and fish oil is decreasing due to increased use of plant-based feed from major agricultural crops like soybean and corn. However, with rising and volatile commodity prices fueled by pressures on agricultural land use and a changing climate, reliance on such crops can prove risky and expensive for fish farmers. This provides biotech development and investment opportunities for using bacteria, yeast, algae, insects and animal by-products as feed ingredients. Early results include positive health benefits for farmed fish fed on yeast and bacteria grown on natural gas. By-and-large these initiatives are in their early stages and not yet ready for large scale industrial application, however, they should be encouraged as they could hold the key to effective protein production in a resource constrained world.¶ Waste: Similarly to traditional farming practices of all scales, fish farms produce waste and impact the environment in which they are situated. There is the risk that these wastes can become significant pollutants and a cause of conflict between fish farmers and their coastal neighbors. No one system in existence outperforms all others in all waste emission or energy use categories, showing the need for continued innovation in this field. Exploration in the design of systems that use waste as nutrition, fuel for secondary crops, or products like feed, fertilizer or energy continues to

thrive. All of these opportunities are at an early stage and have not been proven at an industrial level yet , but they could have the potential to boost on-farm profits by reducing feed and electricity bills , and provide additional income streams by turning waste into sought after products like biogas, fertilizer, carbon credits, or secondary crops like seaweed.

Thus the plan:

The United States Congress should substantially increase development of offshore integrated multi-trophic aquaculture in the United States’ Exclusive Economic Zone through financial incentives and permits regulated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association.

7


Advantage 1 is Food Security:

Food crises are coming- offshore aquaculture expansion is key to food stabilityTiller et al ’13 [Rachel Tiller, PhD, Post Doctoral Fellow with a focus on marine research at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Fulbright Scholar, Russell Richards, PhD with research expertise in coastal and ocean management, Griffith University, Rebecca Gentry, former Policy Analyst at the Ministry of Fisheries, New Zealand, PhD student at the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, “Stakeholder driven future scenarios as an element of interdisciplinary management tools; the case of future offshore aquaculture development and the potential effects on fishermen in Santa Barbara, California,” Ocean & Coastal Management¶ Volume 73, March 2013, Pages 127–135, ScienceDirect, online]

In light of this, the following paper discusses these challenges looking at the case of future offshore aquaculture development in the US. The perceived effects of this industry are explored from the vantage point of the stakeholders affected. This is important given that some research suggests that 24–36% of wild fish stocks have collapsed worldwide and that 68–72% of global fish stocks are overexploited or collapsed (Worm et al., 2006; Pauly, 2007, 2008; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2010). This global concern has provided researchers and resource managers with a common understanding that capture fisheries have a strong impact on

the ecosystem in which they operate. If ‘business as usual’ is continued, serious threats to global food security could be imminent given the downward trend of the capture fishing industry's access to wild fish coupled with an increased global reliance on seafood for protein, largely driven by big emerging economies like India and China (Antunes Zappes et al.). Global fisheries policies have for decades mitigated commercial fishing efforts in an attempt to reduce the rate of fishing pressure on wild stocks . Several solutions have been suggested to stop this downward trend of fish supply, including no-take Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and moving from single species fisheries

management to that of EBFM (Ray, 2011). There has been, however, increased attention on more direct adaptation possibilities for ameliorating

the juxtaposition between the increased demand for seafood and declining wild supply, and the necessity to find more efficient means of food production to feed a growing population. The primary method has been by aquaculture expansion during the last few decades in the US and beyond (Abdallah and Sumaila, 2007; Olin et al., 2012). Aquaculture already accounted for 46 percent of total global food fish supply in 2008 and is the fastest-growing animal-food-producing sector globally, even outpacing human population growth (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2010). The per capita supply of animal protein from aquaculture has also increased, from 0.7 kg in 1970 to 7.8 kg in 2008, reflecting an average annual

growth rate of 6.6 percent although this growth rate is beginning to slow . This adaptation process, thus, has now taken a step further by moving out

beyond the sheltered coves, fjords, ponds and lakes where aquaculture has historically occurred. Currently, industry is looking further offshore for future development, which is reflected in the explicit consideration of policy makers to opening up US federal waters to offshore aquaculture in recent years (Varmer et al., 2005; Welp et al., 2006; Abreu et al., 2011; Impson, 2011; Oosterveer and Spaargaren, 2011; Boyd, 2012). This mitigation path by policy makers could be considered a de facto realization that the attempts to mitigate capture

fishing efforts to reduce pressure on wild stocks is failing (Kalikoski et al., 2010).¶ Given this, the need to rethink the opportunities for increased global seafood production while still accounting for fisheries management has been realized . The possible interplay that will take place between stakeholder interests when an offshore aquaculture industry goes commercial, however, is imminent and requires addressing. The paper thus first introduces the development of US offshore aquaculture. This is followed by a description of the current state of scenario building in the literature, in both the natural and the social sciences and the differences between these. For the latter, the case of offshore aquaculture development where both Systems Thinking and Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) are used together in a workshop setting is proposed as a method for eliciting stakeholder driven scenarios that are quantitative in output. This method was tested on a core group of stakeholders identified as being likely impacted if offshore aquaculture were to be developed in Santa Barbara, namely commercial fishermen. This research sought to document how fishermen perceive offshore aquaculture will affect them. While stakeholder perceptions of impact are not necessarily accurate in terms of likely actual impacts, it is perception that often gives rise to conflict, and therefore understanding and addressing these perceptions is essential for any successful policy process (Adams et al., 2003). The paper then proposes moving from an eco-systemic to a socio-ecological system of managing the marine environment by including expert data elicited from the stakeholder workshops into existing biological prediction models, or by specifically creating new models. The scenarios extracted from the stakeholder participatory workshop and the follow up interviews describe the possible impact of a future offshore aquaculture development off the coast of California from the vantage point of a potentially affected stakeholder group. We suggest that in a more comprehensive interdisciplinary model, an early warning system for managers can be developed as a policy recommendation tool, delimiting the variable paths toward each stakeholder driven scenario. We also suggest that this type of stakeholder driven information would be critical for policy makers to understand where potential future conflicts are likely to occur, in order that identified or perceived conflicts can be investigated, addressed, and resolved or mitigated in the planning stages for offshore aquaculture.¶ 2. US offshore aquaculture developments¶ The United States is a major consumer of seafood, including aquaculture products. In 2010, however, 86% of seafood consumed in the US was imported with half of this produced through aquaculture. This import of 5.5 billion pounds per year was valued at $14.8 billion in 2009 (Abdallah and Sumaila, 2007). The necessity for import stems from the US aquaculture production, both fresh and marine, accounting for only 5% of US seafood supply, with marine-based aquaculture supplying less than 1.5%. Furthermore, US aquaculture production is ranked 13th globally after countries such as China, Canada, Norway and Chile. Indeed, the US imports about 300 million pounds of farmed salmon every year, primarily from Canada, Norway, and Chile. This dependency on imported seafood leads to an annual seafood trade deficit of over $9 billion (Antunes Zappes et al.; U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004; Santa

Barbara Mariculture, 2011).¶ Until recently, there has been no universal method of obtaining permits for aquaculture in US federal waters beyond the 3-mile state waters to the limits of the US Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Access to sites in coastal areas under state jurisdiction face challenges of their own with competing claims to coastal usage as well as a plethora of local, state and federal permits under the existing US laws and regulations ( Welp et al., 2006). The US EEZ is large however, and setting aside 500 km2, which accounts for 0 .01% of the entire area under federal marine jurisdiction, would allow

8


for an additional 600,000 metric tons of additional seafood to be produced annually ( Carr and Heyman, 2012). The lack of a regulatory framework in US federal waters has thus effectively prohibited aquaculture ventures and the expansion of the industry for domestic seafood needs to be met with national products ( Edelman, 2012). In 2004, however, it was recommended by the US Commission on Ocean Policy that there be established a regulatory framework for aquaculture licensing in federal waters. A National Offshore Aquaculture Act would clarify federal regulatory requirements, allowing businesses and individuals to obtain a permit to operate in federal waters ( Welp et al., 2006). In lieu of this, however, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the primary federal agency, under the Department of Commerce, charged with overseeing and permitting aquaculture production in the US ( Santa Barbara Mariculture, 2011) has taken charge. In working toward lessening the trade deficit in seafood commerce, the Department of Commerce and NOAA released national sustainable marine aquaculture policies during the summer of 2011. One of the implementations toward this goal is the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Plan for Aquaculture, which includes the required regulatory framework for offshore

aquaculture production in the Gulf ( Abreu et al., 2011). Starting up offshore aquaculture could potentially not only increase domestic seafood production dramatically , but also provide job opportunities among others to U.S. fishermen, in for instance jobs that involve vessel maintenance and maintenance of offshore operations ( FAO, 2005–2012).

US is key to food stability- shifting away from current sources is key to prevent destabilizing food crisesColeman ’12 [Isobel Coleman, Senior Fellow and Director of the Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy Initiative; Director of the Women and Foreign Policy Program, “U.S. Drought and Rising Global Food Prices,” August 2, http://www.cfr.org/food-security/us-drought-rising-global-food-prices/p28777]

The ongoing drought in the Midwest has affected approximately 80 percent of the U.S. corn crop and more than 11 percent of the soybean crop, triggering a rise in global food prices (RFE/RL) that CFR's Isobel Coleman says may fuel political instability in developing countries. The United States produces approximately 35 percent of the world's corn and soybean supply, commodities

that are "crucial in the food chain, because they are used for feed stock for animals," Coleman says. Growing demand for meat and protein from emergent

middle classes internationally has made many countries dependent on "relatively inexpensive food stocks" from the United States, she explains. "When you see a crop failure of the magnitude you have seen this summer, it flows through the whole food chain," says Coleman, who recommends reconsidering the U.S. ethanol mandate and building "more resilience into the global food system." How is the U.S. drought affecting commodity crops, food production, and prices? As recently as May, experts were predicting a record crop in the United States--and of course, what

the United States does is so important, because the Midwest is the bread basket for the rest of the world. But with severe drought in the Midwest, you've already seen a failure in the soybean and corn crop in the United States. That increased world commodity prices, and it is going to trickle through the whole food chain. This is the hottest summer on record in the United States since 1895, and people are

beginning to wonder whether this type of drought that we're experiencing could become a new normal. The United States is a pivotal player in world food production and has the most sophisticated agricultural sector in terms of seeds, technology, irrigation, deep commodity markets, and future markets. If the United States crop is so devastated by drought, what is going to happen to the rest of the world? How do rising U.S. food prices affect global food prices down the world's food supply chain? Which areas of the globe are most at risk? There are many large food producers in the world. China is the largest wheat producer, but it is also the largest wheat consumer. What makes the United States unique is that we are the largest exporter, so we produce about 35 percent of the world's corn and soybean supply. Those two commodities are crucial in the food chain, because they are used for feed stock for animals. Around the world you have rising middle classes, a growing demand for meat and protein in the diet, and countries around the world are becoming increasingly dependent on relatively inexpensive food stocks from the United States. When you see a crop failure of the magnitude you have seen this summer, it

flows through the whole food chain. Right now you have American livestock producers taking their pigs and cattle to the slaughter house because they simply don't have the food to be feeding them. So you're going to see meat prices in the short term in the

United States go down, but over the longer term you're going to see rising meat prices; [experts] are predicting already 4 to 5 percent price increases in meat for the next year. That flows through the whole food chain , [to] big-population

countries that import a lot of food, such as the Philippines, Afghanistan, Egypt. And when you see rapidly rising food prices, of course it leads to instability. We've seen [this] in the last five years across many of those countries, and you see rising food prices translate almost directly into street protests. You're going to see the continuation of [political] instability driven in part by rapidly rising food prices. In 2008, we had food protests across much of the Middle East,

so governments are going to be very much on the alert for unrest and very sensitive to it . Egypt is already spending about one-third of its subsidies on food, and it is draining the Egyptian foreign exchange reserve to continue those subsidies. This combination of an already mobilized population out on the streets demanding lots of different changes [in Egypt], and rising food prices is going to create a very unstable atmosphere. What are some policy responses for alleviating the pressures being felt in the United States and other countries because of rising food prices? In the United States, we have to look at our own policies that are part of the problem, [including] our mandated use of ethanol in gasoline. This is something that is a mandated [10] percent that is not flexible, and when you have rising food prices and a problem with the failing crop, you would think that maybe we could lighten up on the ethanol mandate. Because right now so much of our food production is going into ethanol. So you've already seen governors across the United States in some of the hard-hit states saying, "Shouldn't we review our ethanol policies?" That's not a short-term fix, but it is potentially longer-term and something we should be looking at carefully. In terms of policy, we have a rising

global population. We have more mouths to feed every year, and food security for the world is a critical issue. We should be looking at how to build in more resilience into the global food system. Africa, which has the highest population growth rates of any continent in the world, used to feed itself and used to export food, but [its] agriculture has suffered tremendously over the last half century. Only 4 percent of the land in Africa is even irrigated, and you've seen a green revolution occur in many parts of the world that has really passed Africa by. And so building in greater resilience and improving the agricultural capacity of Africa is a critical part of this equation, so that Africa has more of an ability to feed itself and become more a part of the global supply chain and not be so dependent on it. Unfortunately, governments have not made the investments in the agricultural sector that they needed to over the past half century, which is why you have this situation in Africa today.

9

http://www.cfr.org/food-security/us-drought-rising-global-food-prices/p28777


Food wars go nuclearFDI ’12 [Future Directions International, an Australian-based independent, not-for-profit research institute, “International Conflict Triggers and Potential Conflict Points Resulting from Food and Water Insecurity,” http://www.futuredirections.org.au/files/Workshop_Report_-_Intl_Conflict_Triggers_-_May_25.pdf]

There is little dispute that conflict can lead to food and water crises. This paper will consider ¶ parts of the world, however, where food and water insecurity can be the cause of conflict ¶ and, at worst, result in war. While dealing predominately with food and water issues, the ¶ paper also recognises the nexus that exists between food and water and energy security. ¶ There is a growing appreciation that the conflicts in the next century will most likely be fought over a lack of resources . Yet, in a sense, this is not new. Researchers point to the French and Russian revolutions as conflicts induced by a lack of food. More recently, Germany’s World War Two efforts are said to have been inspired, at least in part, by its perceived need to gain access to more food. Yet the general sense among those that attended FDI’s recent workshops, was that the scale of the problem in the future could be significantly greater as a result of population pressures, changing weather , urbanisation, migration , loss of arable land and other farm inputs, and increased affluence in the developing world. In his book, Small Farmers Secure Food, Lindsay Falvey, a participant in FDI’s March 2012 ¶ workshop on the issue of food and conflict, clearly expresses the problem and why countries ¶ across the globe are starting to take note. . ¶ He writes (p.36), “…if people are hungry, especially in cities, the state is not stable – riots, ¶ violence, breakdown of law and order and migration result.” ¶ “Hunger feeds anarchy.” ¶ This view is also shared by Julian Cribb, who in his book, The Coming Famine, writes that if “large regions of the world run short of food, land or water in the decades that lie ahead, then wholesale, bloody wars are liable to follow.” ¶ He continues: “An increasingly credible scenario for World War 3 is not so much a ¶ confrontation of super powers and their allies, as a festering, self-perpetuating chain of ¶ resource conflicts.” He also says: “The wars of the 21st Century are less likely to be global conflicts with sharply defined sides and huge armies, than a scrappy mass of failed states, rebellions, civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and genocides, sparked by bloody competition over dwindling resources.” ¶ As another workshop participant put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to war over ¶ resources, either to protect or to gain the resources for themselves. Another observed that hunger results in passivity not conflict. Conflict is over resources, not because people are going hungry. ¶ A study by the I nternational P eace R esearch I nstitute indicates that where food security is an issue, it is more likely to result in some form of conflict. Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such wars . Governments , especially in developed countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon. The UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, the US Center for Strategic and International Studies ¶ and the Oslo Peace Research Institute, all identify famine as a potential trigger for conflicts and possibly even nuclear war.

10


Food crises collapse civilization- causes disease spread, terrorism, and economic collapseBrown ’09 [Lester, environmental analyst, founder of the Worldwatch Institute, and founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute, a nonprofit research organization, recipient of 26 honorary degrees and a MacArthur Fellowship, has won several prizes and awards, including the United Nations Environment Prize, the World Wide Fund for Nature Gold Medal, and the Blue Planet Prize, “Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization?” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/civilization-food-shortages/]

One of the toughest things for people to do is to anticipate sudden change. Typically we project the future by extrapolating from trends in the past. Much of the time this approach works well. But sometimes it fails spectacularly, and people are simply blindsided by events such as today’s economic crisis. For most of us, the idea that civilization itself could disintegrate probably seems preposterous. Who would not find it hard to think seriously about such a complete departure from what we expect of ordinary life? What evidence could make us heed a warning so dire—and how would we go about responding to it? We are so inured to a long list of highly unlikely catastrophes that we are virtually programmed to dismiss them all with a wave of the hand: Sure, our civilization might devolve into chaos—and Earth might collide with an asteroid, too! For many years I have studied global agricultural, population, environmental and economic trends and their interactions. The combined effects of those trends and the political tensions they generate point to the breakdown of governments and societies. Yet I, too, have resisted the idea that

food shortages could bring down not only individual governments but also our global civilization . I can no longer

ignore that risk. Our continuing failure to deal with the environmental declines that are undermining the world food economy—most important, falling water tables, eroding soils and rising temperatures—forces me to conclude that such a collapse is possible.¶ The Problem of Failed States¶ Even a cursory look at the vital signs of our current world order lends unwelcome support to my conclusion. And those of us in the environmental field are well into our third decade of charting trends of environmental decline without seeing any significant effort to reverse a single one.¶ In six of the past nine years world grain production has fallen short of consumption, forcing a steady drawdown in stocks. When the 2008 harvest began, world carryover stocks of grain (the amount in the bin when the new harvest begins) were at 62 days of consumption, a near record low. In response, world grain prices in the¶ spring and summer of last year climbed to the¶ highest level ever.¶ As demand for food rises faster than supplies¶ are growing, the resulting food-price inflation puts severe stress on the governments of countries already teetering on the edge of chaos . Unable to buy grain or grow their own, hungry people take to the streets . Indeed, even before the¶ steep climb in grain prices in 2008, the number of failing states was expanding [see sidebar at left]. Many of their problems stem from a failure¶ to slow the growth of their populations. But if the food situation continues to deteriorate, entire nations will break down at an ever increasing rate. We have entered a new era in geopolitics. In the 20th century the main threat to international security was superpower conflict; today it is failing states . It is not the concentration of¶ power but its absence that puts us at risk. States fail when national governments can no longer provide personal security, food security¶ and basic social services such as education and¶ health care. They often lose control of part or all¶ of their territory. When governments lose their¶ monopoly on power, law and order begin to disintegrate.¶ After a point, countries can become so dangerous that food relief workers are no longer¶ safe and their programs are halted ; in Somalia¶ and Afghanistan, deteriorating conditions have¶ already put such programs in jeopardy.¶ Failing states are of international concern because ¶ they are a source of terrorists , drugs, weapons¶ and refugees, threatening political stability everywhere . Somalia, number one on the 2008 ¶ list of failing states, has become a base for piracy.¶ Iraq, number five, is a hotbed for terrorist training .¶ Afghanistan, number seven, is the world’s¶ leading supplier of heroin. Following the massive¶ genocide of 1994 in Rwanda, refugees from that¶ troubled state, thousands of armed soldiers among¶ them, helped to destabilize neighboring Democratic¶ Republic of the Congo (number six).¶ Our global civilization depends on a functioning network of politically healthy nationstates to control the spread of infectious disease, to manage the international monetary system, to control international terrorism and to reach ¶ scores of other common goals. If the system for ¶ controlling infectious diseases —such as polio,¶ SARS or avian flu—breaks down, humanity will be in trouble. Once states fail, no one assumes responsibility for their debt to outside lenders. If enough states disintegrate, their fall will threaten the stability of global civilization itself .

11

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/civilization-food-shortages/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/civilization-food-shortages/


Diseases cause extinctionGuterl ’12 [Fred, award-winning journalist and executive editor of Scientific American, worked for ten years at Newsweek, has taught science at Princeton University, The Fate of the Species: Why the Human Race May Cause Its Own Extinction and How We Can Stop It, 1-2, Google Books, online]

Over the next few years, the bigger story turned out not to be SARS, which trailed off quickly, bur avian influenza, or bird flu. It had been making the rounds among birds in Southeast Asia for years. An outbreak in 1997 Hong Kong and another in 2003 each called for the culling of thousands of birds and put virologists and health workers into a tizzy. Although the virus wasn't much of a threat to humans, scientists fretted over the possibility of a horrifying pandemic. Relatively few people caught the virus, but more than half of them died. What would happen if this bird flu virus made the jump to humans? What if it mutated in a way that allowed it to

spread from one person to another, through tiny droplets of saliva in the air? One bad spin of the genetic roulette wheel and a deadly new human pathogen would spread across the globe in a matter of days. With a kill rate of 60 percent, such a pandemic would be devastating, to say the least.¶ Scientists were worried, all right, but the object of their worry was somewhat theoretical. Nobody knew for certain if such a supervirus was even possible. To cause that kind of damage to the human population, a flu virus has to combine two traits: lethality and transmissibility. The more optimistically minded scientists argued that one trait precluded the other, that if the bird flu acquired the ability to spread like wildfire, it would lose its ability to kill with terrifying efficiency. The virus would spread, cause some fever and sniffles, and take its place among the pantheon of ordinary flu viruses that come and go

each season.¶ The optimists, we found out last fall, were wrong. Two groups of scientists working independently managed to create bird

flu viruses in the lab that had that killer combination of lethality and transmissibility among humans. They did it for the best reasons, of course—to find vaccines and medicines to treat a pandemic should one occur, and more generally to understand how influenza viruses work. If we're lucky, the scientists will get there before nature manages to come up with the virus herself, or before someone steals the genetic blueprints and turns this

knowledge against us. ¶ Influenza is a natural killer, but we have made it our own. We have created the conditions for new viruses to flourish—among pigs in factory farms and live animal markets and a connected world of international trade and travel—and

we've gone so far as to fabricate the virus ourselves. Flu is an excellent example of how we have, through our technologies and our dominant presence on the

planet, begun to multiply the risks to our own survival.

Terrorism causes extinctionMorgan ’09 [Dennis Ray, Associate Professor, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, “World on fire: two scenarios of the destruction of human civilizationand possible extinction of the human race,” Futures, Volume 41, Issue 10, 683-693, online]

Years later, in 1982, at the height of the Cold War, Jonathon Schell, in a very stark and horrific portrait, depicted sweeping, bleak global scenarios of total nuclear destruction. Schell’s

work, The Fate of the Earth [8] represents one of the gravest warnings to humankind ever given. The possibility of complete annihilation of humankind is not out of the question as long as these death bombs exist as symbols of national power. As Schell relates, the power of destruction is now not just thousands of times as that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; now it stands at more than one and a half million times as powerful, more than fifty times enough to wipe out all of human civilization and much of the rest of life along with it [8]. In Crucial Questions about the Future, Allen Tough cites that Schell’s monumental work, which ‘‘eradicated the ignorance and denial in many of us,’’ was

confirmed by ‘‘subsequent scientific work on nuclear winter and other possible effects: humans really could be completely devastated. Our human species really could become extinct.’’ [9]. Tough estimated the chance of human self-destruction due to nuclear war as one in ten. He

comments that few daredevils or high rollers would take such a risk with so much at stake, and yet ‘‘human civilization is remarkably casual about its high risk of dying out completely if it continues on its present path for another 40 years’’ [9]. What a precarious foundation of power the world rests upon. The basis of much of the military power in the developed world is nuclear. It is the reigning symbol of global power , the basis, – albeit, unspoken or else barely whispered – by which powerful countries subtly assert aggressive intentions and ambitions for hegemony, though masked by ‘‘diplomacy’’ and ‘‘negotiations,’’ and yet this basis is not as stable as most

believe it to be. In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question ‘‘Is Nuclear War Inevitable??’’ [10].4 In Section 1, Moore points out what most terrorists

obviously already know about the nuclear tensions between powerful countries. No doubt, they’ve figured out that the best way to escalate these tensions into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange . As Moore points

out, all that militant terrorists would have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either Moscow or Israel. Because of the Russian ‘‘dead hand’’ system, ‘‘where regional nuclear commanders would be given full powers should Moscow be destroyed,’’ it is likely that any attack would be blamed on the United States’’ [10]. Israeli leaders and Zionist supporters have, likewise, stated for years that if Israel were to suffer a nuclear attack, whether from terrorists or a nation state, it would retaliate with the suicidal

‘‘Samson option’’ against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East . Furthermore, the Israeli Samson option would also include attacks on Russia and even ‘‘anti-Semitic’’ European cities [10]. In that case, of course, Russia would retaliate, and the U.S. would then retaliate against Russia. China would probably be involved as well, as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads, many of them much more powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would rain upon most of the major cities in the Northern

12


Hemisphere. Afterwards, for years to come, massive radioactive clouds would drift throughout the Earth in the nuclear fallout, bringing death or else radiation disease that would be genetically transmitted to future generations in a nuclear winter that could last as long as a 100 years, taking a savage toll upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well. And what many people fail to realize is what a precarious, hair-trigger basis the nuclear web rests on. Any accident, mistaken communication, false signal or ‘‘lone wolf’ act of sabotage or treason could, in a matter of a few minutes, unleash the use of nuclear weapons, and once a weapon is used, then the likelihood of a rapid escalation of nuclear attacks is quite high while the likelihood of a limited nuclear war is actually less probable since each country would act under the ‘‘use them or lose them’’ strategy and psychology ; restraint by one power would be interpreted as a weakness by the other, which could be exploited as a window of opportunity to ‘‘win’’ the war. In otherwords, once Pandora’s Box is opened, it will spread quickly , as it will be the signal for permission for anyone to use them. Moore compares swift nuclear escalation to a room full of people embarrassed to cough. Once one does, however, ‘‘everyone else feels free to do so. The bottom line is that as long as large nation states use internal and external war to keep their disparate factions glued together and to satisfy elites’ needs for power and plunder, these nations will attempt to obtain, keep, and inevitably use nuclear weapons. And as long as large nations oppress groups who seek selfdetermination, some of those groups will look for any means to fight their oppressors’’ [10]. In other words, as long as war and aggression are backed up by the implicit threat of nuclear arms, it is only a matter of time before the escalation of violent conflict leads to the actual

use of nuclear weapons, and once even just one is used, it is very likely thatmany, if not all, will be used, leading to horrific scenarios of global death and the destruction of much of human civilization while condemning a mutant human remnant, if there is such a remnant, to a life of unimaginable misery and suffering in a nuclear winter.

13


Advantage 2 is the Economy:

US economic growth is in declineLambro 5-2-14 [Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times, won the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism, “U.S. Economy Slides Deeper Into Decline,” http://townhall.com/columnists/donaldlambro/2014/05/02/can-obamas-nogrowth-jobless-economy-get-much-worse-it-can-and-it-will-if-we-do-nothing-to-change-his-policies-n1832247/page/full]

The Obama economy nearly stopped breathing in the first quarter, giving the Republicans new political ammunition for a full takeover of Congress

in the November elections. No sooner did the Commerce Department announce that the economy barely grew by one-tenth of one percent in the first three months of this year, than the news media was searching for the toughest words to describe the U.S. economy's demise under President Obama's

anti- growth, anti-job policies. "U.S. Economic Growth Slows to a Crawl," was the way the Reuters news agency put it Wednesday, and even that was being generous. Some said the economy "stalled," or "barely grew" or "hit a wall." Others called the 0.1 percent growth rate "anemic," a word that doesn't do justice to an economy that has all but ground to a halt. But after one excuse after another for the president's economic failures, some in the news media weren't pulling their punches. Here's the way the Wall Street

Journal put it:¶ "U.S growth nearly stalled in the first three months of the year, fresh evidence that the economic expansion that began almost five years ago remains the weakest in modern history." "U.S. economic growth stalled to near zero," the Journal said on its website, minutes after the government announced its shocking number.¶ Even the liberal New York Times, one of the Democrats' biggest apologists, pointed out that the economy's failing grade was actually a continuation of what

Americans have been experiencing ever since Obama's first year in office, without any sustained improvement. "For all the attention devoted to the quarterly fluctuations, the current

underlying rate of expansion is not much different from the frustratingly slow trajectory in place ever since the economy began to recover from the Great Recession," the Times said.¶ "The average quarterly rate of growth since the summer of 2009 stands at 2.2 percent," the

newspaper noted, a pathetic, sub-par rate of growth for the largest and once strongest economy on the planet.¶ The White House was still peddling their belief that the economy would soon pick up in the second quarter and that the slowdown was the result of a harsh winter. But wiser economists aren't buying the administration's excuses. Dan North, the chief economist at Euler Hermes North America, a large insurer, told the Times that even if the growth rate picks up in the second quarter, "the annual growth rate in 2014 will most likely still be below the post-World War II average of just over 3 percent." ¶ "We've been living in a sub 3-percent land, and people have gotten used to that as the new normal," North said. "But it's not.¶ It's anemic."¶ Yes, a bitter winter took its toll on growth, but it was not the driving force behind a snails-pace economy.¶ Its precipitous plunge into recession-leaning territory -- defined by two back to back quarters

of near minus growth -- was driven by multiple weaknesses across the nation's economic landscape.¶ U.S. exports plunged 7.6 percent , a victim of Obama's failure to negotiate new trade deals. Business investment fell as many companies cut back on their inventories in the face of a weak economy.¶ The real estate markets were in decline as higher interest

rates and rising prices pushed homeownership beyond the reach homebuyers. ¶ "The housing market has cooled recently as buyers have struggled to afford homes," the Los Angeles Times reported this week.¶ The Federal Reserve said Wednesday that the "recovery in the housing sector remained slow."¶ And remember all that inventory businesses bought in the second half of 2013, believing the economy was going to take off? Well, their shelves were still full throughout the first quarter, resulting "in manufacturers receiving fewer orders" in the past three months, Reuters reported.¶ But the biggest factors behind the economy's decline is the shrinking labor market, high, long-term jobless rates, and stagnant or declining incomes.¶ "A separate report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Wednesday on the employment cost index showed that private sector wages and salaries in the first quarter of 2014 increased at the slowest rate

since the bureau began tracking the data in March 1980," the Times reported.¶ Little wonder, then, that the Conference Board reported Wednesday that U.S. consumer confidence fell in April as a result of growing concerns about job cuts and business pullbacks in investment.¶ There are lots of ways that this economy can be turned around, but Obama and the Democrats are opposed to all of them.¶ We need revenue neutral, job friendly tax reform that scrubs corporate welfare out of the tax code, broadens the tax base, and lowers income tax rates across the board for businesses and individuals.¶ The Republicans in the House have a plan ready to go, but Senate Democrats want no part of it. And Obama's too busy trying to raise the minimum wage, even though the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says it will kill 500,000 jobs.¶ We need tax incentives to unlock trillions of dollars in capital investment to expand existing businesses, create new ones and boost employment. In his second term, Bill Clinton signed a GOP-passed capital gains tax cut and his economy took off. Obama and the Harry

Reid Democrats flatly oppose this.¶ We need to enact fast track trade authorization to open up world markets to American goods and services, but the Democrats won't even discuss it for fear of angering their party's union bosses. Sad to say, but the American economy is on a slippery slope to further decline and it's not going to get any better until we have tough, new leadership in the Senate and the Oval Office.

14


Plan solves the economy- two reasons:

First, it’s key to solve overfishing and ocean healthSmith ’12 [Turner, Assistant Attorney General at Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, Harvard Law graduate, “Greening the Blue Revolution: How History Can Inform a Sustainable Aquaculture Movement,” http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/11938741/Smith_2012.pdf?sequence=1]

The potential environmental benefits of aquaculture are substantial, and account in large ¶ part for the surge in popularity of the industry, as delineated above. The most obvious benefit is that sustainably farmed aquaculture product can reduce demand for product from capture fisheries. In the U nited States, as discussed above, overfishing has become a large problem; according to the Pew Commission in 2001 30.6 percent of known wild fish stocks are experiencing overfishing or are overfished.222 To the extent that aquaculture is performed in a sustainable manner, as discussed below, it can ease pressure on wild fish stocks by continuing to supply product to satisfy a large percentage of U.S. demand for fish. Moreover, aquaculture can help natural fish populations by providing habitat for natural species in artificial wetlands created by aquaculture activities, by producing eggs, fry, and juveniles to enhance fish stocks, and by preserving biodiversity through stock-raising programs . 223 Aquaculture production also has several other substantial environmental benefits relative ¶ to other food sources. Aquaculture wastes , if handled properly, can be recycled as nutrient-dense fertilizer for agricultural products, hydroponic operations, or natural or constructed wetlands, thereby reducing the need for petroleum -based fertilizer .224 Aquaculture operations can recycle wastes from other industries, like the agriculture and capture fisheries, by using those wastes in their feeds.225 Aquaculture can benefit from heat waste from industrial plants226 and can even feed off of and cleanse human wastes. For example, fish farms in Calcutta “feed on the 600 ¶ million litres of raw sewage that spews from [the city] every day, turning a health risk into a ¶ valuable urban crop.”227 According to the World Watch Institute, “[t]he restorative potential of fish farming is vast and . . . can be harnessed to multiply eelgrass beds, mangrove seedlings, and other lost ecosystems .”228 Moreover, some nutrient effluent is actually beneficial to benthic ¶ communities, and excessive nutrient effluent can be counteracted if the fish farm facilities coexist with shellfish or seaweed culture operations, which remove nutrients from surrounding waters. 229 These substantial environmental benefits make aquaculture seem like an obvious choice, especially when the alternative source of protein would be from overfished wild stocks or poorly treated, environmentally harmful livestock.230 However, nearly all of the benefits delineated above require good faith planning, monitoring, and operation on the part of facility owners and operators with an eye toward maintaining sustainable, environmentally friendly facilities; as the next section describes, though, environmentally conscious aquaculture operation is far from the norm.

Overfishing devastates the economy- the ocean sector is vitalStrauss ‘14 [Kent, Research Coordinator at Environmental Defense Fund, where he studies global experiences in fisheries management, “Report: Overfishing bad for fish, but worse for the economy,” http://www.edf.org/blog/2014/04/02/report-overfishing-bad-fish-worse-economy]

It’s undeniable that oceans are important to people and the environment. Covering nearly three-quarters of our planet, oceans produce the air we breathe, house the fish we eat and provide us with many of the products we use on a daily basis. And importantly, the oceans play a huge role in creating employment opportunities and sustaining coastal economies.¶ According to a new report from the National Ocean Economics Program for the Center for the Blue Economy, the oceans economy comprised more than 2.7 million jobs and contributed more than $258 billion to the GDP of the United States in 2010. If you aren’t impressed with those numbers, let’s think in different terms. If the ocean economy were a part of the United States of America, it would be the 25th largest state by employment and the 20th largest state by GDP—about the same size as Colorado. The oceans economy supports employment almost two and a half times larger than other natural resources industries like farming, mining, and forest harvesting. Approximately 5.4 million jobs in 2010 were directly and indirectly supported by the ocean with their total contribution estimated at $633 billion which is 4.4% of the United States’ GDP.¶ Increasingly, with disasters like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and several tsunamis across Asia, the United States and countries across the world are beginning to place more emphasis on just how significant oceans’ health is to the economy. And with more than a billion jobs around the world supported by oceans economies, it’s no surprise that the momentum around maintaining a healthy ocean is building speed. Much of that focus has been on ways to solve overfishing—the most urgent threat to the health of the oceans and the single biggest cause of depleted fisheries worldwide. Last month, I had the opportunity

15


to meet with scientists, NGO representatives and government officials from around the world, to discuss solutions to overfishing, with particular emphasis on empowering and supporting small-scale fishermen in developing countries. During these meetings, I shared the resources my team at EDF has developed to help fishermen design sustainable fishery management programs and I talked about our Fish Forever initiative, EDF’s partnership with Rare and the Sustainable Fisheries Group at the University of California at Santa Barbara to restore small-scale coastal fisheries.¶ Perhaps the best part of the trip was just having the opportunity to sit down with like-minded individuals to “geek out” about the ways to effectively manage small-scale fisheries, keep our oceans resilient and protect those who rely on them. Healthy and abundant oceans create stronger coastal economies. As momentum grows to bring the oceans health in line with sustainability principles, we must continue to be vigilant about the numerous demands and pressures placed upon the oceans' natural resources.

Second, the plan solves the trade deficit- incentives are keyRice ’13 [Michael A. Rice, PhD in comparative physiology and MA in biology from UC Irvine, professor of fisheries and aquaculture at the University of Rhode Island, “Ocean Fish Farms Are a Pretty Good Deal,” http://usfishlaw.com/ocean-fish-farms-are-a-pretty-good-deal/]

Our American aversion to fully embrace coastal aquatic farms does not come without a real cost. The shortfall in

seafood in our markets caused by increasing market demand is in fact being met by massive importation of seafood from foreign countries. And increasingly the amount of seafood sold is being sourced from fish farms in these countries. According to the U.S. Bureau of

Economic Analysis, we already import more than three quarters of our seafood and run an annual seafood trade deficits of about $9 billion per year and these annual deficits have been growing. American fish farms could potentially cut into this deficit and better assure seafood safety and freedom from contaminants because our environmental and public health laws are much more stringent that in

many of the source countries of our farmed and captured seafood. The move to develop fish farms offshore is the response to valid criticism that our coastal waters are already overburdened by human activity and the fish farms small-scale and family-owned or not would be yet one more environmental stressor. However, if fish farms are to be developed offshore they will be by necessity industrial operations. The engineering of structures to withstand wind and waves and currents in the offshore environment is no trivial task. Sea going vessels needed to tend the farms would have to be substantial, and the protocols for feeding and tending the fish would have to be largely automated because daily trips to the farm would be out of the question during many winter days

and storm days, not to mention all that expensive fossil fuel burned in the commute out to the distant farms. To meet the up front costs and high capital requirements, off shore fish farms will require some sort of corporate or other deep pocket involvement.

“Industry” is not necessarily a dirty word. Oceanic fish farming can be done well and it can be an economic and eco-friendly boon to the

OceanState supporting not only our skilled marine workforce but our seafood wholesale marketers as well.

Reducing the deficit bolsters the economyYerasi ’12 [Raj Yerasi is a money manager who has invested in public and private companies across the US and emerging markets. He spent the last seven years based in India and helped manage a top-performing hedge fund, “Analysis: Cutting US trade deficit the 'one big solution' to reducing debt,” 3-16-12, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/US-economy-solution-the-trade-deficit-stupid]

The biggest challenge facing the US economy today is job creation. Despite massive fiscal stimulus and unprecedented liquidity injections, unemployment remains stubbornly high. Policymakers are now groping for solutions that won’t take our national debt further into the red zone, debating the effectiveness of tax cuts versus spending increases. However, they seem to have missed one big solution that wouldn’t increase our debt and in fact would likely reduce it: cutting the trade deficit . It’s surprising that people aren’t up in arms over the trade deficit the way they used to be. Perhaps we simply got used to it; it’s old news and it didn’t seem to hurt our growth before (despite the hysteria over Japan in the ‘80s), so there may be skepticism that it’s hurting our growth now. However, what’s missing from this view is that we are in a fundamentally different economic environment today, and unlike before, every dollar of trade deficit is now like a dollar of negative stimulus. To understand why, one must look at the trade deficit from a flow-of-funds perspective. When the US runs a trade deficit, money spent by Americans on goods and services flows out of the US rather than to other Americans . If that money had flowed to other Americans, it would have increased employment of those Americans , and they in turn would have saved a portion of that money and spent the rest (helping even more Americans). But when there is a trade deficit and the money flows out of the US, there is no spending or savings that accrues to Americans. So far, the trade deficit looks destimulative. However, the money sent abroad finds its way back into our banking system. This is because foreign governments buy those dollars from their exporters in exchange for local currency and invest those dollars into dollar-denominated assets, primarily US Treasuries. During normal times, our banking system lends out this money for consumption and investment by Americans, largely replacing the direct

16

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/US-economy-solution-the-trade-deficit-stupid

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/US-economy-solution-the-trade-deficit-stupid


spending that was lost due to the money flowing out of the country. This is credit-financed spending, not direct spending, but it is spending nonetheless and also puts Americans to work. When credit is expanding, therefore, the trade deficit does not seem destimulative. The issue with today’s environment is that our banking system isn’t working the way it normally does. During normal times, banks want to lend and consumers and businesses want to borrow. Today, after the bursting of the credit bubble, banks are wary of lending, consumers are still deleveraging, and businesses don’t have the confidence to borrow for investment. The trade deficit is causing a drop in direct spending that is no longer being offset by credit-financed spending. The result is simply lost spending. The negative stimulus involved is huge . After spiking and subsiding in the 80s, US trade deficits have increased over the last 20 years from 1 percent of GDP to almost 5 percent today. Our trade deficit with China alone reached an all-time high last year of 2 percent of GDP, accounting for over 40 percent of our overall trade deficit. Including China’s regional trading partners, one could say that China accounts for 50 percent of our trade deficit. The US actually imports more from Europe ($382 billion) than China ($365 billion), but the difference is that Europe also buys a substantial amount from the US ($286 billion), whereas China does not ($92 billion). In fact, imports from China are 4 times exports. This multiple is 1.3 for Europe, 1.4 for Canada, and 1.1 for Mexico (our other top trading partners). This lopsided imbalance is due at root to China’s pegging its currency to the dollar at an artificially low rate. Some blame export subsidies, import barriers, under-consumption or low labor costs. All those exist. However, without its central bank involved, China’s exporters would sell their dollars on the open market to buy renminbi and the renminbi would appreciate, making our imports pricier and exports cheaper until the two reached parity. Instead, China’s central bank prints renminbi to buy these dollars and stockpiles them, investing them in dollar-denominated assets like US Treasuries. China’s regional trading partners have done the same, in part emboldened by the Chinese example and in part to remain competitive with China. Today, China’s purchases of Treasuries, just like the Fed’s purchases of Treasuries, are effectively “pushing on a string” since there is already ample liquidity in the banking system that is not translating into additional lending. What we urgently need from China now is not help with quantitative easing but more purchases of American goods and services. That will provide not just jobs but also the private savings to help consumers pay down debt. Three years after the financial crisis, cutting our trade deficit is now more urgent than ever. Till now, massive government stimulus of 8 to 10 percent of GDP has contained what would have been a depression, overcoming the destimulative impact of our trade deficit and setting us on a path to recovery. However, with support for deficit spending waning, paralysis in Washington and state and local governments cutting spending, there may well be total cuts to stimulus of 2 percent of GDP this year, and much more the following years. Combined with possible demand shocks from Europe, there is a real risk of our recovery foundering. Reducing our trade deficit now could completely offset lower government stimulus and assure a continued recovery. Seen another way, reducing our trade deficit will reduce the stimulus spending required, reducing our national debt by up to a trillion dollars over the next few years . And longer term, it also means that we’ll own more of our own assets. President Barack Obama’s recent statements about bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US are a good start, but they need to be followed up with effective actions to force real change from trading partners like China. Fears of sparking a trade war are overblown as China stands to lose a lot more than the US, as are fears of a sell off in Treasuries as we can buy our own Treasuries with the extra savings we’ll have. Furthermore, China has the political will and the balance sheet to support their economy as domestic consumption catches up. The US, meanwhile, cannot afford to wait any longer.

US collapse causes global great power warsDuncan ’12 [Richard Duncan, former IMF consultant, financial sector specialist for the World Bank, Chief Economist Blackhorse Asset Management, The New Depression: The Breakdown of the Paper Money Economy, Page 12, Ebooks]

The political battle over America’s future would be bitter, and quite possibly bloody. It cannot be guaranteed that the U.S. Constitution would survive. Foreign affairs would also confront the United States with enormous challenges. During the Great Depression, the United States did not have a global empire. Now it does. The United States maintains hundreds of military bases across dozens of countries around the world. Added to this is a fleet of 11

aircraft carriers and 18 nuclear-armed submarines. The country spends more than $650 billion a year on its military. If the U.S. economy collapses

into a New Great Depression, the United States could not afford to maintain its worldwide military presence or to continue in its role as global peacekeeper. Or, at least, it could not finance its military in the same way it does at present. Therefore, either the United States would have to find an alternative funding method for its global military presence or else it would have to radically scale it back. Historically, empires were financed with plunder and territorial expropriation. The estates of the vanquished ruling classes were given to the conquering generals, while the rest of the population was forced to pay imperial taxes. The U.S. model of empire has been unique. It has financed its global military presence by issuing government debt, thereby taxing future generations of Americans to pay for this generation’s global supremacy. That would no longer be possible if the economy collapsed. Cost–benefit analysis would quickly reveal that much of America’s global presence was simply no longer affordable. Many—or even most—of the outposts that did not pay for themselves would have to be abandoned. Priority would be given to those places that were of vital economic interests to the United States. The Middle East oil fields would be at the top of that list.

The United States would have to maintain control over them whatever the price. In this global depression scenario, the price of oil could collapse to $3 per

barrel. Oil consumption would fall by half and there would be no speculators left to manipulate prices higher. Oil at that level would impoverish the oil-producing nations, with extremely destabilizing political consequences. Maintaining control over the Middle East oil fields would become much more difficult for the United States. It would require a much larger military presence than it does now. On the one hand, it might become necessary for the United States to reinstate the draft (which would possibly meet with violent resistance from draftees, as it did during the Vietnam War). On the other hand, America’s all-volunteer army might find it had more than enough volunteers with the national unemployment rate in excess of 20 percent. The army might have to be employed to keep order at home, given that mass unemployment would inevitably lead to a sharp spike in crime. Only after the Middle East oil was secured would the country know how much more of its global military presence it could afford to maintain. If international trade had broken down, would there be any reason for the

United States to keep a military presence in Asia when there was no obvious way to finance that presence? In a global depression, the United States’ allies in Asia would most likely be unwilling or unable to finance America’s military bases there or to pay for the upkeep of the U.S. Pacific

17


fleet. Nor would the United States have the strength to force them to pay for U.S. protection. Retreat from Asia might become unavoidable. And Europe? What would a cost–benefit analysis conclude about the wisdom of the United States maintaining military bases there? What valued added does Europe provide to the United

States? Necessity may mean Europe will have to defend itself. Should a New Great Depression put an end to the Pax Americana, the world would become a much more dangerous place. When the Great Depression began, Japan was the rising industrial power in Asia. It invaded Manchuria in 1931 and conquered much of the rest of Asia in the early 1940s. Would China, Asia’s new rising power, behave the same way in the event of a new global economic collapse? Possibly. China is the only nuclear power in Asia east of India (other than North Korea, which is largely a Chinese satellite state). However, in this disaster scenario, it is not certain that China would survive in its current configuration. Its economy would be in ruins. Most of its factories and banks would be closed. Unemployment could exceed 30 percent. There would most likely be starvation both in the cities and in the countryside. The Communist Party could lose its grip on power, in which case the country could break apart, as it has numerous times in the past. It was less than 100 years ago that China’s provinces, ruled by warlords, were at war with one another. United or divided, China’s nuclear arsenal would make it Asia’s undisputed superpower if the United States were to withdraw

from the region. From Korea and Japan in the North to New Zealand in the South to Burma in the West, all of Asia would be at China’s mercy. And

hunger among China’s population of 1.3 billion people could necessitate territorial expansion into Southeast Asia. In fact, the central government might not be able to prevent mass migration southward, even if it wanted to. In Europe, severe economic hardship would revive the centuries-old struggle between the left and the right. During the 1930s, the Fascists movement arose and imposed a police state on most of Western Europe. In the East, the Soviet Union had become a communist police state even earlier. The far right and the far left of the political spectrum converge in totalitarianism. It is difficult to judge whether Europe’s democratic institutions would hold up better this time that they did last time. England had an empire during the Great Depression. Now it only has banks. In a severe worldwide depression, the country—or, at least London—could become ungovernable. Frustration over poverty and a lack of jobs would erupt into anti-immigration riots not only in the United Kingdom but also across most of Europe. The extent to which Russia would menace its European neighbors is unclear. On the

one hand, Russia would be impoverished by the collapse in oil prices and might be too preoccupied with internal unrest to threaten anyone. On the

other hand, it could provoke a war with the goal of maintaining internal order through emergency wartime powers. Germany is very nearly demilitarized today when compared with the late 1930s. Lacking a nuclear deterrent of its own, it could be subject to Russian intimidation. While Germany could appeal for protection from England and France, who do have nuclear capabilities, it is uncertain that would buy Germany enough time to remilitarize before it became a victim of Eastern aggression. As for the rest of the world, its prospects in this disaster scenario can be summed up in only a couple of sentences. Global

economic output could fall by as much as half, from $60 trillion to $30 trillion. Not all of the world’s seven billion people would survive in a $30 trillion global economy. Starvation would be widespread. Food riots would provoke political upheaval and myriad big and small conflicts around the world. It would be a humanitarian catastrophe so extreme as to be unimaginable for the current generation, who, at least in the industrialized world, has known only prosperity.

Nor would there be reason to hope that the New Great Depression would end quickly. The Great Depression was only ended by an even more calamitous global war that killed approximately 60 million people .

Empirical studies prove economic decline causes warsRoyal ’10 [Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, 213-215, online]

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on

leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others

have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary

theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external

military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find

supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.

18


Observation 2 is Solvency:

Offshore IMTA solves best- it’s sustainable, efficient, and cost-effective Troell et al ’09 [Max Troell, Associate Professor, Systems Ecologist, and Researcher at the Beijer Institute and Stockholm University, Alyssa Joyce, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Dr. Thierry Chopin, Doctorate from the University of Western Brittany, President of the International Seaweed Association, advisor to the International Foundation for Science, “Ecological engineering in aquaculture — Potential for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in marine offshore systems,” Aquaculture 297 (2009) 1–9, online]

With an average growth rate of 6.9% per annum, aquaculture is the fastest growing food production sector in the world (FAO, 2009). This¶ rapid growth faces, however, some limitations in the availability of ¶ suitable sites and in the ecological carrying capacity of existing sites. Offshore aquaculture is increasingly being promoted as necessary to overcome such limitations and meet future world seafood demand .¶ However, considerable controversy has emerged over the proper¶ development of offshore aquaculture, and its actual advantages over¶ existing nearshore aquaculture. Although the termoffshore aquaculture¶ has specific implications within the United States, where regulations¶ explicitly define the terms of production (S.1195, the National Offshore¶ Aquaculture Act),1 a more universal and operational definition of¶ offshore aquaculture is based on the move of farm installations from¶ nearshore sheltered environments to more exposed environments. In¶ some countries, where there are no specific regulations defining¶ offshore culturing, or where there are conflicts over jurisdiction of the¶ Exclusive Economic Zone (e.g. in Asia and Europe, the 200-mile limit is¶ often shared by several countries), offshore aquaculture is better¶ defined not based on distance from shore, per se, as in some locations¶ exposed conditions can be found within less than 2 nautical miles from¶ land, while in others, these conditions exists more than10 miles¶ offshore. Thus it is difficult to develop a precise and universal definition¶ of offshore culturing (Ryan, 2004). However, in general, many of the¶ challenges for offshore aquaculture engineering involve adaptations of¶ farm installation designs and operation protocols for a variety of¶ challenging physical factors, e.g. currents and wave actions, deep water¶ (e.g. difficulty in anchoring structures), shipping routes,migration routes¶ for marine mammals, and logistical difficulties (North, 1987). Solutions¶ to these challenges involve costs, which have implications for market¶ scale and profits (North, 1987; Posadas and Bridger, 2003; NOAA, 2008).¶ Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) – the integrated¶ culturing of fed species, such as finfish, inorganic extractive species¶ such as seaweeds, and organic extractive species such as suspensionand¶ deposit-feeders – has the promise to contribute to the sustainability of aquaculture (Chopin et al., 2001; Neori et al., 2004; FAO, 2006). It is anticipated that it could also help solve some of the challenges specific to offshore systems . The aim of this paper is to identify and analyze the¶ various challenges that can be resolved, and new ones that may be¶ posed, by adopting the IMTA approach to offshore aquaculture.¶ 2. Ecological engineering in aquaculture¶ Asian countries, which provide more than two thirds of the world's¶ aquaculture production, have for centuries been practicing IMTA¶ through “trial and error” and experimentation (Li, 1987; Tian et al.,¶ 1987;Wei, 1990; Liao, 1992; Edwards, 1992, 1993; Chan, 1993; Chiang,¶ 1993; Qian et al., 1996; Troell, in press). Interestingly, civilizations most¶ successful at developing integrated aquaculture systems treatwastes as¶ valuable resources, and have for a long time integrated nutrient cycling¶ into their agricultural systems (Chopin et al., 2001; Troell, in press).¶ The discipline of ecological engineering addresses and quantifies the¶ processes that are involved with management of wastes as a resource.¶ Such studies consider a variety of complex environmental and social¶ needs, in addition to maximizing short-term profit (Ruddle and Zhong,¶ 1988; Bailey, 1988; Primavera, 1991; Wilks, 1995). Recent advances in IMTA cultivation techniques outside of Asia evolved primarily from ecological engineering experiments on the use of intensive culturing of seaweeds and bivalves as biofilters at sewage outflows (Ryther et al.,¶ 1972, 1975; Goldman et al., 1974) and aquaculture outflows (Neori¶ et al., 2004; Shpigel, 2005). Environmental concerns about the rapid¶ expansion of intensive mariculture systems have also recently led to a renewed interest in IMTA (Chopin et al., 2001, 2008; FAO, 2006).¶ However, most studies have focused on land-based systems, and only a¶ few have to-date investigated the possibilities of IMTA farming in open¶ water. In the past fifteen years, the integration of seaweedswithmarine¶ fish culturing has been examined and studied in Canada, Japan, Chile,¶ New Zealand, Scotland and the USA (Petrell et al., 1993; Hirata and¶ Kohirata, 1993; Buschmann et al., 1994, 2008; Hirata et al., 1994; Petrell¶ andAlie, 1996; Troell et al., 1997, 2003; Chopin and Yarish, 1998; Chopin¶ et al., 1999, 2001, 2008;Neori et al., 2004; Halling et al., 2005; Kimura et¶ al., 2007; Stenton-Dozey, 2007; Sanderson et al., 2008; Abreu et al.,¶ 2009). The integration ofmussels and oysters as biofilters in fish farming¶ has also been studied in a number of countries, including Australia, the¶ USA, Canada, France, Chile, Spain (Jones and Iwama, 1991; Taylor et al.,¶ 1992; Stirling and Okumus, 1995; Troell andNorberg, 1998; Buschmann¶ et al., 2000;Mazzola and Sara, 2001; Cheshuk, 2001; Langan, 2004). The¶ recent offshore relocation of many coastal finfish farms in Turkey has¶ generated interest in IMTA (Turan et al., 2009). Recent reviews on IMTA¶ research include a focus on seaweeds (Buschmann et al., 2001; Chopin¶ et al., 2001; Neori et al., 2004), bivalves (Troell et al., 1999a; Shpigel,¶ 2005), crustaceans (Troell et al., 1999b; Jones et al., 2002) and on¶ integrated cultures from a coastal zone management perspective¶ (Newkirk, 1996; Brzeski and Newkirk, 1997; Rawson et al., 2002;¶ Buschmann et al., 2006). 3. Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in the marine¶ environment—concept and drivers¶ Modern offshore fish-cage aquaculture practices are similar¶ worldwide. Designs and degree of automation may differ, but with¶ the exception of floating closed containment systems (Partridge et al.,¶ 2006; Fredriksson et al., 2008) most marine finfish cages are operated¶ as flow-though net-pen systems. This means that water is transported¶ through the cages by currents, resulting in an incomplete utilization of¶ feed resources and a direct release of reduced quality water, laden with both particulate and dissolved nutrients to the environment. IMTA has been proposed for mitigating aquaculture waste release,¶ which, as compared to other accompanying methods (i.e. improved¶ maintenance, feed development), has advantages that may include a reduced

19


“ecological footprint”, economic diversification and increased social acceptability of finfish culturing systems. Furthermore, IMTA is the only practical remediation approach with a prospect for additional farm revenues by additional commercial crops, while all other biomitigation approaches have generally involved only additional costs to the producer . Thus, the practice of IMTA combines, in the right¶ proportions, the cultivation of fed aquaculture species (principally¶ finfish) with inorganic extractive aquaculture species (principally¶ seaweeds) and organic particulate extractive aquaculture species¶ (principally suspension- and deposit-feeders). It is a balanced ecosystem management approach that takes into consideration site specificity, operational limits, revenues and food safety guidelines, as well as environmental quality and regulations. The aim is to increase¶ long-term sustainability and profitability per cultivation unit (not per¶ species, as is practiced in monocultures), by recapturing some of the¶ nutrients and energy that are lost in finfish monocultures, and¶ transforming them into additional crops with commercial value.¶ Drivers for practicing IMTA are found at different levels of the¶ production cycle. At the farm level it may be revenues from producing¶ additional crops. From a societal perspective, value of ecosystem¶ services rendered by the extractive species can be estimated and quantified by environmental accounting. Where limitations are¶ proposed on nutrient emissions in environmental regulations, a¶ farmer could expand production, or need to fallow sites less¶ frequently, thanks to the culture of extractive species at the fish¶ farm. Such goals could be accomplished through nutrient trading credits, similar to systems utilized for pollution or carbon credits,2 or by internalizing the environmental costs of nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon discharges, enhancing the development of recycling technologies (Buschmann et al., 1996; Chopin et al., 2001).

IMTA is key to diversification- prevents industry collapseChopin ’10 [Dr. Thierry Chopin, Doctorate from the University of Western Brittany, President of the International Seaweed Association, advisor to the International Foundation for Science, “Chapter 9: Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture,” http://www.i-mar.cl/extension/aportes2010/Chopin%20et%20al%202010%20OECD%20paper.pdf]

The global seafood industry is at a crossroads: as capture fisheries stagnate in volume, they are falling increasingly short of a growing

world demand for seafood. It is anticipated that by 2030, there will be a 50-80 million tonne seafood deficit (FAO, 2009). This gap will likely not be filled by capture fisheries but by ¶ aquaculture operations, which already supply almost 50% of the seafood consumed ¶ worldwide (FAO, 2009). Consequently, it is imperative to design the ecosystem responsible aquaculture practices of tomorrow that maintain the integrity of ecosystems and yet ensure the viability of this sector

and its key role in food ¶ provision, safety and security. Without a clear recognition of the industry’s large-scale dependency and impact on natural ecosystems and traditional societies, the aquaculture industry is unlikely to either develop to its full potential , continue to supplement ocean fisheries, or obtain societal acceptance . The majority of aquaculture production still originates ¶ from relatively sustainable extensive and semi-intensive systems (Tacon et al.,¶ 2010); however, the rapid development, throughout the world, of intensive marine ¶ fed aquaculture (e.g. carnivorous finfish and shrimp), and to a lesser extent some ¶ shellfish aquaculture, is associated with concerns about the environmental, economic and social impacts that these, often monospecific, practices can have, especially where activities are highly geographically concentrated or located in ¶ suboptimal sites whose assimilative capacity is poorly understood and, ¶ consequently, prone to being exceeded. For many

marine aquaculture operations, monoculture is, spatially and managerially, often the norm . Species are cultivated independently in different ¶ bays or regions. Consequently, the two different types of aquaculture (fed versus¶ extractive) are often geographically separate, rarely balancing each other out at the ¶ local or regional scale, and, thus, any potential synergy between the two is lost. In an aquaculture environment with fixed spatial limits (e.g. lease boundaries), increased

production generally comes at the expense of the natural environment , as the farmer tends to squeeze more and more production into

a fixed area. Once the natural system is destabilized, the risk that the entire operation will collapse increases. To avoid pronounced shifts in coastal processes, the solution to ¶ nutrification by fed aquaculture is not dilution, but extraction and conversion of the ¶ excess nutrients and energy into other commercial crops produced by extractive ¶ aquaculture (e.g. seaweeds and suspension- and deposit-feeding invertebrates). ¶

To continue to grow , while developing better management practices , the aquaculture sector needs to develop more innovative, responsible, sustainable and ¶ profitable technologies and practices, which should be ecologically efficient, ¶ environmentally benign, product-diversified and societally beneficial. Maintaining ¶ sustainability, not only from an environmental, but also from economic, social and ¶ technical perspectives, has become a key issue, increased by the enhanced ¶ awareness of more and more demanding consumers regarding quality, traceability ¶ and production

conditions. Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) has the potential to play a role in reaching these objectives by cultivating fed species ¶ (e.g. finfish fed sustainable commercial diets) with extractive species , which utilize the inorganic (e.g.

seaweeds) and organic (e.g. suspension- and deposit-feeders) ¶ excess nutrients from aquaculture for their growth. ¶ The need for diversification and combining fed and extractive aquaculture into ¶ IMTA systems ¶ The common old saying “Do not put all your eggs in one basket”, which ¶ applies to agriculture and

many other businesses, should also apply to aquaculture. ¶ Having too much production of a single species leaves a business vulnerable to issues of sustainability because of fluctuating prices in what has become commodity markets and potential oversupply, and the possibility of catastrophic destruction of one’s only crop (diseases,

damaging weather conditions). ¶ Consequently, diversification of the aquaculture industry is advisable for reducing ¶ the economic risk and maintaining its sustainability and competitiveness. ¶ From an ecological point of view, diversification also means cultivating more ¶ than one trophic level, i.e. not just cultivating several species of finfish (that would ¶ be “polyculture”), but adding into the mix organisms of different and lower trophic ¶ levels (e.g. seaweeds, shellfish, crustaceans, echinoderms, worms, bacteria, etc.), ¶ chosen according to their roles in the ecosystem and their established or potential ¶ commercial value, to mimic the functioning of natural ecosystems. Staying at the ¶ same ecological trophic level will not address some of the environmental issues ¶ because the system will remain unbalanced due to non-diversified resource needs. ¶ It is also important to consider that while some ecosystem goods (e.g.fish) ¶

20


generally have a higher market price than other ecosystem goods (potentially ¶ making them a more attractive investment), ecosystems are not based on the same ¶ principles, but on a balance of biomass between organisms having different ¶ complementary functions and a balance of energy flows. Evolving aquaculture practices will require a conceptual shift towards understanding the working of food production systems rather than focusing on technological solutions. In other words, we have

to think about how to make the “Blue Revolution” greener and should more appropriately talk of the “Turquoise Revolution”! One of the innovative solutions promoted for environmental sustainability (biomitigation), economic stability (product diversification and risk reduction)

and societal acceptability (improved support for the industry and its differentiated safe ¶ products), is IMTA. This practice combines, in

appropriate proportions, the cultivation of fed aquaculture species (e.g.finfish) with inorganic extractive aquaculture species (e.g. seaweeds) and organic extractive aquaculture species ¶ (e.g.suspension- and deposit-feeding invertebrates) for a balanced ecosystem management approach that takes into consideration site specificity, operational limits, and food safety guidelines and regulations (Figutr 9.1). The aim is to ¶ increase long-term sustainability and profitability per cultivation unit (not per ¶ species in isolation as is done in monoculture), as the wastes of one crop (fed ¶ animals) are converted into fertilizer, food and energy for the

other crops ¶ (extractive plants and animals), which can, in turn, be marketed. Feed is one of the ¶ core operational costs of finfish aquaculture operations, but with

IMTA this cost is reduced because some of the food , nutrients and energy considered lost in finfish monoculture are recaptured and converted into crops of commercial value, while ¶ biomitigation takes place. In this way all the cultivation components have a commercial value, as well as a key role in recycling processes and rendering ¶ services. The harvesting of the different types of crops participates in the capture ¶ and export of nutrients outside of the coastal ecosystem. The biomass and functions ¶ of the fed and extractive species naturally present in the ecosystem in which ¶ aquaculture farms are operating must also be accounted for or this will lead to the ¶ development of erroneous carrying capacity models. For example, the ¶ 158 811 tonnes (fresh weight) of the intertidal seaweed, Ascophyllum nodosum ¶ (rockweed), in proximity to salmon aquaculture operations in southwest New ¶ Brunswick, Canada, are not neutral in the ecosystem and represent a significant ¶ coastal nutrient scrubber which should be taken into consideration to understand ¶ the functioning of that part of the Bay of Fundy.

The plan’s signal solves regulation clarity- key to sustainable aquaculturePittenger et al ‘07 [Richard Pittenger is chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, former Vice President for Marine Operations and Arctic Research Coordinator for Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, former Chief of Staff to the U.S. Naval Forces in Europe, and Oceanographer of the Navy, Bruce Anderson, PhD in biomedical sciences from the University of Hawaii, is president of the Oceanic Institute, holds an M.P.H. in epidemiology from Yale University, Daniel Benetti is Associate Professor and the Director of Aquaculture at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, has over 25 years experience in aquaculture worldwide, “Sustainable Marine Aquaculture: Fulfilling the Promise; Managing the Risks,” January, http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/Sustainable_Marine_Aquaculture_final_1_07.pdf]

Addressing the effects of aquaculture on the marine environment requires specific measures to address specific concerns, such as escapes,

disease, or water pollution. It also requires changes to the broader framework of laws, institutions, and policies that dictate how aquaculture is sited, permitted, and operated in marine waters of the U nited States. This is particularly true if aquaculture in the United States moves increasingly offshore into marine waters under federal jurisdiction.¶ Two key failings of the current legal regime for marine aquaculture are the lack of clear federal leadership and the lack of standards to protect of the marine environment . Numerous federal agencies have responsibility for aspects of aquaculture regulation, but

currently no agency is charged to coordinate the overall process. This creates a confusing and cumbersome process for those seeking permits for aquaculture and results in a lack of accountability among the federal agencies for marine aquaculture activities and its impacts on the marine environment. As a result, greater authority requires greater responsibility on the part of the lead agency. This is best facilitated by a strong signal from Congress that marine aquaculture will not be promoted at the expense of the health of the¶ marine environment. • Congress should assign NOAA a leading role in planning, siting, and regulating aquaculture in federal marine waters .

21


Plan is modeled globallyBrowdy and Hargreaves ‘08 [Craig L. Browdy, PhD, Senior Marine Scientist at the Waddell Mariculture Center, and John A. Hargreaves, PhD focus in Aquaculture from Louisiana State University, aquaculture expert with more than 30 years of experience in research, teaching, and development, “Overcoming Technical Barriers to the Sustainable Development of Competitive Marine Aquaculture in the United States,” http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/aquaculture_docs/noaanist_techbarriers_final.pdf]

In order to meet increasing demand for seafood and reduce rising trade deficits, the U.S. needs to enhance aquaculture production in land-based, nearshore and offshore sectors. Tech nologies and production methods for nearshore sea cage culture of a few species of finfish (e.g., salmon, trout) are well developed, however, suitable sites in protected waters are limited, and further ¶ development has been impeded by environmental concerns, disease and parasites, containment ¶ breaches, and multiple use conflicts. Technologies to improve environmental performance, create more secure containment barriers, manage fish health (diseases and parasites), reduce production costs (feed, labor) and produce new species for culture may result in expansion of nearshore cage culture. There is tremendous opportunity for expansion of cage culture in open ¶ ocean waters, however, the technology suitable for high energy ocean environments is in an early ¶ stage of development, and farms operating in exposed waters are small, production costs are ¶ high, and economic risk is not well known. Development and integration of technologies to a ¶ high level of automation for conducting routine operations is needed for offshore farming to ¶ expand. In addition, additional data on environmental effects of ocean farming at a commercial ¶ scale (e.g., 2-5,000 MT annual production) are needed in order to overcome impediments due to ¶ environmental concerns, and to inform the policy and regulatory framework for domestic ¶ offshore farming. ¶ Economic Significance of Innovation ¶ Restoring U.S. nearshore cage production to its 2001 peak would add approximately ¶ $80,000,000 in farm gate value to the existing sector. Additional production beyond that amount ¶ may or may not be possible due to space constraints. If technology for large scale offshore production could be achieved, (e.g., 50 U.S. farms each producing 5,000 MT) the farm gate value would be in the $1.5-2 billion by 2025, and perhaps double or triple that mount by 2050. In addition, technologies for offshore farming developed in the U.S, would be highly sought after internationally.

Incentives are key to IMTA- solves industry concerns and spurs regulationChopin et al ‘10 [Dr. Thierry Chopin, Doctorate from the University of Western Brittany, President of the International Seaweed Association, advisor to the International Foundation for Science, Dr. Max Troell, Associate Professor, Systems Ecologist, and Researcher at the Beijer Institute and Stockholm University, Dr. Gregor K. Reid, University of New Brunswick, “Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture: Part II. Increasing IMTA Adoption,” http://research.rem.sfu.ca/papers/knowler/GAANov-Dec2010pp17-20.pdf]

Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) systems not only produce valuable biomass, but also provide waste reduction services. Once nutrients enter coastal

ecosystems, the use of extractive species in IMTA is one of the few costeffective options for treatment. With an appropriate composition of

co-cultured species, IMTA can reduce the amounts of organic and inorganic nitrogen, carbon and phosphorus, making extractive aquaculture a good candidate for nutrient trading credits (NTCs). Preliminary calculations for a relatively small-scale IMTA project on the eastern coast of Canada, for example, indicated that the annual harvesting of kelp would equate to the removal of 35.75 mt of nitrogen from the ecosystem, representing an NTC of U.S. $357,504 to 1,072,512. The same could be applied to another key nutrient, phosphorus. With a removal of 4.09 mt and a value of U.S. $4/kg removed, this would represent another contribution to the NTC of $16,343 – a much smaller amount, but it could also be an important way of

extracting phosphorus at a time when some are predicting a shortage of the element.¶ Carbon Trading Credits Carbon trading credits (CTCs) could also be calculated. There may be arguments¶ about what is meant by trapping and¶ sequestering carbon. Some may argue that¶ it should be reserved to long-term geological¶ storage (sink) and not transient storage.¶ If temporary removal of carbon from¶ the ocean can be credited for potentially¶ increasing seawater pH and absorbing carbon¶ dioxide from the atmosphere and/or¶ cultivated animals, it can be calculated that¶ with a value for carbon removal around¶ U.S. $30/mt, this would represent a¶ removal of 306.43 mt and a CTC of¶ $9,193 – a larger amount of carbon, but¶ with a much smaller value, underlining the¶ difficulty in removing dissolved nutrients¶ from aquatic systems and the acute issue of¶ their presence in coastal systems. Similar calculations could be applied¶ to the organic extractive component of¶ IMTA. In the case of shellfish, accumulation¶ of nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon¶ should be considered both in meat¶ and shells, which are especially rich in¶ calcium carbonates.¶ Green Tides¶ At a much larger scale, the occurrence¶ of large and recurrent “green tides”¶ should also be brought into focus. The¶ green tide that washed into Qingdao,¶ China, just before the sailing competitions¶ of the 2008 Olympic Games got a¶ lot of attention.¶ Within three weeks, 1 mmt of Ulva¶ prolifera seaweed were removed from the¶ vicinity of Qingdao to allow the sailors¶ and windsurfers to compete, while an¶ estimated 2 mmt of U. prolifera sank to¶ the bottom. The harvesting of 1 mmt¶ equated to between 3,000 and 5,000 mt¶ of nitrogen removal for an NTC value of¶ U.S. $30 million to $150 million! Additional¶ NTCs of $1.6 million for the¶ removal of 400 mt of phosphorus and¶ CTC of $900,000 for the removal of¶ 30,000 mt of carbon should also be considered.¶ Green tides are not the cause, but the¶ unintentional consequence of coastal¶ eutrophication. Obviously, it would be¶ beneficial to reduce nutrient loading at¶ the source, but this may not be possible¶ in the present context of economic development¶ along China’s coastal zone.¶ The problem is that U. prolifera is¶ presently an unwanted and uncontrolled¶ nuisance species of limited commercial¶ value. To control its proliferation, the¶ solution may be to create a competition¶ for nutrients by intentionally cultivating algal species, which not only carry on the¶ biomitigation, but also have a commercial¶ value, where U. prolifera starts to enter¶ the coastal environment.¶ This time, the IMTA concept has to¶ be interpreted as an integrated land pond/¶ coastal aquaculture system in a supra-integrated¶ coastal

22


zone management effort¶ that goes beyond provincial borders to¶ address issues at the Yellow Sea scale.¶ Establishing and implementing a structure¶ for the payment of credits or incentives for¶ these biomitigating services will be a delicate¶ matter. A lot of regulatory details will¶ have to be worked out before this complex¶ scheme becomes reality.¶ Increasing IMTA Adoption¶ Presently, the most advanced IMTA¶ systems in open marine waters and landbased¶ operations have three components¶ – fish, suspension feeders or grazers such¶ as shellfish, and seaweed, in cages, rafts¶ or floating lines – but they are admittedly¶ simplified systems. More advanced systems¶ will have several other components¶ (e.g., crustaceans in midwater reefs;¶ deposit feeders such as sea cucumbers, sea¶ urchins and polychaetes in bottom cages¶ or suspended trays; and bottom-dwelling¶ fish in bottom cages) to perform either¶ different or similar functions, but for various¶ size ranges of particles, or selected¶ for their presence at different times of the¶ year.¶ The most advanced IMTA systems¶ near or at commercial scale can be found¶ in Canada, Chile, South Africa, Israel¶ and China. Ongoing research projects¶ related to the development of IMTA are¶ taking place in the United Kingdom, Ireland,¶ Spain, Portugal, France, Turkey,¶ Norway, Japan, Korea, Thailand, United¶ States and Mexico. It will also be interesting¶ to observe how new seaweed cultivation¶ for biofuel production initiatives in¶ different parts of the world could be an¶ additional driver for IMTA practices.¶ Most current aquaculture business¶ models do not consider the economic¶ value of the biomitigation services provided¶ by biofilters, as there is often no¶ cost associated with aquaculture discharges/¶ effluents in land-based or

openwater¶ systems. Appropriate regulatory¶ and policy frameworks and financial incentive tools may therefore be required to clearly recognize the benefits of the¶ extractive components of IMTA systems. Better estimates of the overall costs and benefits to

nature and society of aquaculture waste and its mitigation would create powerful financial and regulatory incentives to governments and the industry to jointly invest in the IMTA approach, as the economic demonstration of its validity would be even more obvious . Moreover, by implementing better management practices, the aquaculture industry should increase its societal

acceptability, a variable to which it is difficult to give a monetary value, but an imperative condition for the development¶ of its full potential. Reducing environmental and economic risks in the long¶ term should also make financing easier to obtain from banking institutions. Consumers’ attitudes may also have to change as they come to accept eating products cultured in the marine environment in the same way they accept eating products from recycling and organic agricultural¶ practices – products for which¶ they are willing to pay a higher price for the perceived

quality or ethical premiums. The differentiation of IMTA products through traceability and ecolabeling will be key for their recognition and command of premium market prices .

23


Inherency

24


US aquaculture lowUS aquaculture has stalled- no new growthNewman 3-27-14 [Dr. Newman is a marine microbiologist with more than three decades of experience in the global business of aquaculture, auditor for the Aquaculture Certification Council, NSF Surefish and Global Trust, Newman has audited more than 50 processing plants, “US domestic aquaculture industry unlikely to grow,” http://www.seafoodsource.com/en/blogs/global-aquaculture-issues/25835-us-domestic-aquaculture-industry-unlikely-to-grow]

Over the last three and half decades, I have watched aquaculture grow rapidly (often too quickly) outside of the U.S. and watched U.S. companies struggle with high regulatory costs and business models that simply were not viable. ¶ Despite this, there is a solid aquaculture industry in the U.S. although the industry cannot meet the needs of the U.S. and some facets of the industry, such as the catfish farming industry, have struggled against imports. Note that this is a generalization. Some sectors, such as bivalve production in general do well. For others growth is at best difficult. There is a strong demand for products that are produced in the U.S. among certain market sectors but for many prices are more important than source. ¶ As technologies have improved, local production for local markets has become a viable business model. Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) allow production in inner cities, although typically the cost structure is high. Nonetheless, niche markets are more than willing to pay the price for domestic fresh product that is produced with the certainty that it is what it claims to be and that it is produced in a manner consistent with sustainability. I expect that we will see some very large operations in the years to come. ¶ It is my opinion though that while there are those in the U.S. that are pushing for a stronger domestic industry that this is not likely to come to pass. The sheer volume of imports into the U.S. is so large and has the potential to be so much larger that there is simply no way that this commodity driven demand could be met by domestic production. ¶ Also, despite evidence that suggests that there may be some fundamental changes in how this production will be approached, the U.S. is highly regulated in many sectors and the costs of doing business often can make being competitive problematic. While one agency or even a group of agencies may be lobbying for a massive expansion in domestic aquaculture production, other agencies (Federal, state and local) are ensuring that this will be a very bumpy road.

US offshore aquaculture is underdeveloped- new efforts are neededTiller et al ’13 [Rachel Tiller, PhD, Post Doctoral Fellow with a focus on marine research at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Fulbright Scholar, Russell Richards, PhD with research expertise in coastal and ocean management, Griffith University, Rebecca Gentry, former Policy Analyst at the Ministry of Fisheries, New Zealand, PhD student at the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, “Stakeholder driven future scenarios as an element of interdisciplinary management tools; the case of future offshore aquaculture development and the potential effects on fishermen in Santa Barbara, California,” Ocean & Coastal Management¶ Volume 73, March 2013, Pages 127–135, ScienceDirect, online]

In light of the increased demand for seafood in the United States and around the world, driven by a growing population and increasing per capita consumption, aquaculture in open ocean waters is increasingly being proposed as a sustainable and innovative option to meet this demand (Polefka, Richmond et al., 2007). Offshore aquaculture development represents an opportunity to bring economic development to coastal communities, decrease our reliance on foreign imports, and ensure that high quality seafood products reach American consumers. While locating aquaculture in the open ocean can mitigate many of the conflicts and environmental impacts associated with near shore aquaculture, there are still many potential environmental effects and spatial conflicts related to offshore aquaculture development that must be considered and carefully evaluated. Offshore aquaculture is still largely undeveloped in the U.S., providing a valuable opportunity to proactively manage its future development in a way that is scientifically robust, resource efficient, sustainable and minimizes undesirable interactions with existing uses.

25


Restrictions nowUS aquaculture is overly restrictive- sustainable approaches are keyWeek ’13 [Chris Weeks, Regional Aquaculture Extension Specialist, North Central Regional Aquaculture Center, Michigan State University, “Sustainable Aquaculture in the North Central Region U.S.—A Review of Perceptions and Recommendations from the Aquaculture Community,” http://www.joe.org/joe/2013april/comm1.php]

It is also important to remember that environmental policy in the U.S. is often dictated on the premise that restriction is the best approach to prevention. Developmental strategies must therefore anticipate and account for the likelihood that regulators will attempt to employ increasingly restrictive measures on the industry, regardless of rights in commerce or the actual effectiveness of a regulation. It is much more difficult, however, to impose potentially unjust and ineffective regulations on a sustainable activity. Hence, one could make strong argument that perhaps the best way to shift regulatory control from that of restriction towards promotion is through increasingly more proactive efforts by industry supporters in sustainable aquaculture development, practices, and promotion .

26


Unsustainable nowAquaculture is inevitable but unsustainable- new recycling methods are key to sustainabilityPapenbrock and Turcios ’14 [Prof. Dr. Jutta Pape Brock, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Ariel Turcios, PhD student, “Sustainable Treatment of Aquaculture Effluents—What Can We Learn from the Past for the Future?” Sustainability 2014, 6, 836-856, online]

Worldwide, there is a growing contamination of soil and irrigation water, caused, among other¶ reasons, by intensive agricultural use and environmentally-unfriendly activity, which is due to the need to generate ever greater quantities of food to meet the demands of the growing population.¶ Today, aquaculture is growing rapidly: according to the FAO [1], aquaculture provides 47%¶ (51 million tons) of the global human fish consumption. In order to keep up with population growth and¶

increasing per capita fish consumption, aquaculture output is set to increase by a further 60 % –100% over the next 20–30 years. In 2015, the production from aquaculture will be 74 million tons [1]. More than¶ 40% of the world population lives not more than 100 km away from the coastlines, putting high¶ pressure on the coastal ecosystems. Aquacultures as monocultures have been developed in the last decades, from keeping fish in ponds for easier harvesting to high technological fish farms extensively¶ using feed, hormones and often antibiotics with a known impact on the environment. To achieve sustainability, it is necessary to intensify the production using technologies such as water recirculation systems and proper treatment to optimize this valuable resource. Further, is it important to reduce the pressure on the coastlines and produce large amounts of fish also in inland aquaculture systems close to consumers. In recent years long-forgotten historical approaches have been recovered and adapted to new technologies, such as the parallel production of fish with filter feeders and plants or algae, even in¶ multi-trophic systems [2,3]. This concept is applicable to many standard aquaculture installations, such¶ as ponds or net cages. With respect to the pollution generated by aquaculture, nitrogen and phosphorus are considered as waste components of fish farming, causing serious environmental problems. In addition, several fish¶ excrete nitrogenous waste products by diffusion and ion exchange through the gills, urine and feces. Decomposition and reuse of these nitrogenous compounds is especially important in aquaculture using recirculation systems due to the toxicity of ammonia and nitrite and the chance of hypertrophication of the environment by nitrate [2].¶ All aspects of water treatment play a significant role in intensive fish production, because the¶ control and monitoring of water quality is of vital importance to the success or failure of the¶ production. It is therefore necessary to develop new research applications focused on avoiding or at¶ least reducing the negative impacts of aquaculture effluents on the environment . This review aims at¶ giving an overview about aquaculture systems developed in historical times which could still be¶ valuable for the future, about the present problems, and about innovative ideas, especially with respect¶ to the integration of halophytic plants as biofilter in saline aquaculture systems.

Aquaculture is unsustainable nowHishamunda et al ‘14 [Nathanael Hishamunda, Senior Aquaculture Officer at the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Neil Ridler, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of New Brunswick, Elisabetta Martone, FAO consultant, “Policy and governance ¶ in aquaculture ¶ Lessons learned and way forward,” http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3156e/i3156e.pdf]

Aquaculture governance is likely to become even more important in the future if the sector is to remain sustainable. This is because all four factors of sustainability- economic, environmental, social and technical- will face challenges. The emergence ¶ of oligopolies in the production of certain species, the dominance of individual ¶ monopsonists in local communities, reconciling competing claims to water and land, ¶ the need to manage aquaculture within a deteriorating ecosystem also used by other ¶ interested parties, vocal opposition from well-funded NGOs, and funding of local ¶ research are among the likely challenges that are intrinsic to the industry as it grows. ¶ Some future economic challenges will occur because aquaculture has become more capital-intensive and is likely to remain so as producers strive to remain competitive and the industry seeks to meet the ever-growing demand for fish. This will lead to increased ¶ industry concentration internationally and locally. Environmentally, aquaculture activities will face deteriorating ecosystems also used by other sectors. A major environmental challenge especially for marine aquaculture will be water pollution . Non-point pesticide runoff from agriculture, and industrial and urban waste, is likely ¶ to threaten the pristine water needed for marine finfish and shellfish. Freshwater aquaculture will be jeopardized by a growing scarcity of freshwater and land.Aquaculture is also an industry competing for sites in coastal areas where other ¶ activities have preceded it, or enjoy more public support. Thus, recreation and tourism ¶ with high income elasticity of demand offer strong growth prospects, and communities ¶ may prefer these activities to aquaculture. Aquaculture is only one sector (and often ¶ a minor one) competing for priority and resources against more politically powerful ¶ lobbies.

27


Solvency

28


US key modelThe US is a unique sustainability leader- NOAA leads global efforts and checks illegal practicesSmith 2-12-14 [Russell Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Fisheries, NOAA, “Commerce’s Smith on Support of International Fisheries Agreements,” http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2014/02/20140214293095.html?CP.rss=true#axzz31L5oOxrk]

The United States is also one of the world’s largest importers and consumers of seafood. In 2011, seafood imports contributed 176,000 jobs, $48.4 billion in sales impacts, and $14.8 billion in

value added impacts.3 As such, the United States is in a unique position to support sustainable fisheries around the world while

providing a level playing field for our domestic fishermen. Working in collaboration with the Department of State and the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA engages in international fisheries fora, such as Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), to ensure that global fish stocks are sustainably managed, including by ensuring that management is based on the best available science. As the United States is a leader in sustainably managing fisheries, often we seek to draw from our experience and convince RFMOs to apply, in the waters under their jurisdiction, management measures comparable to those applied in U.S. waters.¶ One of the greatest challenges to our international efforts to ensure the sustainable management of global fisheries is combating

illegal, unreported, or unregulated (IUU) fishing. IUU fishing is a global problem that threatens ocean ecosystems and impacts fisheries, food security, and coastal communities around the world . Experts estimate the global value of economic losses from IUU fishing

range between $10 and $23.5 billion.4 By circumventing conservation and management measures, companies and individuals engaging in IUU fishing cut corners and lower their operating costs. As a result, their illegally caught products provide unfair competition for law-abiding fishermen and seafood industries in the marketplace, and can undercut the sustainability of international and U.S. fisheries.5¶ U.S. accession to the four agreements before you today would greatly strengthen our ability to sustainably manage fisheries resources globally and combat IUU fishing. The agreements are: the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fisheries Resources in the North Pacific Ocean (or North Pacific Convention); the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean (or South Pacific Convention); the Amendment to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (or NAFO Convention Amendment); and the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (or Port States Agreement).¶ These four treaties will directly benefit U.S. interests. The new RFMOs in the North and South Pacific and the existing RFMO in the Northwest Atlantic (NAFO) will have management authority for target stocks and bycatch species that straddle U.S. waters. By joining these organizations and strengthening their management regimes, the United States can promote the use of our strong fishery management principles internationally so that foreign fishing fleets abide by the same standards as our industry. In joining the new North and South Pacific RFMOs, we are also ensuring future economic opportunities for our domestic fishing interests. Although there is currently no U.S. industry operating within the North or South Pacific RFMOs, our membership will allow for the possibility of future engagement and provide the opportunity for the U.S. to influence the management and compliance monitoring measures adopted by these organizations.¶ The treaties also support the U.S. seafood industry and consumers by keeping illegal fisheries product out of U.S. and global markets. The North and South Pacific RFMOs and NAFO will implement new and strengthen existing management tools to combat IUU fishing within their areas. Moreover, the Port States Agreement will help to keep IUU fishing products from entering the market, and keep them from competing with U.S. caught, sustainably harvested, legal seafood -. Denying port entry and access to port services, and consequently preventing illegal seafood from entering trade, increases the costs associated with IUU fishing operations and removes the financial incentives for engaging in IUU fishing.¶ Lastly, these treaties will support international sustainable fisheries management and thereby improve food security globally. Seafood is a significant source of protein for nearly 3 billion people and is the planet's most highly traded food commodity, contributing to the livelihoods of more than 560 million people.6 IUU fishing threatens food security and socio-economic stability in many parts of the world by reducing the productivity and profitability of legitimate fisheries, including artisanal fisheries in coastal areas. By improving the management of fisheries through these new or updated RFMOs, coupled with the IUU fishing-combating Port States Agreement, the four treaties address food security in developing coastal states, in the United States and globally; and thereby support the political stability of U.S. interests worldwide.¶ I now will describe each of the four agreements and the benefits they would provide in more detail.¶ North Pacific and South Pacific Fisheries Conventions¶ The United States has worked for many years with other nations to improve the management of fisheries at the international level and to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems from the impacts of certain fishing practices on the high seas. The North¶ Pacific and South Pacific Conventions will advance U.S. interests in the effective management of high seas fisheries. U.S. participation in the Commissions established under the North Pacific and South Pacific Conventions will facilitate development of measures adopted for fisheries on the high seas of the Pacific Ocean that are compatible with measures adopted by the United States with respect to fisheries in adjacent waters under the fisheries jurisdiction of the United States. In addition, U.S. participation will ensure that future U.S. fishing interests subject to the North Pacific and South Pacific Conventions can be factored into allocation decisions. Furthermore, as both the South Pacific Convention area and the North Pacific Convention areas overlap with that of other Pacific RFMOs in which the United States is a party, U.S. participation will help to ensure a consistent approach to conservation and management among these RFMOs and across the Pacific.¶ North Pacific Convention¶ The North Pacific Convention establishes a new regional fisheries management organization, the North Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC), through which Parties will cooperate to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of fisheries resources in the Convention Area while protecting the marine ecosystems of the North Pacific Ocean in which these resources occur. The North Pacific Convention Area is the high seas area (i.e., outside of 200-mile EEZs) roughly north of 20-degrees North latitude and south of the Aleutians. The specific geographic coordinates of the North Pacific Convention Area are delineated in Article 4 of the Convention. Cooperation under the North Pacific Convention will address fisheries resources not covered under pre-existing international fisheries management instruments and will help to prevent significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems on the high seas that may have impacts on fisheries resources in areas subject to U.S. jurisdiction. One of the general principles of the North Pacific Convention is that conservation and management measures established for straddling fish stocks on the high seas and those adopted for areas under national jurisdiction should be compatible to ensure conservation and management of these fisheries resources in their entirety.¶ The North Pacific Convention calls for a science-based and precautionary approach to the management of fisheries resources and a strong monitoring, control, and surveillance regime. It also will establish two committees, a Scientific Committee and a Technical and Compliance Committee, to carry out its functions. The North Pacific Convention will also allow for the meaningful participation of Taiwan as a fishing entity in the NPFC.¶ Of particular concern to the NPFC are bottom fisheries over seamounts that could have significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems. The participants to the negotiations of the North Pacific Convention have already agreed to interim measures to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems and the sustainable management of high seas bottom fisheries in the North Pacific Convention Area. The interim measures include requiring assessments prior to any fishing that demonstrate that contemplated fishing activities would not have significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems and sustainability of the fishery resources.¶ While there are presently no U.S. vessels fishing whose activities would be covered by the North Pacific Convention, there have been in the past and may be in the future. The United States is a coastal State with fisheries and marine habitats adjacent to the North Pacific Convention Area. Those fisheries can be impacted by management measures adopted by the North Pacific Commission.¶ For example, since 1986, NMFS has prohibited fishing in the U.S. EEZ for Pacific armorhead, one of the groundfish species that will be managed in the Convention area. Armorhead are overfished as a result of past over-exploitation by foreign vessels in international waters dating back to the 1970s or earlier. NMFS believes that continued exploitation outside our EEZ by foreign fleets has kept the stock in an overfished condition. The Hancock Seamounts are the only known armorhead habitat within our EEZ. These seamounts lie west of 180° W. and north of 28° N., to the northwest of Kure Atoll in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council and NMFS have responded to the overfished condition of armorhead by implementing a moratorium on catching armorhead and related seamount

groundfish. The Council and NMFS recognize that, because less than five percent of the armorhead habitat lies within U.S. jurisdiction, rebuilding of the stock must be accomplished through coordinated international management. The North Pacific Convention is an important vehicle to achieve such coordinated international management.¶ The United States also has fleets operating in the North Pacific Convention Area that are fishing for tunas, swordfish and other species that are subject to the jurisdiction of other RFMOs which could cooperate with the NPFC.¶ South Pacific Convention¶ The South Pacific Convention establishes a new regional fisheries management organization, the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization (SPRFMO) through which Parties will cooperate in the conservation and sustainable use of the high seas fishery resources in the South Pacific Ocean and safeguard the marine ecosystems in which these resources occur.¶ The South Pacific Convention applies to areas of the South Pacific outside national jurisdiction from Australia to South America. Some of these areas abut the U.S. EEZ. The initial objectives of the negotiators were to develop a management framework to control bottom fishing in the western Pacific, primarily by New Zealand, Australia, and Taiwan, and the jack mackerel fishery in the eastern Pacific, primarily by Chile, Peru, and the European Union. The United States was a primary participant in the negotiation of the South Pacific Convention. SPRFMO will address fisheries resources not currently under management by pre-existing agreements, such as new pelagic fisheries or expanded fisheries for stocks that straddle one or more exclusive economic zones and high seas areas beyond them.¶ The South Pacific Convention requires Parties to apply specific conservation and management principles and approaches in giving effect to the objective of the South Pacific Convention. These principles and approaches are enshrined in existing

29


international instruments to which the United States is a party, such as the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement. These standards highlight the importance of using the best-available science and applying an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. In addition, the South Pacific Convention requires that Parties design and adopt specific conservation and management measures such as limitations on catch or effort, time or area closures, and gear restrictions.¶ While there are presently no U.S. vessels fishing in the high seas areas of the South Pacific whose activities would be covered by the South Pacific Convention, U.S. membership within the Commission would allow for the potential participation of future fishing interests and enable the U.S. to influence the development of new and amended conservation and management measures.¶ NAFO Convention Amendment¶ The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) is charged with coordinating scientific study and cooperative management of the fisheries resources of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, excluding salmon, tuna, and sedentary species of the Continental Shelf. It was established in 1979 by the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (the “Convention”). The United States acceded to the Convention in 1995 and has participated actively in NAFO since that time, often assuming leadership positions and working to advance key principles of sustainable fisheries management.¶ In 2005, NAFO launched a reform effort designed to streamline the Organization and bring it more in line with the principles of modern fisheries management. In 2007, NAFO members adopted the NAFO Convention Amendment, which is comprehensive, touching on every element of the Convention. It addresses specific U.S. concerns and incorporates key international fisheries governance approaches, as found in the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement, the 1993 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Compliance Agreement, and more recent regional fisheries management agreements. The NAFO Convention Amendment vastly improves the ability of NAFO and its membership to effectively manage the resources under its purview and the ecosystems associated with those resources.¶ Key elements of the NAFO Convention Amendment include provisions that detail NAFO’s objectives, including long-term conservation and sustainable use of fishery resources and safeguarding of marine ecosystems in the convention area. The agreement also outlines general principles that include (among many others) promoting optimum use and long-term sustainability of fishery resources, adopting management measures based on the best scientific advice available, applying the precautionary approach when there is scientific uncertainty, taking into account the effect of fishing on the marine ecosystem, and highlighting the need to preserve biodiversity. This language reflects a modernized approach to fisheries management.¶ Furthermore, the Amendment simplifies the structure of NAFO, which will now consist of a Commission, a Scientific Council, and a Secretariat. This new structure combines the current General Council and Fisheries Commission into a single Commission and reorganizes a number of the sub-bodies. These changes will streamline NAFO considerably and result in increased efficiency, more effective conservation and management, and reduced costs. The NAFO Convention Amendment enables the Commission to take action, including non-discriminatory trade-related measures, against any State or fishing entity whose fishing vessels undermine the effectiveness of NAFO measures. It also requires the Scientific Council to advise the Commission on the impacts of fishing on the marine ecosystem as a whole within the Convention Area. Finally, the Amendment describes the formulation of the Organization’s budget and the calculation of the contributions due by each Contracting Party. One important result of changes to the Amendment is that U.S. costs associated with membership in NAFO will be considerably reduced.¶ The NAFO Convention Amendment also describes Contracting Party duties, flag State duties, and port State duties, respectively. These provisions are noteworthy because they draw on international fisheries governance approaches found in the most important and innovative international agreements on fisheries management including the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement, the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement, and more recent regional fisheries management agreements. The language primarily focuses on effective implementation of measures adopted by NAFO, reporting requirements, inspections, and compliance and enforcement obligations.¶ The NAFO Convention Amendment rewrites the old provisions for decision making, implementation, and settlement of disputes. It modifies the current general rule for decision-making within the Commission from a simple majority to consensus and outlines voting rules to be applied, namely a two-thirds majority, if consensus is not possible. The process for implementation of Commission decisions is also substantially modified, and the NAFO Convention Amendment details how and when decisions become binding and introduces changes to the existing objection procedure. The revised objection procedure is an improvement as it, among other things, requires a detailed explanation from the objecting Contracting Party and a declaration of the actions (including alternative measures) to be taken. Objecting Parties or the Commission may also now submit matters to an ad hoc panel and/or invoke the new dispute settlement procedures, which provide the choice of a number of fora in which to seek resolutions through peaceful means. The process also requires Contracting Parties to submit disputes to compulsory proceedings pursuant to the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement.¶ The NAFO Convention Amendment addresses cooperation with non-Contracting Parties and with other organizations. These new provisions are designed to ensure that non-Contracting flag State vessels abide by NAFO measures when fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area. They call for exchange of information on fishing activities of non-Contracting Parties and measures to deter activities (such as IUU fishing) that may undermine the measures adopted by the Commission. The new text further calls on NAFO to cooperate with the FAO and other relevant organizations, including RFMOs. This is particularly important with respect to the success of regional and global efforts relating to IUU fishing, trade tracking, and even for implementing the ecosystem management of fisheries.¶ Other Amendment provisions are administrative in nature (e.g., establishing procedures for review and amendment of the Convention and its Annexes). Annex I to the Convention, “Scientific and Statistical Subareas, Divisions and Subdivisions,” provides the coordinates of the scientific and statistical subareas, divisions and subdivisions of the Convention Area. Annex II to the Convention, “Rules Concerning the Ad Hoc Panel Procedure pursuant to Article XV,” is a new Annex describing the procedure for the ad hoc panels, one method available to settle disputes between Contracting Parties.¶ Port States Agreement¶ The Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing is the first binding global instrument focused specifically to combat IUU fishing. It recognizes that all fish must pass through a port to get to market and that port States can take cost-effective measures to combat IUU fishing. IUU fishing deprives law-abiding fishermen and coastal communities around the world of up to an estimated $23.5 billion of seafood and seafood products every year7, and undermines efforts to monitor and sustainably manage fisheries. It also threatens the food security in some of the poorest countries in the world as well as in the United States and interferes with the livelihood of legitimate fishers around the world. Seafood caught through IUU fishing enters the global marketplace through ports all around the world. Preventing that fish from entering the global market requires an international solution and the cooperation of countries throughout the world.¶ The Port States Agreement is recognized within the international community as a landmark in the effort to combat IUU fishing. The United States was a primary participant in its negotiation and was one of the first countries to sign it. We took a leadership role because we recognized how important taking these measures is for nations that want to ensure that product entering their ports has been legally harvested and is safe for consumers. We have had experience with the implementation of most of the substantive measures in the agreement as most of these measures are already contained in U.S. law.¶ The Agreement has already had significant impact on efforts to combat IUU fishing, influencing the adoption of similar measures by various RFMOs and providing a model for nations, developing nations in particular, to follow in establishing or strengthening dockside inspection programs. However, the full effect of the Port States Agreement as a tool to combat IUU fishing will not be realized until its entry into force, which requires ratification by 25 nations or regional economic integration organizations. So far, nine have done so. Ratification of the Port States Agreement by the United States will demonstrate strong leadership in the global battle against IUU fishing and will position the United States to encourage ratification by other countries.¶ The Agreement sets forth minimum standards for the conduct of dockside inspections and training of inspectors and, most significantly, requires parties to restrict port entry and port services for foreign vessels known or suspected of having been involved in IUU fishing, particularly those on a RFMO IUU fishing vessel list. These minimum standards would increase the risks and costs associated with IUU fishing activities and help to ensure that IUU fish and fish products do not enter into global trade. Senate advice and consent to ratification of the Port States Agreement will ultimately benefit U.S. fishermen, seafood buyers, and consumers by preventing IUU vessels from entering our ports and diluting the market with illegal product.¶ The Port States Agreement has four primary sets of obligations that Parties are required to apply vis-a-vis foreign flagged fishing vessels (including support vessels) seeking entry to a Party’s port:¶ ● Parties are required to designate ports to which foreign flagged vessels may seek entry, to require that certain information be collected and considered, and to establish a process for granting or denying port entry and/or the use of port services to foreign flagged fishing vessels;¶ ● Parties must maintain the capacity to conduct dockside vessel inspections in the designated ports and adhere to minimum standards for the conduct of inspections and the training of inspectors. A sufficient number of inspections must be conducted to satisfy the objective of the Agreement;¶ ● Subject to certain limited exceptions, Parties must deny port entry and the use of port services to vessels that have been engaged in IUU fishing, including as indicated by inclusion of the vessel on an RFMO IUU Vessel list. Importantly, the limited exceptions include allowing port entry exclusively for enforcement purposes or in the event of force majeure; and,¶ ● Parties are required to share information, including inspection results, with the flag States and, as appropriate, other relevant Parties and entities, as well as to take follow-up actions as requested by the flag State when evidence of IUU fishing is found during the course of an inspection.¶ NOAA would be the lead agency for U.S. implementation of the Port States Agreement. Primary responsibility to carry out its obligations, particularly those related to vessel inspections, will fall on NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Office of Law Enforcement, in collaboration with the U.S. Coast Guard, which has Captain of the Port authority for the United States. Importantly, the minimum standards set by the Port States Agreement track closely to what the United States already does. Under the Port States Agreement, these best practices would become common practice around the world,

thereby effectively closing the so-called ports of convenience that IUU fishing operators use to land their fish and support their activities. As a global leader in sustainable fishing practices, and the third largest importer of seafood in the world, the United States has a responsibility to ensure the fish we import is caught legally. The United States also has a responsibility to protect our domestic fishermen from unfair competition and ensure consumer confidence in the seafood supply by keeping illegal product out of the market. The Port State Measures Agreement marks a significant step forward on both of these

counts. The United States, with our strong legal frameworks, experience in effective port management and robust fisheries law enforcement, has been assisting developing nations in their preparations for implementation of the Agreement. NOAA has most recently assisted Indonesia in its development of training curriculum for fisheries inspectors who will carry out inspections under the Agreement. Additionally, the United States has strongly promoted the adoption of measures in RFMOs that strengthen port related measures, in accordance with the Agreement. These efforts promote the success of the Agreement and thereby reduce the amount of IUU product entering our domestic markets.

30


The plan sets the US as the global sustainability model- key to solve environmental destructionNaylor ’13 [Rosamond L. Naylor, the Julie Wrigley Senior Fellow at the Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Stanford University, “Environmental Safeguards for Open-Ocean Aquaculture,” 11-27-13, http://issues.org/22-3/naylor/]

The main problem with the proposed legislation is the broad discretion given to the secretary of Commerce to promote offshore aquaculture without clear legal standards for environmental protection. The authority is intended to facilitate a streamlining of regulations, yet it provides minimal checks and balances within the system. The bill states that the secretary “shall consult as appropriate with other federal agencies, the coastal states, and regional fishery councils . . . to identify the environmental requirements applicable to offshore aquaculture under existing laws and regulations.” An implicit assumption of the bill is that most of the needed environmental safeguards are already in place. Additional environmental regulations targeted specifically for offshore aquaculture are to be established in the future “as deemed necessary or prudent by the secretary” in consultation with other groups. Yet timing is everything. If the law is passed without the

establishment of comprehensive national guidelines for the protection of marine species and the environment— and the requirement that these guidelines be

implemented— such protection may never happen, or it may happen after irreversible damages have occurred. Are current federal laws sufficient to protect the environment in the EEZ? The answer is no. As a framework, they leave major gaps in environmental protection . The Rivers and Harbors Act gives the Army Corps of Engineers the authority to issue permits for any obstruction in federal waters (including fish cages) but does not provide clear environmental mandates. The Corps has the broad discretion to ensure environmental quality but is not required to do so. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act extends this authority farther offshore beyond the territorial waters of the EEZ and applies to any offshore facilities that are anchored on or up to 1 mile from offshore oil rigs; in this case, further permit approval is required from the Department of Interior. The Clean Water Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate waste discharges from aquaculture facilities, but the agency’s recent effluent guidelines for aquaculture net pens, which presumably would be applied to offshore cages, focus simply on the use of best management practices. Aquaculture discharge is not currently regulated through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the permitting system used for municipal and industrial point-source discharge to U.S. waters. The Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act both are applicable in the EEZ and can be used to limit offshore aquaculture operations if they are proven to threaten any listed threatened or endangered species, or if they unlawfully kill marine mammals. In addition, the Lacey Act gives the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the authority to regulate the introduction of exotic species in federal waters if they have been listed specifically as “injurious” to other species. The Lacey Act applies to any species that are transported or traded across borders, but not to species that already exist within borders. Finally, all international treaties and protocols would apply to offshore aquaculture in the EEZ.¶ The only federal law that the proposed bill would explicitly supersede is the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) of 1976, which stipulates a balance between fishing and conservation. S. 1195 does not include any specific balancing requirements between ecosystems and industry. Regional fishery management councils established under the MSA as well as the public would be consulted in the process of environmental rulemaking but would not have a determining effect on the outcome.¶ Although S. 1195 supersedes only one federal law, existing legislation does not adequately address the major risks of farmed fish escapes and genetic dilution of wild stocks, pathogen transmission from farms to wild organisms, and cumulative effluent discharge. Most existing laws and regulations for marine aquaculture are found at the state level, where current near-shore systems operate. Few states have comprehensive regulatory plans for marine aquaculture, and there are no regional plans that address the risks of biological, chemical, or nutrient pollution that spreads from one coastal state to the next.¶ The proposed bill gives coastal states an important role in influencing the future development of offshore aquaculture. Indeed, coastal states would be permitted to opt out of offshore aquaculture activities. The bill states that offshore aquaculture permits will not be granted or will be terminated within 30 days if the secretary of Commerce receives written notice from the governor of a coastal state that the state does not wish to have the provisions of the act apply to its seaward portion of the EEZ. The governor can revoke the opt-out provision at any time, thus reinstating NOAA’s authority to issue permits and oversee aquaculture operations in that portion of the EEZ. Although the bill does not grant coastal states any jurisdiction over that part of the EEZ, it does provide them with potential exclusion from offshore aquaculture activities.¶ This amendment ensures a role for coastal states that is stronger than that which would apply through the Consistency Provision (section 307) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Section 307 of the CZMA requires that federally permitted projects be consistent with select state laws that safeguard coastal ecosystems, fisheries, and people dependent on those fisheries (collectively called the state’s “coastal zone management program”). To complete the permitting process for an offshore aquaculture project, the project applicant must certify the project’s consistency with the state’s coastal zone management program to NOAA. Even if the state objects to the applicant’s consistency certification, the secretary of Commerce can override the state’s objection and issue the permit simply by determining that the project is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the Federal Coastal Management Act or that the project is necessary in the interest of national security. Thus, the Department of Commerce retains ultimate authority over whether state laws apply to the EEZ.¶ Although the decision by different coastal states to opt out of the proposed offshore aquaculture bill is yet to be determined, some states have already adopted policies related to aquaculture development within state waters. In Alaska, state law prohibits finfish farming within the 3-mile state zone. In Washington, House Bill 1499 allows the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to have more control over environmental damages caused by near-shore salmon farming. In California, salmon farming and the use of genetically modified fish are prohibited by law in marine waters, and a new bill currently being reviewed in the state assembly (SB. 210) requires strict environmental standards for all other forms of marine aquaculture introduced into state waters. The California legislation, in particular, provides an excellent model for a redrafting of the National Offshore Aquaculture Act.¶ The need for national environmental standards¶ Whether environmentalists like it or not,

marine aquaculture is here to stay and will inevitably expand into new environments as global population and incomes

grow. Although the U nited S tates is in a position to make itself a global model for sustainable fish production in the open ocean , the proposed bill unfortunately falls far short of this vision. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Pew Commission, an aggressive marine aquaculture policy is needed at the national level to protect ocean resources and ecosystems. Within this policy framework, several specific features are needed:¶ The establishment of national environmental standards for siting and operation that minimize adverse effects on marine resources and ecosystems and that set clear limits on allowable ecological damage.¶ The establishment of national effluent guidelines through the EPA for biological, nutrient, and chemical pollution from coastal and offshore fish farms, using NPDES permits to minimize cumulative effluent impacts.¶ The establishment of substantive liability criteria for firms violating environmental standards, including liability for escaped fish and poorly controlled pathogen outbreaks.¶ The establishment of rules for identifying escaped farm fish by their source and prohibiting the use of genetically modified fish in ocean cages.¶ The establishment of a transparent process that provides meaningful public participation in decisions on leasing and permitting of offshore aquaculture facilities and by which marine aquaculture operations can be monitored and potentially closed if violations occur.¶ The establishment of royalty payments process for offshore aquaculture leases that would compensate society for the use of public federal waters.¶ At the same time, firms exceeding the minimum standards should be rewarded, for example, through tax breaks or reductions in royalty fees, in order to encourage environmental entrepreneurship and international leadership. By articulating a comprehensive set of environmental standards and incentives within the draft of the law, the bill would gain acceptance by a broad constituency interested in the sustainable use of ocean resources.¶ Proponents of offshore

aquaculture might argue that these recommendations hold the industry to exceedingly high standards. Yes, the standards are high, but also essential . There is now a widespread realization that the ability of the oceans to supply fish, assimilate pollution, and maintain ecosystem integrity is constrained b y the proliferation of human activities on land and at sea. Offshore aquaculture could help to alleviate these constraints, but only if it develops under clear and enforceable environmental mandates.

31

http://issues.org/22-3/naylor/


The US must lead environmental protection effortsSteinberg and VanDeveer ’10 [Paul F. Steinberg is an associate professor of political science and environmental policy at Harvey Mudd College. Stacy D. VanDeveer is an associate professor and scholar of environmental policymaking at the University of New Hampshire, “Opinion: It Takes a Nation to Save a Planet”, 11-30-10, http://www.aolnews.com/2010/11/30/opinion-it-takes-a-nation-to-save-a-planet/]

The race to save the Earth will be won or lost one country at a time, as a result of political decisions made in almost 200 sovereign nations and their capacity to implement reforms. In a world of nations, rather than blame our woes on failed international processes, the U nited S tates must take action now to demonstrate environmental leadership both at home and abroad . The idea that the nation is the central actor in global environmental politics swims against the current of environmental thinking. Many commentators point to transnational problems like climate change as evidence that governments are increasingly irrelevant to addressing global issues. Add to the mix growing economic interdependence, the power of multinational corporations and the global proliferation of civil society organizations, and nothing seems as outdated as the idea that crusty old governments hold the key to the planet's future. Yet international treaties are effective only when implemented domestically by countries. The big levers required to shift economic growth onto a sustainable track -- transportation infrastructure, energy incentives, agricultural policy and land use planning -- are controlled by national and, to a lesser extent, provincial and local governments. Nowhere is the importance of national action clearer than in the U.S. , which was once the trendsetter in areas like air and water quality standards . In the mid-1980s, the U.S. led global efforts to address ozone depletion over the bitter objections of our European allies. But over the past two decades, we have ceded leadership to the European Union while falling behind in many areas, from consumer product safety to climate change and the reduction of toxic waste. What might a renaissance in U.S. environmental leadership look like? First, we must consolidate past gains, ensuring that our national park system, the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, all created with strong bipartisan backing, receive continued support. Next, we must watch what other nations are doing and improve on their ideas. England and Germany reveal that we can grow our economy while reducing carbon emissions; Holland offers strategies to reduce pesticides used in agriculture; and Costa Rica offers a model for designing public lands that provide both recreation and species conservation. The U.S. also has much to offer others as a highly innovative society with a record of investment in research and development that is second to none . Ironically, the U.S. government has funded more climate-change research than any other nation -- only to have the findings ignored by our leaders. We developed the first "cap-and-trade" programs to reduce pollution at a lower economic cost, an idea now being deployed by others. The United States is also a highly decentralized political system, and our cities and states are laboratories for innovative policies and practices. This is significant because several dozen countries are now experimenting with decentralization, shifting decision-making power from national to local levels, and the U.S. can be a leader in collaborations with sub-national governments from Beijing to Bordeaux. Finally, American citizens have a degree of access to official information and decision-making processes that is unheard of in Europe and the rest of the world. Newly democratizing societies are eager to put in place tools that empower ordinary citizens, and the United States has pioneered the use of tools like the Freedom of Information Act. International law has an important role to play in protecting the environment, but we must not wait for countries to overcome their differences before taking action at home. Successful treaties draw on successful domestic policies. It takes a nation to save a planet, and the time for U.S. leadership at home and abroad is long overdue .

US is the global model for water-tech policy- new developments are vitalDNI ‘12 [U.S. Director of National Intelligence, multi-agency study based on previously published Intelligence Community (IC) products, peer-reviewed research, and consultations with outside experts, “Global Water Security,” Feb. 2, http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Press%20Releases/ICA_Global%20Water%20Security.pdf]

Many states turn to the developed world to find alternative ways to meet their infrastructure needs. Water planners in developing countries regularly lack adequate data (hydrological models and actual water levels) for effective policymaking. For example, knowledge of water balances in specific tributaries, replenishment ¶ rates for shared aquifers, or water demands in particular communities may be either ¶ unavailable or inaccessible. The developing world will probably expect the United States, as a leader in technology, to continue development of hydro logical models and remote environmental monitoring, as well as to disseminate this data and facilitate the ¶ integration of other terrestrial resource ¶ management data on a global scale.

32

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/11/30/opinion-it-takes-a-nation-to-save-a-planet/


US technological capability in water treatment and purification and the efficient use of water in ag riculture will also be sought after. • Although the United States is recognized as a leader in water technology, other countries have identified research in water technology ¶ as a national priority and will challenge US ¶ leadership over time. • The U nited States probably will be expected to continue the development and promotion of water management and agricultural tech nology and expertise, fostering management capacity and appropriately sharing tech nology . Irrespective of other policies toward the United ¶ States, both developed and developing states will look for US support of international ¶ agreements, and institutions and national and subnational partners, seeking to improve water management. Active engagement by the United States to resolve water challenges will improve US influence and may forestall other actors ¶ achieving the same influence at US expense. The US Water Experience The development of water resources played a pivotal role in the development of the United States. ¶ Investments in water infrastructure helped build a regionally divided nation into one and transformed ¶ major regions from poverty to prosperity. The Pacific Northwest alone evolved from a poverty-stricken region in the 1930s to become one of the most economically successful regions in the world. The change ¶ was even more dramatic in the south with oversight from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). By ¶ making water flow data freely available to all users, the United States sets an example noticed throughout ¶ the world. Domestic water disputes still arise, but they are addressed fairly and transparently. The United States is also one of the highest exporters of “virtual water” (water consumed in the manufacturing or growing of an export product), providing numerous opportunities for engagement with the rest of the world.

US is key to efficient aquaculture- plan sets a global model for food securityRubino ’08 [Michael, representative the Department of Commerce on the executive committee of the U.S. Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, former manager of New Funds Development for the World Bank's Carbon Finance Group, worked for the International Finance Corporation, a private sector affiliate of the World Bank, where he developed renewable energy and biodiversity investment funds, “Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities,” July, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/economics_report/econ_report_all.pdf]

Several authors show that offshore aquaculture can be economically viable and examine ¶ the potential economic effects of offshore aquaculture. For example: ¶ • Spreadsheet or business models for offshore aquaculture projects based on technology ¶ now in use in New Hampshire, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico show that culture of finfish ¶ and mussels can be profitable under certain cost and revenue conditions.6¶ ¶ • An input output model predicts that full- and part-time jobs created across all sectors ¶ per thousand metric tons of production per year will number 102 for mussels, 261 for ¶ salmon, 475 for cod, and 683 for scallops (meats), increasing employment numbers ¶ reflecting higher selling prices for these products.7¶ ¶ The authors also note that a variety of Americans may benefit from offshore aquaculture, ¶ including the following: ¶

• Consumers will benefit by having access to affordable, locally and regionally ¶ produced, safe, and healthy seafood. The seafood supply, marketing, and food ¶ service industries, including supermarkets and restaurants, will have access to additional U.S. supplies of seafood, thereby reducing supply risks. • Aquaculture and wild capture fisheries are part of a spectrum of seafood production ¶ techniques with many synergies. Boat owners (including fishermen) will be owner ¶ operators or hired by offshore operations. Seafood processing waste is used in ¶ making fish feed. The whole seafood supply chain, from boats to docks to processing ¶ plants to cold storage, benefits from having predictable and increased throughput ¶ from aquaculture. Marine aquaculture may help keep working waterfronts alive. ¶ • Finite supplies of fish meal and oil for fish feed may limit the expansion of ¶ aquaculture and has raised questions about aquaculture’s environmental sustainability ¶ unless alternatives can be found (FAO 2006). But not only does the United States have its own fish meal and oil menhaden and sardine fisheries, its researchers are among the world leaders in development of alternatives, such as feeds from soybeans, algae, yeasts, and other products. Aquaculture is a growing market for the ¶ nation’s farmers, some of whose crops can be used in aquaculture feeds. The United ¶ Soybean Board’s Soy in Aquaculture Program is an example.8¶ There are also fishery ¶ wastes from the abundant fisheries of Alaska that could be made into fish meal and ¶ oil if there were incentive to do so. ¶ • American companies have pioneered and are leaders in the design of offshore containment systems, hatcheries, and alternative feeds. Global markets for their products and services beckon. A strong home market will reinforce their position. • Research at U.S. hatcheries directed at commercial marine aquaculture (fingerling ¶ and spat production for grow-out on land or in nearshore or offshore facilities) will benefit not only commercial aquaculture, but the beneficiaries of stock enhancement ¶ practices. U.S. hatcheries grow finfish and shellfish to enhance recreational and ¶ commercial fishing stocks and to restore endangered species and habitat.

33

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/economics_report/econ_report_all.pdf


IMTA keyIMTA solves sustainability- avoids environmental pollutionOgden ’13 [Lesley Evans Ogden, Ph.D., Wildlife Ecology from Simon Fraser University, M.Sc. in Biological Sciences from York University, former wildlife ecologist, freelance science writer, “Aquaculture’s Turquoise Revolution,” BioScience 63: 697–704, http://www2.unb.ca/chopinlab/articles/files/Evans%20Ogden%202013%20Aquaculture's%20Turquoise%20Revolution%20BioScience.pdf]

On the menu at the Rossmount Inn¶ in Saint Andrews, New Brunswick,¶ on the Atlantic coast of Canada,¶ you may find kelp-wrapped salmon–¶ avocado tartare with sesame cranberry–¶ apple vinaigrette, citrus–soy glaze,¶ cilantro, and chives. It sounds mouthwatering,¶ but this is no ordinary seafood.¶ The farmed seaweed (Saccharina¶ latissima) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo¶ salar) are not only side by side on the¶ plate; they’ve been grown side by side,¶ too. Like the old adage one man’s junk¶ is another man’s treasure, at Cooke¶ Aquaculture in New Brunswick, wastes¶ from farmed salmon provide food for¶ farmed seaweeds attached to ropes¶ downstream, and rafts of blue mussels¶ (Mytilus edulis) are also getting¶ in on the nutrient bonanza. It’s a culturing¶ method known as integrated¶ multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA), which¶ follows from the idea that in natural¶ ecological communities, nutrient waste from one organism is reused as food for the next . In nature, the¶ efficiency of nutrient recycling is not¶ 100 percent, but natural ecosystems¶ are thrifty. Little is truly wasted.¶ Nutrient recycling is at the heart of¶ Thierry Chopin’s dream of a “turquoise”¶ revolution. IMTA, hopes Chopin, will help aquaculture move toward more sustainable systems. Chopin , a professor at the University of New Brunswick and scientific director of the Canadian Integrated Multi-Trophic¶ Aquaculture Network, believes that by shifting from single-species intensive operations to multispecies systems that mimic the functioning of natural ecological communities, we may green aquaculture’s blue revolution—to¶ turquoise.¶ Blue revolution: Growing pains¶ With many wild fish populations¶ declining, in large part because of overfishing¶ and ineffective fisheries management,¶ a classic tragedy of the global¶ commons, there is both increased¶ pressure and increased optimism that¶ aquaculture will step into the breach.¶ Globally, aquaculture is the most rapidly growing sector of food production and is now the source of nearly half the world’s seafood supply (see “Suggested¶ reading”), but the rapid expansion and intensification of aquaculture has seen a parallel growth of negative environmental impacts . In open net-cage aquaculture, such¶ as that of Atlantic salmon, water is continuously exchanged between caged¶ fish and the surrounding ocean. Fish¶ respiration, fecal material, and waste¶ food release organic and inorganic¶ nutrients, including carbon, nitrogen,¶ and phosphorus, into the waters.¶ Some nutrient waste (e.g., nitrogen¶ and phosphorus) dissolves and¶ is consumed by phytoplankton and¶ macroalgae (seaweeds), but larger fecal particles and uneaten food quickly sink and can accumulate in seafloor¶ sediments. There, they become available¶ for bottom-feeding animals. In¶ large quantities, however, this material produces a nutrient oversupply, sometimes resulting in oxygen-poor dead zones on the seafloor . Therefore, even though nutrients are essential for marine biodiversity, when their concentration becomes too high, they become pollutants . “Like chocolate,” says Chopin, nutrients¶ are good only in moderation.¶ Aquaculture’s nutrient pollution problem¶ has radically improved in recent¶ decades as a result of changes in feed¶ composition and digestibility. These¶ changes have also boosted the conversion¶ efficiency from fish food to fish¶ flesh. Nevertheless, as long as fish are¶ housed at high densities in confined¶ areas, the negative environmental¶ impacts of aquacultural nutrient waste¶ remain a concern.

Multi-trophic practices support healthy ecosystemsPapenbrock and Turcios ’14 [Prof. Dr. Jutta Pape Brock, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Ariel Turcios, PhD student, “Sustainable Treatment of Aquaculture Effluents—What Can We Learn from the Past for the Future?” Sustainability 2014, 6, 836-856, online]

A more advanced system is the integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA). Here, the by-products or waste from one species are recycled to become inputs as fertilizers or food for another. The term ―multi-trophic‖ refers to the incorporation of species from different trophic or nutritional levels in the same system and this is one potential distinction from polyculture systems [6]. The ―integrated‖ in IMTA refers to the more intensive cultivation of the different species in proximity of each other, connected by nutrient and energy transfer through water. Ideally, the biological and chemical processes in an IMTA system should be balanced. This is achieved through the appropriate selection and ratios of different species providing different ecosystem functions. The co-cultured species are typically more than just biofilters; they are harvestable crops of commercial value. A working IMTA system can result in greater total production based on mutual benefits for the co-cultured species and improved ecosystem health, even if the production of individual species is lower than in monoculture over a short term period [3,7,8].

34


IMTA is sustainable- incentives solveOgden ’13 [Lesley Evans Ogden, Ph.D., Wildlife Ecology from Simon Fraser University, M.Sc. in Biological Sciences from York University, former wildlife ecologist, freelance science writer, “Aquaculture’s Turquoise Revolution,” BioScience 63: 697–704, http://www2.unb.ca/chopinlab/articles/files/Evans%20Ogden%202013%20Aquaculture's%20Turquoise%20Revolution%20BioScience.pdf]

Since 1999, with support from the¶ National Oceanic and Atmospheric¶ Administration, the US Department¶ of Agriculture, academia, and industry,¶ Rensel and his colleagues at the University¶ of Southern California have¶ been involved in developing geographic¶ information system biophysical models¶ (e.g., AquaModel, www.aquamodel.¶ org) that use physical oceanographic¶ inputs, including depth, current, salinity,¶ dissolved oxygen, and flow velocity,¶ to find the best possible sites for fish¶ net pens. Rensel has recently examined¶ the potential for growing Pacific oysters,¶ Gallo (Mediterranean) mussels¶ (Mytilus galloprovincialis), and seaweed¶ alongside salmon in farms in Puget¶ Sound. He used stable isotopes to trace¶ nutrient uptake, and the resultant data¶ suggest that salmon farm wastes contribute¶ between 16 and 59 percent of¶ oyster body tissue, varying with season¶ and location. Gallo mussels, he found,¶ were less effective for salmon waste¶ nutrient removal, perhaps because¶ they prefer warmer waters.¶ However, despite this global history, many recent aquaculture operations in North and South America; Europe; and , increasingly, even in parts of Asia, where polyculture has ancient¶ roots, have been focused on culturing a single species . Chopin likens singlespecies systems in aquaculture to the¶ dominance of monoculture systems¶ on land. In agriculture, farmers typically¶ specialize in only one species,¶ such as wheat, cattle, or corn. Every single-species system generates environmental¶ and economic issues that parallel intensification , explains Chopin.¶ On land, “the green revolution has¶ increased yields and increased productivity…¶ but in the short term. Now¶ soils are eroding and getting exhausted,”¶ he explains. “On land, we’re rediscovering¶ the value of crop rotation, fallowing,¶ and multiculture.” The same is occurring in aquaculture, so “there is value in diversification,” argues¶ Chopin. It took centuries on land to¶ refine agronomy principles. Chopin¶ thinks that it’s now time to approach farming of the sea through the development of “aquanomy.” IMTA means more than just diversifying to a polyculture. Diversification , in this sense, means cultivating more than one trophic level such that the wastes from fed organisms such as fish are recaptured and converted to fertilizer, food, and a source of energy for other crops , which would mimic aspects of the more complex marine¶ communities seen in nature. In the Bay of Fundy, in coastal New Brunswick, Chopin and DFO’s Shawn Robinson have championed a pilot IMTA venture through which Atlantic salmon housed in circular cages are flanked by rafts of mussels and rafts of seaweeds further downstream. Mussels can take advantage of small organic molecules, such as the fine-powder leftovers of fishmeal, fish excrement, and naturally occurring seston (the tiny living and nonliving particle¶ swimming or floating in the water).¶ Seaweeds make use of the inorganic¶ molecules and “are nutrient sponges,”¶ explains Chopin. Direct markets for¶ edible seaweeds are still small in North¶ America, save the local maritime habit¶ of chewing on crunchy dulse (a red¶ alga) and its gourmet incorporation¶ by adventurous local chefs near the¶ IMTA pilot project in New Brunswick,¶ but the market is growing in¶ some unexpected places. Seaweeds are¶ being used for pharmaceuticals and¶ cosmetics and show up in ice cream,¶ dental molds, microbiology labs (agar¶ plates), and wound dressings.¶ Just as Chopin’s IMTA system is,¶ itself, an ecological partnership of several¶ organisms, so, too, is the complex¶ collaboration that has supported his¶ project. The IMTA concept is slowly gaining traction in its transition from¶ a research and development phase to¶ what Chopin describes as “small-C¶ commercialization.” Its partners over¶ the years have included natural and socioeconomic scientists from the¶ University of New Brunswick and¶ St. Andrews Biological Station, industrial¶ partners, Canadian government¶ agencies, and private foundations. In¶ Canada, Loblaws supermarket now¶ charges premium prices for what it¶ calls “WiseSource” salmon, raised using IMTA, and in Monaco, the manufacturer¶ of cosmetic compounds Exsymol¶ SAM has developed skin care products¶ from IMTA kelp extracts.¶ Chopin is struck by the idea that,¶ on land, waste recycling has grown¶ in popularity, whereas in the sea, it¶ has not yet been embraced. It’s ironic,¶ thinks Chopin, because one of the¶ marine organisms most highly prized¶ as food—the lobster—is in fact a¶ bottom-feeding detritivore. This technical¶ term, he says, disguises the fact¶ that lobsters eat “the garbage of the¶ sea… the excrement and dead bodies¶ fallen on the bottom.” When it comes¶ to wild seafood, explains Chopin,¶ “lots of what you eat is a product of¶ recycling at sea.” IMTA is an extension¶ of this natural recycling idea,¶ clustering fed (e.g., fish) and extractive¶ (e.g., mussels, seaweeds) species¶ together so that they can exchange¶ nutrients. Like recent interest in the¶ value of carbon credits, Chopin suggests¶ that nutrient-trading credits could¶ one day be established as a means¶ to value nutrient load reduction and¶ recovery—an important ecosystem¶ service—through a credit system that¶ could provide incentives for changes in aquaculture practices .

35


NOAA keyThe plan solves the biggest barriers to development- the industry wants a federal and NOAA approachBuck ‘12 [Lisa E. Buck, Master of Marine Affairs from the University of Washington, “U.S. Development of Offshore Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors,” https://digital.lib.washington.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1773/21752/Buck_washington_0250O_10741.pdf?sequence=1]

When asked if they felt that the current regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture ¶ helped or hindered the

development of the industry, there was agreement across all interviewees that it is a hindrance . Interviewee explanations

for these hindrances tended ¶ to fall into two distinct categories as shown in Table 6. The most commonly noted factor contributing to the limitation of development was the lack of a clear regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture in the

United States, the other being closely related, a lack of action taken by congress to create a federal regulatory framework. There was agreement across all four sectors of interviewees that this lack of a clear federal regulatory framework is one of the main reasons for the slow development of the industry. As stated by one Regional Aquaculture Coordinator with NMFS, the current ¶ system is “fractured and cumbersome…” and what is needed is a “rational and ¶ transparent permitting process” for offshore aquaculture. As discussed in Section 2.1.3, ¶ bills have been proposed that have outlined standards and criteria for the development of ¶ a regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture in the United States, however the ¶ content and political motivation of these bills has been questioned by some stakeholders, ¶ and Congress has not taken action to pass any of the proposed bills. The National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2009 (reintroduced in 2011) was ¶ commonly referred to by interviewees as an example of standard setting and a ¶ precautionary approach to development of offshore aquaculture. Opinions of interviewees ¶ regarding this bill varied across stakeholder groups however. An interviewee in the ¶ industry category believes that the bill has the wrong motivations and perspective on ¶ environmental impacts. This interviewee asserts that this bill takes too precautionary an ¶ approach to offshore aquaculture development, and would build precautions into the ¶ legislation in a way that would not be conducive to the adaptive management of a ¶ growing industry that will necessitate regulatory changes as it evolves. This concern is ¶ seconded by an interviewee in the research category who states that assertiveness in ¶ regulatory solutions to the lack of a clear framework for offshore aquaculture could create a federal system that is not conducive to adaptive management. It is stated

by this ¶ interviewee, as well as by interviewees in both the industry and political categories that adaptive management is necessary in a federal framework developed for offshore aquaculture in order to promote innovation and raise standards as the industry becomes more established. An interviewee in the industry noted that while the current permitting ¶ process is extremely difficult to navigate and serves as a barrier to entry, it also serves to ¶ show that operations that are granted permits have met the high standards that have been ¶ set

and offshore aquaculture can be done in a way that will be in compliance with ¶ applicable regulations. ¶ Interviewees in both the industry and research

categories have expressed opinions that ¶ research has shown that the ocean is adaptable, and if monitored properly, offshore ¶ aquaculture can have little to no lasting environmental impact . While this view is shared ¶ by others in the industry, research, and some political organizations, it contrasts with the ¶ views of some NGOs involved in the development of offshore aquaculture. One ¶ environmental NGO involved in the development of the NSOAA of 2009 viewed it as a ¶ chance to create a balance between the views of industry participants and the views of ¶ those who were concerned about the potential environmental impacts of offshore ¶ aquaculture development (Ocean Conservancy, 2011). This effort however, seems to ¶ have resulted in a bill that has not gained support from many stakeholders and has not ¶ moved beyond initial assignment to committee in Congress. ¶ ¶ Many interviewees expressed preferences for ways regulatory hindrances should be ¶ addressed. Aside from one interviewee who believed that offshore

aquaculture should not ¶ be developed, the majority of interviewees stated the need for an entirely new piece of ¶ legislation for offshore aquaculture

development and agreed that NOAA should be named the lead federal agency for management of offshore aquaculture. Many interviewees also noted the need for a streamlined, transparent and rational permitting ¶ process in order to address regulatory and economic issues previously discussed in this ¶ thesis. One interviewee in the offshore aquaculture industry offered an alternative ¶ suggestion that new legislation for offshore aquaculture development is not necessary, ¶ and would in fact delay the process further due to the nature of

the legislative process. This suggestion acknowledged that the current system of permits and regulations is fragmented and can be extremely difficult to navigate, but argued that it can be streamlined to create a more comprehensive process for offshore aquaculture permitting ¶ without entirely new legislation. This opinion was based on the view that the legislative ¶ process tends to be a lengthy one, and it was this interviewee’s opinion that

offshore aquaculture production in the United States needs to begin at a large scale as soon as possible. One interviewee in the industry offered the suggestion that regional “blueprints” ¶ be created, which would outline standards and criteria for technology selection, species ¶ selection, site selection among others. The goal of this blueprint would be to streamline ¶ the permitting process, as the interviewee was of the opinion that applying for permits ¶ necessary for offshore aquaculture should be more like applying for a fishing permit than a multi-year process.

36


NOAA permits are key- otherwise red tape prevents growthRamsden and Stewart 2-25-14 [Neil Ramsden, reporter at Undercurrent News, a news service covering the seafood industry, Jeanine Stewart, Americas editor for Undercurrent News and journalist specializing in the global seafood industry, “US aquaculture industry expects breakthrough year,” http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2014/02/25/us-aquaculture-industry-expects-breakthrough-year/]

At present, the regulatory red tape for those wishing to embark on an aquaculture project in US waters is something of a headache. To carry out aquaculture of a federally-managed species within federal waters (between three and 200 miles offshore) requires three different permits: one from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), one from the US Army Corps to allow the structure in US waters, and one from NOAA. The first two are “readily available” according to sources, but NOAA’s has long been hard to come by, as fish farmers such as Kampachi Farms and aborted cobia project Snapperfarms can attest to.¶ Kampachi Farms, owned by Neil Sims, had so much difficulty expanding its Hawaii site that eventually the firm moved to Mexico – a country which is highly supportive of entrepreneurial fish farming projects, Sims said.¶ “What’s needed is for NOAA to sort the fisheries management plan for aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico,” he told Undercurrent. “They say aquaculture is the key element in the responsible development of fisheries in the US, yet haven’t moved on that in five years.”¶ However, according to the head of NOAA’s office of aquaculture, Michael Rubino, this plan is soon to be moved on to the office of management and budget, which will check it before passing it on for public comment. It is now hoped the plan will have passed before the end of the year, and could act as a model for other regional fishery councils to emulate.¶ Brian O’Hanlon, founder of offshore cobia producer Open Blue, was another entrepreneur who found life easier outside of US waters. The New Yorker first set up a company in Puerto Rico, Snapperfarm, to try farming cobia in offshore waters. However, O’Hanlon gave up after 11 years, citing prohibitive US regulations that made growth impossible. “We really hope to see some advancements ,” said Joe Hendrix of Aqualine Americas, whose parent company provides farming equipment worldwide.¶ “The US now, the bottom line is the government does not issue permits. The demand and interest from the private sector, and the seafood industry, has been there for some time . Any amount of the country’s seafood consumption, which is 90% imports, we can offset is a direct boost to the US economy,” he said.

Congress should clarify NOAA leadershipPittenger et al ‘07 [Richard Pittenger is chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, former Vice President

for Marine Operations and Arctic Research Coordinator for Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, former Chief of Staff to the U.S. Naval Forces in Europe, and Oceanographer of the Navy, Bruce Anderson, PhD in biomedical sciences from the University of Hawaii, is president of the Oceanic Institute, holds an M.P.H. in epidemiology from Yale University, Daniel Benetti is Associate Professor and the Director of Aquaculture at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, has over 25 years experience in aquaculture worldwide, “Sustainable Marine Aquaculture: Fulfilling the Promise; Managing the Risks,” January, http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/Sustainable_Marine_Aquaculture_final_1_07.pdf]

1. Congress should authorize NOAA to develop a national program of marine aquaculture, including both strong environmental safeguards and provisions to balance offshore aquaculture with other ocean uses. 1.1. Congress should authorize NOAA to issue implementing regulations and site and operating permits for aquaculture in federal marine waters.6 1.2. After making institutional changes to ensure the integrity of its decision-making process, NOAA should take a leading role in planning, permitting and regulating¶ aquaculture in federal marine waters , and in coordinating aquaculture in all marine¶ waters with other federal agencies, the states, tribes, and the regional and interstate fisheries management councils. 1.3. Congress should direct NOAA to establish a program for marine aquaculture that: • Uses relevant and timely scientific and technical information in a precautionary¶ manner to protect the health of marine ecosystems; • Is socially and culturally compatible with coastal communities and existing uses of¶ the marine environment; and • Is economically beneficial to coastal communities.

37


Incentives solveIncentives cause an industry shift to IMTANobre et al ’10 [Ana M. Nobre, researcher at the Institute of Marine Research, Dr. Deborah Robertson-Andersson, Institute for Microbial Biotechnology and Metagenomics, A. Neori, Amir Neori, Associate Scientist of Marine Biology and Aquaculture. National Center for Mariculture, “Ecological–economic assessment of aquaculture options: Comparison between abalone monoculture and integrated multi-trophic aquaculture of abalone and seaweeds,” Aquaculture 306 (2010) 116–126, online]

The application of the ΔDPSIR to the present case study quantified the direct profitability advantage that abalone–seaweed IMTA farms can¶ have relative to abalone monocultures. The analysis also quantified even¶ larger benefits to the environment and the public that the IMTA¶ configuration brought, through reduced Pressures on the adjacent¶ coastal ecosystem. As the cost of energy increases and where pollution¶ taxes are adopted, the economic incentives for the implementation of IMTA farms, compared with monoculture abalone farms, are likely to mount . Remarkably, the current form of accounting, which does not yet¶ incorporate ecological and social externalities, indicates significant profit to the studied IMTA farm configurations . This outcome follows the demonstration of profits resulting from implementation of IMTA¶ configuration with salmon, bivalves and seaweeds in a couple of cases¶ in open water mariculture (Ridler et al., 2007; Buschmann et al., 2008).¶ These encouraging results should be considered by industry and ¶ regulators involved with the current expansion in abalone culture worldwide . For other similar analysis it might be important to consider¶ the price of land for transforming a monoculture farm into an IMTA with¶ seaweed ponds. In the present case study this was not an issue but might¶ be prohibitive for retrofitting other farms. A recognition by regulations¶ and taxation of the value of the externalities when evaluating the farm's¶ accounting, can make the IMTA concept much more profitable overall.¶ The present ΔDPSIR analysis can also serve as a blueprint to help owners¶ and regulatory officials in balancing the design of the farm with respect¶ to nutrient mass balance towards reduced negative environmental¶ externalities. As kelp is reaching limits of legal and sustainable¶ harvesting, particularly in kelp concession areas with high abalone¶ farm concentrations, and with the forceful socio-economic incentives quantified in the present paper, it can be expected that two- and three species¶ IMTA farms will become the industry norm, rather than the¶ exception.

Government incentives solve IMTABarrington et al ‘09 [Kelly Barrington, University of New Brunswick, Department of Biology, Thierry Chopin, University of New Brunswick, Department of Biology, Shawn RobinsonDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans, St. Andrews Biological Station, “Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in marine temperate waters,” http://aansonline.ca/archives/doi/barrington-et-al-2009-fao-imta-review.pdf]

Governments have a role to play. One of the key roles for government agencies, ¶ from the municipal to the federal levels, is to understand the basic concept of IMTA ¶ and to evaluate their current and future policies. If they agree with the concept of ¶ IMTA, then they should try and promote protocols through their policies that will encourage the marine production sectors to follow those tenets. This could be done in the form of incentives or penalties similar to economic policies that are currently ¶ used to regulate environmental behaviour of people in land-based systems (i.e. fuel ¶ or cigarette taxes, better premiums for good behaviour on life insurance policies, ¶ incentives for identifying and recognizing the values of environmental services as in a ¶ few countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden).

38


IMTA is economically viable- incentives can boost developmentTroell et al ’09 [Max Troell, Associate Professor, Systems Ecologist, and Researcher at the Beijer Institute and Stockholm University, Alyssa Joyce, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Dr. Thierry Chopin, Doctorate from the University of Western Brittany, President of the International Seaweed Association, advisor to the International Foundation for Science, “Ecological engineering in aquaculture — Potential for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in marine offshore systems,” Aquaculture 297 (2009) 1–9, online]

In anticipation of future increases in the costs of the main inputs of¶ intensive offshore culture of carnivorous fish – energy and feeds – as¶ well as high construction, maintenance and transportation costs, the¶ economic viability of offshore aquaculture is still unclear. The profit¶ margins of present day large-scale cage fish culture (salmon,¶ seabream, etc.) have declined dramatically in the past fifteen years.¶ These trends may impede the development of offshore fish monoaquaculture.¶ A key question with respect to IMTA is, then, how¶ seaweeds, filter-feeders, and other extractive species can contribute¶ to the overall economic performance, both for nearshore and offshore¶ systems. As discussed earlier, IMTA provides economic benefits not only at the farm level but also at the broader environmental/societal levels. The broader benefits include a reduction in waste discharges,¶ improvement in social acceptability of the industry, and additional jobs. The primary benefits at the farm level will be maximizing net income , including profit from the production of both fed species (fish) and the extractive species. There are no feed costs for extractive¶ species, but there are other costs for infrastructure and operation to¶ produce additional co-cultured species. Despite a relatively low¶ market price for seaweeds, the millions of tons produced in some¶ countries each year attest that their culture is profitable (Chopin and¶ Sawhney, 2009). The achievement of seaweed profitability in offshore¶ IMTA farms may require identification of species that combine¶ effective biofiltration and productivity with specific qualities that¶ generate higher prices, such as sea-vegetables, nutraceuticals and¶ cosmetics ingredients. Research devoted to the development of higher¶ value products from seaweeds is therefore an additional step towards¶ the incorporation of these organisms into IMTA systems. For instance,¶ Macrocystis, a low valued genus that is harvested for its alginates, has¶ recently been used in higher valued edible products, and as feed for¶ abalone (Gutiérrez et al., 2006; Flores-Aguilar et al., 2007). However,¶ the economic success of this type of culturing is not necessarily¶ determined by income at point of sale; rather, the net profits also depend on initial investment costs, costs for maintenance, harvest, handling, and any additional inputs to production (plus the value of¶ ecosystem services which will have to be soon recognized and¶ valuated). Buck and Buchholz (2004) showed that gross profit from an¶ offshore Saccharina cultivation (based on production data from¶ experimental setup) was 40€/yr/culture unit, but that overall¶ investment costs were 100€/yr/culture unit. The high investment¶ costs were due to the cultivation methodology, which, compared to¶ seaweed farming in nearshore waters, required significant infrastructure¶ and engineering research and development for the installations.¶ In addition, costs for labour or maintenance were not included in this¶ analysis. Even though integration of seaweeds and shellfish with¶ offshore fish cages could benefit from other available structures¶ [e.g. associating aquaculture and wind farm ventures (Buck, 2007) or¶ single point mooring fish-cage systems to which seaweed and¶ invertebrate units could be attached], technological solutions will be¶ required to make such designs economically feasible. The IMTA systems¶ currently being used for commercial applications in Canada and China¶ are relatively simple farming systems (ropes, rafts), and it remains to be¶ seen how new technologies can be applied in highly exposed offshore¶ environments. An important factor in the farming of multiple species is¶ the ability to manage risk through horizontal integration. A diversified¶ product portfolio will increase the resilience of an aquaculture¶ operation in the face of disease outbreak, product gluts, or price¶ fluctuations in one of the farmed species. In such situations, product¶ diversification can increase the survivability of the company.¶ Seaweed and mussel production in offshore IMTA may be profitable on their own, but if the extractive properties can be translated into economic benefits for the farmer this would create stronger incentives for integration . The challenges for doing this are to 1) identify and¶ quantify the environmental costs fromcultivating only fed species, and¶ 2) find ways to internalize the positive effects from integration with¶ extractive species. For instance, in Sweden, a novel program has been initiated for mussel farming, wherein mussel farmers get credits to offset nutrient (carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus) discharges (e.g. from¶ sewage outfalls) (Sterner, 2005). As wastes from aquaculture are identified as potential threat to the environment, developing IMTA will have societal and environmental as well as economic benefits. An¶ example of this could be reduced risk for HABs and eutrophication. It is,¶ however, difficult to find a specific correlation between loadings and¶ ecosystem effects, as this is usually a nonlinear relationship with¶ thresholds. It is also difficult to estimate the costs for society from the¶ degradation of the environment. Thus, to be able to put a value on¶ nutrient mitigation by biofiltering species, there is a need to knowwhat¶ values of ecosystem goods and services are being generated from¶ natural ecosystems, and how aquaculture wastes affect them. Information¶ about this is scarce, especially for offshore environments.

39


Incentives spur safe aquaculture developmentPittenger et al ‘07 [Richard Pittenger is chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, former Vice President


By harnessing the enormous power of the marketplace to reward good behavior with¶ respect to the environment, demand-side programs —including environmental certification¶ systems, corporate purchasing policies,¶ and eco-labeling—provide incentives for environmental protection that governments cannot provide. These methods can complement and enhance the effectiveness of government regulation and industry management practices . A well-recognized,¶ widely accepted certification system does¶ not yet exist for marine aquaculture¶ products, although there are a number of efforts underway that may lead to more¶ sustainable aquaculture practices. The keys to success of purchasing agreements and environmental certification schemes include high standards for sustainability , strong verification procedures to ensure compliance with standards, transparency and accessibility of the process to interested parties, and achieving and maintaining high consumer confidence in the label . Major issues to be resolved for aquaculture include the degree to which organic standards are, or can be, credibly applied to various forms of aquaculture, and whether a widely accepted approach for certifying the sustainability of aquaculture feed ingredients can be developed. In the meantime, corporate purchasing agreements can reward environmentally friendly production practices and offer insights for the development of broader programs .

Incentives are keyPittenger et al ‘07 [Richard Pittenger is chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, former Vice President


At present all commercial marine aquaculture in the United States occurs in waters under the primary jurisdiction of the states. The Department of Commerce is encouraging a substantial expansion of aquaculture into federal marine waters, but economics, engineering, and logistics are significant constraints on the pace and scope of that development. Without substantial subsidy, most aquaculture in U.S. marine waters will continue to be in state waters for some time to come. To assess the environmental impact of¶ marine aquaculture in the U.S., it is essential to understand how it is being regulated by¶ the states, and what the environmental¶ results of that regulation have been. During¶ its regional meetings, the Task Force learned¶ as much as it could about how marine aquaculture¶ was managed in the states we visited.¶ Snapshots of four of these regulatory programs¶ are presented below. This is not¶ intended to serve as an exhaustive survey, but¶ we hope it will provide an overview of some¶ of the different approaches that have been¶ used.

40


IMTA=broad supportIMTA is broadly popularThomas ’11 [Susan A. Thomas, PhD, Workshop for Peninsula College, “INTEGRATED MULTI-TROPHIC AQUACULTURE: A WORKSHOP,” http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/imta/imta_white_paper.pdf]

Why is the US not a major aquaculture producer on the world scene? (1) In the US, in contrast to China ¶ and some other parts of the world where aquaculture is intensively practiced, there seems to be major ¶ concern about coastal zone use for the production of food, rather than for other purposes; (2) there is a lack ¶ of social acceptance (political viability) of aquaculture; and (3) there is not a regulatory framework in place that allows aquaculture, including IMTA, to develop in a responsible way. ¶ Is there indeed a role for the US as a major aquaculture producer, and will IMTA offer a special ¶ opportunity? Does IMTA supply that which will get society to accept aquaculture? Strengths of IMTA that could help move aquaculture forward appear to be that it is a new approach that could be more acceptable to the general public and to local communities because it can supply environmental services to clean up environmental contaminants where it is practiced in open systems, and can in closed, recirculation systems (which are self-cleaning, using techniques such as biofloc, for example) isolate cultured species and potential contaminants, diseases, etc., from the natural environment. There is a positive perception of the sustainability of IMTA systems, and of its ability to use alternative feeds rather than those made entirely from fish. Further, there would be economic advantages from the multiple products that can be sold in new market areas, including niche markets, and IMTA would open many opportunities for research, innovation, partnerships, and education.

41


Tech existsIMTA is proven- we just need to commercializeChopin et al ‘10 [Dr. Thierry Chopin, Doctorate from the University of Western Brittany, President of the International Seaweed Association, advisor to the International Foundation for Science, Dr. Max Troell, Associate Professor, Systems Ecologist, and Researcher at the Beijer Institute and Stockholm University, Dr. Gregor K. Reid, University of New Brunswick, “Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture: Part II. Increasing IMTA Adoption,” http://research.rem.sfu.ca/papers/knowler/GAANov-Dec2010pp17-20.pdf]

Several IMTA projects worldwide have now accumulated enough data to support proof of the concept at the biological level. The next step is the scaling up of more experimental systems to commercial scale to further document the¶ economic and social advantages of IMTA, which will be key to offering it to practitioners of monospecific aquaculture as a viable option. Emerging sustainable aquaculture approaches must generate net economic benefits for society if they are to be advocated .

Tech for the plan already exists- it’s environmentally safeSmith ’12 [Turner, Assistant Attorney General at Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, Harvard Law graduate, “Greening the Blue Revolution: How History Can Inform a Sustainable Aquaculture Movement,” http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/11938741/Smith_2012.pdf?sequence=1]

Industry is not the only group with a responsibility here, as indicated in the National ¶ Aquaculture Act of 1980.¶ 345 Rather, the United States, which has played a large role in subsidizing and encouraging development of aquaculture throughout the industry’s history, has a duty to ensure that the industry does not come to be characterized by tragedies of pollution and exploitation like the tragedy well underway in the context of wild capture fisheries. The U.S. ¶ government must instead condition its support on, or plainly mandate, environmentally and ¶ socially responsible industry behavior. The World Bank explained the dilemma well: “[t]he ¶ vision of sustainable aquaculture demands not only a favorable business climate, but also a ¶ governance framework that embraces social objectives and enforces environmental standards.”346 ¶ Furthermore, it has become clear that the success of aquaculture in the coming years will also ¶ depend on the extent to which coastal areas are polluted by other causes, like inland nonpoint ¶ source pollution. 347 Thus, state and federal regulators must also regulate sources of coastal ¶ pollution to give adequate support to a sustainable aquaculture industry. ¶ Luckily, the rapid development of technology accompanying the “blue revolution” 348 has ensured that sustainable aquaculture production is available and feasible . For example, in addition to the possibility of moving offshore to dilute coastal pollution, researchers have developed closed systems that require minimal disease and pest control and produce virtually no pollution . 349 ¶ Aquaculturalists are also perfecting integrated systems , also called polyculture systems that combine culture of fish aquaculture with culture of mollusks or seaweed so “the wastes from one organism are used as inputs to another, resulting in the optimal use of resources and less pollution overall .” 350 These systems have the potential to be both more environmentally sound operations and more economically efficient.351 Moreover, the use of fishmeal in aquaculture feed can be reduced and researchers are using developing more sustainable plant-based feeds for use on fish farms .352 Thus, the technology exists to guide aquaculture onto a sustainable path. Aquaculture’s recent boom and the rapid tech nological development have made it the obvious choice going forward for satisfying the world’s growing appetite for protein.353 It is a choice that has potential to be more sustainable, as an alternative to exploitative overfishing and as a lower-impact source of protein than many industrially raised terrestrial livestock, if done correctly. 354 But we have a long way to go. As stated by James Connaughton, former Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Now is the time, not to have a national conversation about aquaculture, now is the time to have a national system of sound management of aquaculture to provide the certainty that’s necessary to do it right, to assure that we have the ecological integrity to the process [sic], and, again, to set a beacon for the world.355 Without institution of “[m]utual coercion mutually agreed upon,” the United States aquaculture industry is causing, rather than solving, tragedies of the commons. 356

42


Regulation keyRegulatory uncertainty prevents aquaculture investmentBuck ‘12 [Lisa E. Buck, Master of Marine Affairs from the University of Washington, “U.S. Development of Offshore Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors,” https://digital.lib.washington.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1773/21752/Buck_washington_0250O_10741.pdf?sequence=1]

While there are numerous laws and regulations with aspects that are applicable to offshore aquaculture regulation, none was designed with offshore aquaculture specifically in mind. The lack of action by congress to name a lead federal agency for offshore aquaculture regulation has also had a strong influence on the ability of the industry to develop. This has led to an unstable regulatory environment that presents disincentives to potential entrants to the industry. It also serves as a disincentive to potential investors who are unwilling to risk their return on an investment due to an uncertain permit and lease tenure for a facility

43


Food Security

44


Aquaculture solvesOffshore expansion is key to food security- status quo is inefficientStrasser 4-21-14 [Annie-Rose Strasser, Senior Editor of ThinkProgress, worked as a new media specialist at the Center for Community Change as a new media specialist, Communications Fellow and press assistant for the United States House of Representatives, “The New, Innovative And More Efficient Way Of Feeding People,” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/21/3422486/big-ag-takes-to-the-ocean/]

Aquaculture right now is in an age of innovation. The advent of indoor tank farming is one promising way fish farming could grow.

Another would be going out into the open ocean and dropping fish in large, globe-shaped aquapods down below the surface.¶ “Open-ocean aquaculture is one of the emerging frontiers,” says Michael Rubino, Director of the Aquaculture Office at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “There’s not much of it yet but we have crowded coastlines, we have coastlines that have a lot of new trees and they’re shallow, or they’re multiple uses, so some people think

that going further offshore, you avoid those multiple use conflicts and get a more stable environment .”¶ Attempts to

take aquaculture offshore include building farms off of decommissioned oil rigs. Farmers also hope it can help them to farm in rougher waters where weather events like hurricanes might get in the way. Some aquaculture groups even hope that there is a way to fuse offshore farms with renewable energy projects.¶ Spend just a few minutes reading news about agriculture and climate change these days, and you’ll understand what’s driving people to consider scaling up

aquaculture: The latest report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us we’re headed toward a “breakdown of food systems linked to warming, drought, flooding, and precipitation variability and extremes.” Studies come out every week, practically, that say drought threatens our supply of key grains like wheat, corn, and rice . The warming globe is even slowing down cows’ production of milk.¶ And not only is our food on the fritz, but it’s causing a lot of the problems that seem to be leading to its own demise. Cows, a growing source of protein here in the United States, are major emitters of methane, a potent greenhouse

gas. Meat production is also a serious drain on other resources: A quarter pound of hamburger meat uses up 6.7 pounds of grains and 52.8 gallons of

water. We’re paying a high price to get our protein, and all the while our population is growing at a breakneck speed. There are a lot of hungry mouths to feed. The United Nations has urged “a substantial worldwide diet change, away

from animal products” altogether. But aquaculture might be a good stepping stone.¶ “Overall, if we’re going to continue to consume the amount of seafood

we consume — or put more apocalyptically, if we’re going to adequately nourish the increasing number of billions of people on this planet,” Michael Conathan, Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress, told ThinkProgress, “more and more protein is going to have to come from aquaculture.”¶ Experts say there are myriad reasons why the world can and should shift toward getting more of its sustenance from aquaculture. For one thing, it can be much more efficient than the status quo.¶ “The thing about aquaculture is that from a resource efficiency perspective it’s one of the most resource-efficient ways to produce protein in terms of the amount of food and the amount of space it takes,” says NOAA’s Rubino. “Far more than land animals. You’re not using fresh water [to grow crops to feed land animals], and the feed conversion of fish is roughly one to one — one pound of food

for one pound of flesh — as opposed to pork or beef where it’s seven or ten to one … So from an environmental footprint perspective, it’s very efficient. You can also grow a lot of fish in a very small space . They don’t need a lot of space whether it’s a pond or a tank, as opposed to grazing land or all the corn or soybeans that it takes to feed animals.”¶ As it stands now, 40 percent of the non-water surface of earth is used for agriculture. A whopping 30 percent of land that’s

not covered in ice is being used not to feed us directly, but to feed the things that feed us, namely chickens, cows, and pigs. One of the effects of this is that agriculture is driving massive deforestation.¶ Conditions in the ocean, on the other hand, wouldn’t really need to be changed to increase the amount of farming we can get from the sea. (Of course, conditions in the ocean are changing rapidly as a result of climate change. Ocean acidification, the process by which ocean waters grow more acidic from absorbing too much carbon, threatens all species in the long-run and shell species who need certain conditions to grow shells in the immediate term. “It’s still a pretty large unknown,” says Rubino, but he “wouldn’t say it’s in the top five or ten things for most species” right now).¶ Sebastian Belle is the Executive Director of the Maine Aquaculture Asisociaton, and he has seen how the industry is growing into its own. Maine was the first state, and is one of the only states, to come up with a comprehensive permitting plan for aquaculture projects. And because of limits on the permits for traditional fishing, Belle says

that aquaculture is drawing a younger crowd who will be the future of fish production. ¶ “The average age of a commercial fishing permit-holder in the state of Maine is 58 years old, the average age of one of my folks is 34 years old,” Belle said. “That age is probably somewhat artificially higher because we … have the guys who got into the business 35 years ago. Many of them are in their 60s at least, so that’s artificially bringing that average age up. But if you actually exclude those first pioneers from an age point of view, our average age is lower than that, probably 31, 32. We are becoming the face of the working waterfront in the state.”¶ But that hasn’t eliminated challenges that farmers face

when dealing with contentious coastline territory.¶ “One of our biggest challenges is what we call the social license to farm. We are asking for a

permit to farm in public waters. And many times, the people who own property on the coast — and particularly in the state of Maine — the only people who can afford to own nice coastal

property are wealthy people. And they typically don’t want to see something commercial in their viewscape,” Belle said. “They paid a lot of money for this house and they don’t want to look at something commercial, they want to look at a sunset.¶ “It’s almost a cultural or a class clash between working waterfronts and folks who are interested in recreational use, and that slows the whole permitting process down. It makes it difficult to get permits, it makes it very contentious and sometimes litigious. And for a small farmer — say an 18-year-old kid who’s the son of a commercial fisherman, who can’t get a license for commercial fish because the fisheries closed but he wants to start an oyster farm — if he gets sued by someone who’s retired to Maine but was a New York lawyer, he’s kind of out-gunned.”¶ Permitting challenges is just one of the reasons Belle would like to take more aquaculture offshore.

Going further out, he explained, also helps to stabilize temperatures. And experts say that the open ocean can have other environmental benefits, too; one

of the big criticisms of the industry is that plopping a bunch of fish out in the ocean means increasing the amount of waste being put into the seas. Open ocean environments can help deal with this concern by creating free-flowing water to distribute that waste evenly .¶ “If I go five miles out to sea, I’m in 300 feet of water that has a quarter to a half-knot current that’s consistently moving clean water across it,” explains Hubbs-Sea World’s Don Kent. “So, the water itself doesn’t accumulate the materials that the fish are producing — the metabolites, the nitrogen, the phosphorous, that they’re putting out. And it disperses the carbon waste that they’ve got coming out of them in such a manner that it feeds bottom fauna on the bottom, but it doesn’t accumulate so densely that it overpowers them. This has all been demonstrated in models, computer simulations that allow us to say, ‘if I want to grow this many fish in this location with this current, what impact do we think we can predict on the bottom?’”¶ Models are all that researchers have to go off when assessing the potential impact of increased fish farming, though. That’s because the United States is far from a leader in the industry — we’re way behind. Commercial fishing has remained stagnant while aquaculture is on the rise worldwide, but here in the U.S. we’re still importing farm-raised fish from other countries — places including China and Chile — instead of

45


growing it ourselves. About 91 percent of our seafood originates abroad, and half of it comes from aquaculture.¶ Kent says that system won’t last too long. ¶ “What’s happening on a global level is that the cost of seafood, because we keep seeing a need for more and more of it — populations are growing, people are eating more and more of it because it’s healthier for them — what’s happening is the economies in the world that are growing right now, like China, Brazil, where economies are starting to grow, their middle class is growing and their ability to buy seafood is increasing,” he explained. “And so the very countries like China that’s producing the majority of the seafood is keeping it now. So it’s becoming more and more expensive now for us to source the product here.”¶ Kent also argues that we should actually want to produce our own seafood here. From a regulatory standpoint, Americans can have more faith in the quality of fish produced under regulations from our own government. “We are importing all of this seafood but it’s impossible for us to check it all for all of these chemicals,” he said, “so who knows how it was really grown? But if it’s grown here, unless the farmer is being illegal in his operation, it’d be illegal to do it. ”¶ There’s plenty of opportunity for growing more protein from the sea here in the United

States. Exclusive Economic Zones, EEZs, are the area of ocean over which a country has exclusive access to natural resources. The U.S. has the largest EEZ of any country on Earth. But we’re outsourcing our fish production instead of doing it ourselves. In 2010, the tiny country of Bangladesh — with an EEZ of a little over 78,000 square kilometers — produced 1,308,515 tons of aquaculture. The United States — whose EEZ is nearly twelve times the size — produced 495,499 tons.¶ “The parts of the world where they have to feed their people or they’re going to starve, like Bangladesh, they get it. They’re doing it,” said Kent. “The people in our country, where we’ll just go buy it somewhere else, are now having to learn the lesson the hard way. Because the sources are drying up. ”¶ There are complications and concerns with scaling up aquaculture, however. In some ways, it’s just like agriculture: Big Ag may supply us with affordable food, but that can be done by cutting corners or taking a serious toll on the environment. The same could be true for what’s happening in fish farming now, and some of the same big players are even involved in the industry. Christy Walton, the billionaire of WalMart fame, is deeply involved in the aquaculture game, pouring money into a group called Cuna Del Mar, where her son works, that invests in aquaculture projects around the globe. Peter Drucker, a famous management consultant credited with

helping to invent the modern corporation, once said, “Aquaculture, not the Internet, represents the most promising investment opportunity of the 21st century.”

Aquaculture can solve global food security, but sustainable approaches are keyStawecka ’13 [Gosia, Université libre de Bolzano, writer for Food Tank, a think-tank specializing in food security issues, “Does Aquaculture Have the Potential to Feed the World’s Hungry?” 10-9-13, http://foodtank.com/news/2013/10/does-aquaculture-have-the-potential-to-feed-the-worlds-hungry]

Over one billion people worldwide depend on fish as a source of animal protein in their diets. According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) flagship publication The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012, global per capita seafood consumption stands at 18.1 kilograms (39.8 pounds) on average, and that number is expected to increase over the next decades. Aquaculture is considered one of the fastest growing animal food production sectors, and accounts for nearly half of the supply of fish for consumption around the world . FAO estimates that total fish production from aquaculture reached more than 63 million tonnes in 2011, in comparison to 47 million tonnes in 2006. World aquaculture is concentrated in Asia, where approximately 90 percent of global production takes place. China has emerged as the world's leading producer in aquaculture, followed by India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Thailand. ¶ The global fisheries sector employs an estimated 35 million people, 20 percent of them in the aquaculture industry, according to Sinéad Lehane, research analyst at Future Directions International (FDI) and the author of a recent strategic analysis paper Fish for the Future: Aquaculture and Food Security. Today, aquaculture holds the potential to improve the livelihoods of people living in developing countries, and can deliver a wide range of benefits, including higher nutritional value through increased protein consumption, improved food security, and higher household incomes . ¶ Lehane points out that many countries are successfully employing aquaculture to improve local incomes and food security. For example, the implementation of new technologies and practices, such as artificial propagation – a fish reproduction method where mature eggs are expelled from female fish and artificially fertilized with milt from male fish under controlled conditions – enabled increased catfish production in Vietnam, and helped to build the incomes of people living in the Mekong Delta.¶ But as fish farming continues to expand, concerns are growing about aquaculture's negative impacts on the environment and global biodiversity, including the degradation of water quality, fish diseases, and overexploitation of wild fish used as feed for farmed fish. Lehane emphasizes the need to move toward a more efficient and sustainable aquaculture industry .

Sustainable aquaculture is key to alleviate future food crises- resource crunches are comingDiana et al ’13 [James S. Diana, Professor of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, Research Scientist, Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences, UM, Chairman, Resource Ecology and Management Concentration, SNRE, Hillary S. Egna, Research Center Director at Oregon State University and Director of the Aquaculture & Fisheries Collaborative Research Support Program, Dr. Thierry Chopin, Scientific Director at the Canadian Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture Network, “Responsible Aquaculture in 2050: Valuing Local Conditions and Human Innovations Will Be Key to Success,” BioScience 63: 255–262, http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/4/255.full.pdf]

Aquaculture is an ancient method of food production; ¶ early examples are in murals depicted on tombs in Egypt ¶ 4000 years ago, books written 2300 years ago in China, and ¶ coastal aquaculture from the Roman Empire (Costa-Pierce ¶ 2010). However, most of its growth and intensification has ¶ occurred within the last 30 years, so the aquaculture of today ¶ is quite different from historic systems. Aquaculture has ¶ grown three times faster than agriculture has, at an amazing ¶ rate of 8.3% per year since 1970 (Diana 2009). Aquaculture ¶ provided for 48.4% of the world’s seafood consumption in ¶ 2009 (FAO 2009).¶ Given current trends, the world will be vastly different in ¶

46

http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/4/255.full.pdf


2050. Not only will the global population likely increase to nine billion, but that population will be increasingly urban and denser in developing countries (Cohen 2003). Climate ¶ change is likely to increase temperatures by 1–2 degrees ¶ Celsius by 2055, to increase sea levels by about 0.88 meters ¶ by 2100, and to dramatically change precipitation patterns ¶ (Carter et al. 2007). Water will be an even more precious ¶ resource, whereas new lands for agriculture expansion will be limited. About 50% more food (3 billion tons [all tons ¶ referenced are metric] of cereal crops and 200 million tons ¶ of meat) will be needed to sustain the quality of human life (FAO 2009). Given the limits on agriculture (Foley et al. ¶ 2011), novel production systems that have limited demands ¶ of land, freshwater, and nutrients; that require less energy; ¶ and that entail reduced impacts on the quality of receiving ¶ waters will become even more critical (FAO 2009). Fitting ¶ aquaculture development into this matrix will be important to meet increasing seafood consumption, because wild fisheries will remain stable at best (Duarte et al. 2009), whereas ¶ seafood will predominantly come from aquaculture (Diana ¶ 2009, Hallam 2012).¶ As aquaculture production expands, it is paramount that ¶ we avoid some of the mistakes made during the increased ¶ intensification of agriculture in the Green Revolution. ¶ Although agriculture intensification drove the higher production of food for human use, it also produced significant environmental damages, including the pollution of ¶ inland and coastal waterways, a high energy-and-water ¶ input to production ratio, and the widespread application of chemicals and antibiotics (Tilman et al. 2001). ¶ Therefore, understanding both environmental impacts and ¶ mitigation measures (Lotze et al. 2006) is important for ¶ designing responsible aquaculture production systems for ¶ tomorrow. Both intensive, single-species aquaculture and more traditional, lower-intensity aquaculture are evolving, ¶ and both will be necessary to meet the future needs for seafood. In some cases, the two systems are merging, whereas in ¶ others, different methods are being used to achieve similar ¶ goals, such as the improved treatment of effluents.

47


EEZ solvesUS is the aquaculture tech leader- EEZ production solves food security and supply certaintyRubino ’08 [Michael, representative the Department of Commerce on the executive committee of the U.S. Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, former manager of New Funds Development for the World Bank's Carbon Finance Group, worked for the International Finance Corporation, a private sector affiliate of the World Bank, where he developed renewable energy and biodiversity investment funds, “Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities,” July, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/economics_report/econ_report_all.pdf]

Aquaculture not only increases the current seafood supply, but also reduces supply uncertainty and provides consumers a consistent, affordable product available year-round . In addition to consumers, some segments of the U.S. economy have participated in and benefited ¶ from the worldwide growth in aquaculture. U.S. companies, investors, and farmers have ¶ participated in the global aquaculture industry by exporting technology, equipment, seedstock, ¶ services, investment, feed, and grain. A significant, but undocumented, portion of U.S. seafood ¶ imports are linked to these exports. ¶ ¶ In addition to supply and production trends, health and nutritional concerns are likely to ¶ affect seafood consumption in the United States. Doctors and nutritionists are urging Americans ¶ to eat more seafood to improve their health (Mozaffarian and Rimm, 2006; Institute of Medicine, ¶ 2006). But if Americans increase their seafood consumption from one to two meals per week, ¶ where will this seafood come from? Right now, we have a choice – we can continue to import ¶ increasing amounts of seafood, most of it from aquaculture, or grow some of it here. ¶ ¶ Offshore aquaculture is one of the new frontiers for marine aquaculture production that could supply this growing demand. The others include raising marine species in closed systems ¶ (tanks), in ponds with low salinity water, and with new or improved methods of culturing ¶ seafood in coastal areas. All of these methods have their opportunities and challenges. ¶ Aquaculture is being pushed to offshore and land-based locations in the United States and ¶ elsewhere due to competition for uses of coastal waters, high coastal land values, and poor water ¶ quality in many coastal areas due to runoff from human activities on land (Cicin-Sain et. al. ¶ 2005). As for the offshore, the U.S. EEZ is huge. It covers 3.5 million square miles or 9 million ¶ km²—20% more than U.S. lands—and spans Arctic to tropical marine habitats. Though not all of the space in the EEZ can be used for aquaculture, conservative estimates show that less than ¶ 500 km² (less than 0.01% of the U.S. EEZ) w ould be enough to produce up to 600,000 metric ¶ tons or more of additional farmed seafood per year (Nash 2004). From the Atlantic and ¶ Caribbean to Alaska, the West Coast, Hawaii and the U.S. Trust Territories, this area spans a ¶ wide range of ocean conditions and habitats, making it feasible to farm an equally wide range of ¶ different aquatic species. ¶ ¶ Culture of finfish, shellfish, and seaweeds in offshore waters is now technically feasible ¶ as shown by the dozens of commercial operations around the world using offshore aquaculture ¶ technologies. The United States is a leader in this type of aquaculture and in many related technologies. Currently, most of the emphasis worldwide is on the offshore farming of finfish ¶ because of market demand. However, shellfish, especially filter feeding bivalves such as ¶ mussels and scallops, can also be farmed offshore, as can seaweeds. Polyculture of finfish, ¶ shellfish, and algae in open ocean situations is also being pioneered in Canada, Spain, and ¶ elsewhere. ¶ ¶ As in all new businesses, those who practice offshore aquaculture will learn by experience and will adapt through tech nical advances to the selective pressures of commerce and ¶ regulations . However, offshore aquaculture can only be established in the United States if ¶ operators are allowed to try it . Based on discussions at the 2007 National Marine Aquaculture ¶ Summit organized by NOAA, and discussions in other forums, investors and would-be investors in U.S. offshore aquaculture believe the biggest barriers to progress are the current lack of clear ¶ regulations to allow them access to needed marine waters and the certainty of operation,3¶ ¶ Without clear rules: ¶ ¶ • Entrepreneurs, fishermen, and others will not be allowed to try offshore aquaculture in ¶ the U.S. except in a few open ocean locations in state waters; ¶ • U.S. investors and others will continue to set up offshore operations in other countries ¶ and may invest in other forms of aquaculture, such as land-based systems; and ¶ • Americans may lose opportunities created by local production of seafood under U.S. ¶ laws. ¶ ¶ U.S. investors are not waiting for the federal government to sort out its regulatory requirements. ¶ They are investing in offshore aquaculture in other areas, including the Caribbean and Latin ¶ America. Other countries such as Japan, Korea, Ireland, Norway, China, and Spain are working ¶ on offshore aquaculture technology and legal regimes (Lee and O’Bryen 2004; Ryan 2004).4¶ In ¶ 2007, the European Union established an Offshore Aquaculture Technology Platform project ¶ with partners from 16 European Union countries and Norway.5

48



Seafood keyStable seafood production is key to global food securitySmith et al ‘10 [Martin D. Smith, Nicholas School of the Environment and Department of Economics, Duke University, Cathy A. Roheim, Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, Larry B. Crowder, Center for Marine Conservation, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, “Sustainability and Global Seafood,” Feb. 12, http://www.cobi.org.mx/publicaciones/2010-smith_et_al_sust_seafood-sciencemag-org.pdf]

Although seafood is the most highly traded food internationally, it is an often overlooked component of global food security. It provides essential local food, livelihoods, and export earnings. Although global capture fisheries production is unlikely to increase, aquaculture is growing considerably. Sustaining seafood’s contributions to food security hinges on the ability of institutions, particularly in developing countries, to protect and improve ecosystem health in the face of increasing pressures from international trade. Seafood (fish and shellfish harvested from capture fisheries and aquaculture production in marine and freshwater environments) contributes at least 15% of average animal protein consumption to 2.9 billion people and as much as 50% for some small island and West African states ( 1). Seafood is the main source of omega-3 fatty acids that are essential for brain development ( 2) and provides important micronutrients for the poor ( 3). As a source of livelihood, capture fisheries and aquaculture employed 43.5 million people in 2006, and 520 million people relied on income from seafood production ( 1). Seafood is also the most highly traded food commodity internationally ( 1). Fish and shellfish exports from developing countries exceed the value of coffee, rubber, cocoa, tea, tobacco, meat, and rice combined ( 1). Developing countries benefit from this trade by exporting high-valued seafood to developed countries, importing low-valued seafood, and using the surplus value to purchase other goods and services (fig. S1). However, they often lack the institutions necessary to prevent deleterious ecosystem impacts of seafood production and to sustain trade benefits. Developed countries have a history of these problems, as well, but with less-obvious consequences.

Seafood is vital to global food securityWorldwatch Institute ‘11 [Independent research institute devoted to global environmental concerns, “Fish Farming Continues to Grow as World Fisheries Stagnate,” http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5444]

These problems have led some researchers and fish farmers to consider alternative practices that would minimize environmental harm while allowing increased aquaculture production. For example, integrated fish farming works at the ecosystem level, using a combination of fish, shellfish, and aquatic plants to filter wastes and provide a self-sustaining source of food.36 Integrated fish farming has been used outside major urban areas to raise fish for food and treat human wastes at the

same time.37 With an ongoing food crisis and a growing world population, seafood production could potentially

play a vital role in addressing food security and meeting development goals. Fish is highly nutritious and can be an important source of vitamins, minerals, and protein, even when consumed in minimal amounts.38

A recent World Bank survey showed that small-scale fish farming consistently pays off for workers by raising income, creating

stable work, and increasing food supplies.39 However, not all seafood production is created equal: overfishing is linked to poverty, leading to fewer jobs and taking away an important source of income in developing countries.40

A multitude of experts proveScience News ‘10 [e! Science News, “Sustainable fisheries needed for global food security,” http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/02/11/sustainable.fisheries.needed.global.food.security)

Increased aid from developed countries, earmarked specifically for sustainable seafood infrastructure in developing countries, could improve global food security, according to a policy paper by an international working group of 20

economists, marine scientists and seafood experts in the Feb. 12 issue of Science. Seafood is a significant source of protein for nearly 3 billion people and is the planet's most highly traded food commodity, contributing to the livelihoods of more than 560 million people. But a lack of coordinated policy threatens global seafood supplies. To help safeguard future supply, "the price of seafood has to reflect the cost of maintaining ecosystem health in the countries that capture or farm most of it," says Martin D. Smith, lead author of the paper and associate professor of environmental economics at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. "Many imports are coming from developing countries that are not necessarily well-positioned to manage their resources sustainably."

49

http://www.cobi.org.mx/publicaciones/2010-smith_et_al_sust_seafood-sciencemag-org.pdf


Seafood is crucial to global food securityFAO ‘10 [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Second International Congress on Seafood Technology on Sustainable, Innovative and Healthy Seafood,” May, http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2534e/i2534e.pdf]

The world production from capture fisheries and aquaculture remains very significant for global food security and food trade, providing an apparent per capita supply of 17.2 kg (LWE) in 2009. It averaged at 138.2 million tonnes per year during the period 2000 – 2009, with a record high of 145.1 million tonnes in 2009 (Table 1). While fish production from capture fisheries has stagnated at around 90 to 92 million tonnes over the years, the demand for fish and fishery products has continued to rise (Figure 1). Consumption has more than doubled since 1973. The increasing demand has been steadily met by a robust increase in aquaculture production, estimated at an average 8.3 percent yearly growth during the period 1970–2008, while the world population grew at an average of 1.6 percent per year. As a result, the average annual per capita supply of food fish from aquaculture for human consumption has increased tenfold, from 0.7 kg in 1970 to 7.8 kg in 2008, at an average growth rate of 6.6 percent per year. This trend is projected to continue , with the contribution of aquaculture to fish food supply estimated to reach 60 percent by 2020, if not before.

Global food security depends on strong seafood trading blocsFAO ‘10 [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Second International Congress on Seafood Technology on Sustainable, Innovative and Healthy Seafood,” May, http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2534e/i2534e.pdf]

A first major issue that faces policy makers, especially in developing countries, is the necessity to balance food security and export promotion objectives owing to the impact of fish trade on food security. In 1996, the World Food Summit declared that food security is considered to exist “when all people at all times have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preference for an active healthy life”. Fish is an important source of both direct and indirect food security in many developing countries. Many of the concerns on issues relating to fish and food security focused on the dimension of fish for consumption. Consequently, when fish exports are examined, the focus has been primarily on how it reduces fish availability for domestic consumption. Fish imports, on the other hand, are mostly seen as a means to increase local availability. In actual fact, the relationship between trade (exports and imports) and food security is more complex. Production for exports to lucrative markets can enhance the income of poor fishers substantially and thus achieve greater food security. This is especially beneficial for non or low fish eating communities , for example, in Mauritania, Mali and Burkina Faso, or vegetarian fishermen in India. On the other hand, exports may deprive a section of the domestic consumers of a variety of fish, leading to a potential loss of food security for them. This is particularly so when fish is an integral part of the culturally conditioned diet of a population .

50

http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2534e/i2534e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2534e/i2534e.pdf


Key to land agIMTA offsets harmful agricultural practiceChopin et al ‘10 [Dr. Thierry Chopin, Doctorate from the University of Western Brittany, President of the International Seaweed Association, advisor to the International Foundation for Science, Dr. Max Troell, Associate Professor, Systems Ecologist, and Researcher at the Beijer Institute and Stockholm University, Dr. Gregor K. Reid, University of New Brunswick, “Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture: Part II. Increasing IMTA Adoption,” http://research.rem.sfu.ca/papers/knowler/GAANov-Dec2010pp17-20.pdf]

Modern commercial salmon diets contain much less fishmeal (15 to 25%) and fish oil (15 to 20%) than they did less than 10 years ago (40 to 60%). By-products such as trimmings and offal from wild catch fisheries are now used to supply a major portion of the fishmeal ingredients. Some non-governmental organizations arguing for fishmeal and fish oil replacement have also voiced concerns¶ that, after all, marine fish should eat marine ingredients. Obviously, one cannot have it both ways! Turning toward land plant proteins is not without its impacts. Extra farmland area would be required, which would likely increase deforestation and need to be irrigated on a planet already suffering from water availability problems . The¶ price of some staple food crops like corn and soya used in traditional agriculture would rise considerably due to competition for their uses , as recently seen when¶ they were sought as energy crops for the production of biofuels. Partial substitution with organisms already living in water, such as seaweeds, could, in fact, be a very interesting option and fit well within the sustainability and management concept of IMTA.

51


Impacts- Extinction

Resource insecurity is the biggest risk of extinction- population growth guarantees the worst impactsKolankiewicz ‘10 [Leon, environmental scientist and national natural resources planner, masters in environmental planning from U of British Columbia, worked with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Dept of Environmental Conservation, U Wash, U New Mexico; Policy Brief #10-1, "From Big to Bigger How Mass Immigration and Population Growth Have Exacerbated America's Ecological Footprint." Progressives for Immigration Reform, http://www.progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/2010/03/05/from-big-to-bigger-how-mass-immigration-and-population-growth-have-exacerbated-americas-ecological-footprint/]

As of early 2010, the United States has a rapidly growing population of 308 million.33 In the 1990s, U.S. population expanded by nearly 33 million, the largest single decade of growth in American history since the decennial national censuses began in 1790. The 1990s exceeded even the peak decade of the Baby Boom, the 1950s by nearly five million (Figure 7). The 2001-

2010 decade now drawing to a close will approach this record increment. Far from coasting to a stop or cessation in growth, U.S. population remains stubbornly and persistently high, and is literally growing with no end in sight. At current growth rates, every year more than three million net new residents are added to the U.S. population.34 The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by 2050, the population of the United States will have grown to 439 million. This is an increase of 131 million, or 43 percent, over our current population of 308 million. In 2050, if the Census Bureau’s current projections come to pass, the U.S. population would still be adding 3.45 million residents a year (more than today, though the

annual growth rate will have declined somewhat), and there would be 5.7 million births compared to 4.3 million annual births today.35 Yet it is misleading to imply that increased births would be the dominant force behind this massive population growth. That is because many of those births would not occur, or at least would not occur in the United States, were it not for the persistently high levels of net immigration that are assumed by the Census Bureau in these projections. In

2050, the Bureau’s projections assume “net international migration” (immigration minus emigration) of 2.05 million, an increase from 1.34 million in 2010. This assumption reflects the Bureau’s professional judgment that domestic and international pressures to further increase already high immigration rates will only intensify. If the factors behind demographic change are divided between “net natural increase” (births minus deaths) and “net migration” (immigration minus emigration), then in 2050, 41 percent of the annual increment of 3.45 million would be attributable to net natural increase, and 59 percent would

be due to net migration. However, even this breakdown understates the decisive influence that the level of immigration has in determining America’s demographic future. The full impact of immigration on demographic trends only becomes apparent when the U.S.-born descendents of immigrants are accounted for because, after all, these U.S. births would not have occurred but for the prior acts of migration by eventual parents that made them possible. When births to immigrants are accounted for, demographers at the Pew Research Center calculated recently that: If current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005, and 82 percent of the increase will be due to immigrants arriving from 2005 to 2050 and their U.S.-born descendants.36 [emphasis added] Figures 8-10 graphically illustrate the powerful role of immigration policy in shaping current and future U.S. demographic trends. Figure 8 shows U.S. population growth from 1790 to 1970; the steepening curve, one characterized by larger and larger increments over time is a shape characteristic of all phenomena experiencing exponential growth. If, however, the 1970 levels of demographic components (net immigration, fertility or birth rates, and mortality rates) had been maintained over the decades that followed, the growth trajectory would have appeared more like that of the curve in Figure 9, rather than the much steeper curve in Figure 8. At the time of the first celebration of Earth Day in 1970, young environmentalists who had just finished reading Paul Ehrlich’s best-selling 1968 book The Population Bomb and listening to one of Earth Day Founder Senator Gaylord Nelson’s moving speeches believed whole-heartedly in the cause and necessity of U.S. and global population stabilization. They endorsed the view of popular cartoonist Walt Kelly’s character Pogo that, “We have met the enemy and he is us” (a play on words of the famous line by Commodore Perry: “We have met the enemy, and they are ours”). In other words, the more of “us” there are, the more “enemies,” or at least environmental burdens Mother Earth faces. If this generation had been able to realize its vision of slowing and then stopping U.S. population growth and reining in the environmental degradation it caused, the trajectory might have looked something like that of the curve in Figure 9. Growth would have tapered off and America’s population would never have hit 300 million. Instead, because of the rapidly rising wave of immigration unleashed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, Americans and their environment are facing the grim, and utterly unsustainable, future of ever-greater demographic pressures represented by Figure 10. What bearing do these “inconvenient truths” have on America’s Ecological Footprint? In a nutshell — everything. Current immigration levels are enlarging the already enormous U.S. Ecological Footprint and ecological deficit. With the U.S. population booming by more than 10 percent a decade, the only way to maintain — much less reduce the current, unacceptable size of our EF is to reduce our per capita consumption every decade by more than 10 percent — not just for one or five decades, but indefinitely, for as long as population growth continues. One doesn’t have to be a physicist or a political scientist to recognize that an achievement of this magnitude would be technically and politically unrealistic, if not impossible. America is already in ecological overshoot, and massive population growth driven by high immigration rates only serves to exacerbate the situation. Figure 11 shows current trends with respect to the Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity of the United States from 1961 through 2006.37 As is evident from the crossing lines in this graph, America’s EF first surpassed its biocapacity in the late 1960s, just prior to the first Earth Day. Since then the gap or ecological deficit has only continued to widen. While the addition of each new American does not necessarily increase our per capita or per person (as opposed to our aggregate) EF — only increased per capita resource consumption and CO2 generation does that, it does directly decrease our per capita biocapacity, and

thus increases our ecological deficit. Population growth does this in two ways. First, given a fixed biocapacity — that is, a land base that is demonstrably finite and constant,

with fixed maximum acreages of potential cropland, grazing land, forestland, and fishing grounds — it is a simple mathematical reality that adding more people who depend on this ecologically productive land base reduces per capita biocapacity. Second, the more than three million new Americans added every year require space and area in which to live, work, play, shop, and attend school . As open space is converted into the “built-up land” category, some combination of forestland, cropland, and grazing land is inevitably developed. (In the 1950s, Orange County, California, home to Disneyland, was touted by developers as “Smog Free Orange County,” but by the 1990s, after four decades of relentless sprawl development to accommodate Southern California’s multiplying millions, it became known as “Orange Free Smog County”). In this way, our country’s biocapacity is steadily and inexorably diminished by a growing population. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS’s) National Resources Inventory (NRI) estimated that the United States lost 44 million acres of cropland, 12 million acres of pastureland, and 11 million acres of rangeland from 1982 to 1997, for a total loss to our agricultural land base of 67 million acres over this 15-year period.38 (One explanation of the much higher acreage of lost cropland than pastureland and rangeland was that a larger fraction of the cropland acreage was not “lost” per se, but deliberately “retired” from active production into the so-called Conservation Reserve Program or CRP, a program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency. These were lands of marginal quality and high erodibility, lands on which modern, intensive agriculture is unsustainable). All 49 states inventoried lost cropland. Overall cropland losses continued in the next NRI published in 2007.39 The impacts of the loss of this land extend beyond agriculture. The USDA has estimated that each person added to the U.S. population requires slightly more than one acre of land for urbanization and highways.40 Clearly, more land is required as more people are added to our population. A comparison of NRI acreage — 25 million acres of newly developed land over the 1982-1997 period and 67 million acres of agricultural land lost shows that development per se is not responsible for all or even half of agricultural land loss. Arable land is also subject to other natural and manmade phenomena such as soil erosion (from both water and wind), salinization, and waterlogging that can rob its fertility, degrade its productivity and eventually force its retirement or increase its dependency on ever greater quantities of costly inputs like (fossil-fuel derived) nitrogen fertilizers. Arguably, however, much of these losses are due to over-exploitation by intensive agricultural practices needed to constantly raise agricultural productivity (yield per acre) in order to provide ever more food for America’s and the world’s growing populations and meat-rich diets. Thus, the potent combination of relentless development and land degradation from soil erosion and other factors is reducing America’s productive agricultural land base even as the demands on that same land base from a growing population are increasing. If the rates of agricultural land loss that have prevailed in recent years were to continue to 2050, the nation will have lost 53 million of its

52

http://www.progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/2010/03/05/from-big-to-bigger-how-mass-immigration-and-population-growth-have-exacerbated-americas-ecological-footprint/

http://www.progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/2010/03/05/from-big-to-bigger-how-mass-immigration-and-population-growth-have-exacerbated-americas-ecological-footprint/


remaining 377 million acres of cropland, or 14 percent, even as the U.S. population grows by 43 percent from 308 million to 440 million.41 Continuing on to 2100, the discrepancy between booming population numbers and declining cropland acreage widens even further (Figure 12). The Census Bureau’s “middle series” projection (made in the year 2000) is 571 million, more than a doubling of U.S. population in 2000.42 (The “highest serious” projection was 1.2 billion, and actual growth since these projections were made has been between the middle and highest series). If the same rate of cropland loss were to continue, the United States would lose approximately 106 million acres of its remaining 377 million acres of cropland, or nearly 30 percent. Cropland per capita, that is, the acreage of land to grow grains and other crops for each resident, would decline from 1.4 acres in 1997 to 0.47 acres in 2100, a 66 percent reduction. If this occurs,

biotechnology will need to work miracles to raise yields per acre in order to maintain the sort of diet Americans have come to expect. These ominous, divergent trends —

an increasing population and declining arable land, have actually led some scientists to think the unthinkable: that one day America may no longer be able to feed itself, let alone boast a food surplus for export to the world. In the 1990s, Cornell University agricultural and food scientists David and Marcia Pimentel and Mario Giampietro of the Istituto Nazionale della Nutrizione in Rome, Italy, argued that by approximately 2025, the United States would most likely cease to be a food exporter, and that food grown in this country would be needed for domestic consumption. These findings suggest that by 2050, the amount of arable land per capita may have dropped to the point that, “the diet of the average American will, of necessity, include more grains, legumes, tubers, fruits and vegetables, and significantly less animal products.”43 While this might, in fact, constitute a healthier diet both for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and for many calorically and cholesterol-challenged Americans, it would also represent a significant loss of dietary choice. As nations get wealthier, they tend to “move up the food chain” in the phrase of the Earth Policy Institute’s Lester Brown, that is they consume higher trophic level, more ecologically demanding and damaging meat and dairy products, but were these predictions to hold true, Americans, for better or worse, would be moving in the opposite direction. From 2005 to 2006, the U.S. per capita ecological deficit widened from 10.9 to 11.3 acres, continuing the long-term trend depicted in Figure 11. Assuming the Census Bureau’s official population projections for 2050 actually do happen, the U.S. population would be 43 percent larger than at present. Even if there were no further increase in the U.S. per capita EF, which is, as can be seen from the 45-year trend in Figure 11, a rather generous assumption, a 43 percent increase in the U.S. population would correspond to a further 43 percent reduction in biocapacity per capita, even without the types of continuing land and resource degradation just discussed above for cropland. The 2006 U.S. biocapacity was 10.9 global acres (ga) per capita. By 2050, if current U.S. demographic trends and projections hold, this will have been reduced to 6.2 ga per capita. If the per capita American EF of consumption were to remain at the 2006 value of 22.3 ga, the ecological deficit in 2050 would increase to

16.1 ga per capita. In essence, if we American “Bigfeet” do not opt for a different demographic path than the one we are treading now, Ecological Footprint analysis indicates unequivocally that we will continue plodding ever deeper into the forbidden zone of Ecological Overshoot, trampling our prospects for a sustainable future. Incidentally, we would also be trampling the survival prospects for many hundreds of endangered species with which we share our country. These birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, butterflies, mussels, and other taxa are menaced with extinction by our aggressive exploitation of nearly every ecological

niche, nook, and cranny. In nature, no organism in overshoot remains there for long. Sooner or later, ecosystem and/or population collapse ensues. Are we humans, because of our unique scientific acumen, immune from the laws of nature that dictate the implacable terms of existence to all other species on the planet? Our political, economic, and

cultural elites seem to think so, and en masse, we certainly act so. Yet ironically, many scientists themselves believe otherwise: that all-too-human hubris , unless checked by collective wisdom and self-restraint, will prove to be our undoing, and that civilization as we know it may unravel .44

53


Impacts- WarsFood insecurity is a conflict multiplierBrinkman and Hendrix ‘11 [Henk-Jan Brinkman is Chief, Policy, Planning and Application in the Peacebuilding Support Of ice of the¶ United Nations. Cullen S. Hendrix is Assistant Professor, The College of William & Mary, and Fellow, Robert¶ S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law, University of Texas at Austin, “Food Insecurity and Violent Conflict: Causes, Consequences, and Addressing the Challenges,” July, http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/newsroom/wfp238358.pdf]

This paper provides an overview of the link between¶ food insecurity and violent conflict, addressing both¶ traditional and emerging threats to security and¶ political stability. It discusses the effects of food¶ insecurity on several types of conflict, and the¶ political, social, and demographic factors that may¶ exacerbate these effects. It then discusses the¶ interventions that can break the link between food¶ security and conflict, focusing on mechanisms that¶ can shield consumers and producers from food price¶ shocks. Finally, it discusses ways in which the¶ international community can assist in breaking this¶ link and build peace.¶ Food insecurity – especially when caused by a rise in¶ food prices – is a threat and impact multiplier for violent conflict . It might not be a direct cause and¶ rarely the only cause, but combined with other factors , for example in the political or economic¶ spheres, it could be the factor that determines whether and when violent conflicts will erupt. Changes in food security , rather than levels of food¶ insecurity, are probably most influential . Food insecurity is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for violent conflict. Food price stabilization measures and safety nets are critical instruments to prevent violent conflict . Food assistance can contribute to peacebuilding, restore trust in governments and rebuild social capital .

Food insecurity makes all impacts inevitableTrudell ’05 [Robert H., J.D. Candidate, Food Security Emergencies And The Power Of Eminent Domain: A Domestic Legal Tool To Treat A Global Problem, 33 Syracuse J. Int'l L. & Com. 277, Lexis]jap

Today, more than 842 million people - nearly three times the population of the United States - are chronically hungry. 43 "Chronic hunger is a profound,

debilitating human experience that affects the ability of individuals to work productively , think clearly, and resist disease. It also has devastating consequences for society: it drains economies, destabilizes governments, and reaches across international boundaries." 44 The enormous number of chronically hungry people conjures up a critical question: how can we feed these people? While the rate of population growth has been leveling off in the developed, wealthy countries of the world, the populations of the poorest countries and regions of the world still grow at an alarming pace. 45 Population statisticians refer to this phenomenon as population momentum. 46 Of the seventeen countries whose women average six or more births in a lifetime, all but two are in Africa. 47 In sub-Saharan Africa, millions are undernourished and millions more live on a dollar a day, making it the most poverty-stricken region in the world today. 48 [*285] Chronic hunger and poverty are the rock-and-a-hard-place in between which the people of sub-Saharan Africa find themselves today. One tragedy endlessly feeds upon and exacerbates the other because a person needs money to buy food, but

she (or he) cannot earn money when she is chronically hungry. 49 The food security issues of this region are a global concern. Silvio

Berlusconi, Prime Minister of Italy, and Chairperson of the 2002 World Food Summit in Rome said, "Together with terrorism, hunger is one of the greatest problems the international community is facing ." 50 Human security is a value which can be broadly defined as both the "freedom from fear" and the "freedom from want." 51 Until recently, security was largely a concern arising out of the conflict among states, i.e. state security, which can be summed up in the phrase "military preparedness." 52 Today, it is recognized that the achievement of freedom from want is as important a goal as the achievement of freedom from fear and countries must arm themselves against such fear by addressing food insecurity. 53 In an editorial in the Economist, Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, wrote that today's threats to security - terrorism, food security and poverty - are all interrelated so that no one country can tackle them alone. 54 For example, keeping our food supply secure plays a direct role in achieving freedom from fear. The State Department has been studying the possibilities of food-borne bioterrorism, introducing the national security element to food security concerns. 55 Likewise, in December [*286] 2004, during his resignation announcement, Tommy Thompson, the former Secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, stated: "For the life of me, I cannot understand

why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to do." 56 Yet it is a mistake to think of global security only in military terms. 57 Food security deserves its place in any long-term calculation regarding global security. Widespread chronic hunger causes widespread instability and debilitating poverty and decreases all of our safety , for example from the increased threat from global terrorism . 58 Widespread instability is an unmistakable characteristic of life in sub-Saharan Africa.

59 Food insecurity, therefore, causes global insecurity because widespread instability in places like sub- Saharan Africa threatens all of our safety. Food insecurity in the unstable regions of the world must be taken on now lest we find ourselves facing some far worse danger in the days to come .

54


Don’t buy their generic impact defense- new ag slowdowns collapse food security and causes extinctionPalm 1-31-13 [Justin T., writer for The Real Truth magazine, “Agriculture’s Amazing Future!” http://realtruth.org/articles/130125-005.html]

Seventy-four days. That is all that stands between mankind and starvation —the length of time the world’s food reserves would feed humanity before disappearing. From 1986 to 2001, the world held an average of 107 days’ worth of grain in storage. But from 2002 to 2011, the average dropped to just 74. Not even three months’ worth!¶ Shrinking levels of surplus food supplies are signaling that the future of food may not be as secure as most think. The Guardian quoted Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute and author of Full Planet, Empty Plates: “Ever since agriculture began, carry-over stocks of grain have been the most basic indicator of food security.”¶ If mankind missed one harvest, it would begin to starve . For thousands of years, man’s existence has been drawn from the soil. Civilizations unable to provide lasting sustenance for their people were invariably lost to history. Healthy, arable land has always been humanity’s most precious commodity. As its total area shrinks to dangerous, never-before-seen levels, and man’s population explodes, the very future of civilization is at stake. Too little food is being grown on too few acres to provide for the roughly 370,000 human beings born every day.¶ Like millions of American families living “paycheck to paycheck,” humanity is living harvest to harvest. Mr. Brown also stated, “An unprecedented period of world food security has come to an end. The world has lost its safety cushions and is living from year to year…” (ibid.).¶ Once-bountiful water sources are drying up. Arable land is dwindling. Now more than ever, mankind must address the issue of food security.

55


Impacts- DemocracyFood insecurity destroys democracyBrinksman and Hendrix ’11 [Henk-Jan Brinkman is Chief, Policy, Planning and Application in the Peacebuilding Support Of ice of the United Nations. Cullen S. Hendrix is Assistant Professor, The College of William & Mary, and Fellow, RobertS. Strauss Center for International Security and Law, University of Texas at Austin, “Food Insecurity and Violent Conflict: Causes, Consequences, and Addressing the Challenges,” July, http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/newsroom/wfp238358.pdf]

Food insecurity, proxied by low availability of¶ calories for consumption per capita, makes democratic breakdown more likely , especially in higher-income countries, where people expect there to be larger social surpluses that could be invested to reduce food insecurity (Reenock,Bernhard and¶ Sobek, 2007). Though statistical evidence is lacking, rising food prices have been implicated in the wave of demonstrations and transitions from authoritarian rule to fledgling democracy in some countries across North Africa and the Middle East in 2011. There are some historical precedents for this: a bad harvest in 1788 led to high food prices in France, which caused rioting and contributed to the French revolution in 1789; and the wave of political upheaval that swept Europe in 1848 was at least in part a response to food scarcity , coming after three below-average¶ harvests across the continent(Berger and Spoerer¶ 2001).

Democracy is key to solve extinctionDiamond ’95 [Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, December, PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN THE 1990S, 1995, p. http://www.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/diam_rpt.html]

Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth , the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered . Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy , with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty and openness. The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another . They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments.

56

http://www.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/diam_rpt.html


Econ

57


Econ fragile nowThe US economy is stallingMorath and Leubsdorf 4-30-14 [Eric Morath is an Economy Reporter for the Wall Street Journal, Ben Leubsdorf is a reporter for the WSJ, “U.S. Economy Starts Year With a Whimper,” http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304178104579533412969885426]

U.S. growth nearly stalled in the first three months of the year, fresh evidence that the economic expansion

that began almost five years ago remains the weakest in modern history. Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services

produced across the economy, grew at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 0.1% in the first quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. It marked the second-worst quarterly performance since the recession ended in mid-2009. The weak GDP reading came as Federal Reserve officials voted to continue withdrawing their support for the economy based on the expectation—shared by many private economists—that growth would rebound, as it already started doing as the weather improved. "Economic activity has picked up recently, after having slowed sharply during the winter in part because of adverse weather conditions," the central bank said in its policy statement Wednesday. Harsh weather likely slowed first-quarter business investment and discretionary consumer spending. It could have even blocked exports—which notched their sharpest decline since the recovery began—from reaching ports. Pent-up demand caused by a winter lull could lead to a stronger gains this spring and summer, and reassure the Fed that the economy can return to the stronger growth trajectory established in the second half of last year, when it expanded at a 3.4% pace. Against the optimistic backdrop, U.S. stocks climbed. The Dow Jones industrials added

45.47 points, or 0.3%, to close at a record 16580.84. Still, the first-quarter reading fell far below even the lackluster average annual gain of near 2% since the recession ended. While some easing was broadly expected, the severity of the first-quarter slowdown surprised many economists, who forecast a growth at a 1.1% rate in a Wall Street Journal survey.

US growth is backslidingMui 4-30-14 [Ylan Mui, former Vice President of the Asian American Journalists Association, Washington Post reporter and CNBC contributor covering the Federal Reserve and the economy, “U.S. economy stalls dramatically in first quarter,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/04/30/u-s-economy-stalls-dramatically-in-first-quarter/]

The U.S. economy stalled during the first three months of the year, according to government data released Wednesday,

failing to meet even modest expectations for growth, which could renew concerns over the sustainability of the recovery.¶ The nation's gross

domestic product expanded at a meager 0.1 percent annual rate in the first quarter -- well below the forecasts for 1.2 percent growth. The slowdown reflected weaker exports, a decline in business investment and cuts in state and local government

spending, among other things. The recovery was propped up by strong consumer spending, driven in part by health-care spending after the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The Commerce Department, which releases the data, emphasized that the numbers are preliminary. The government will revise the data twice more as additional information is collected. Economists had already trimmed their expectations for growth during the quarter in the face of this year’s brutally cold winter. Many believe the slowdown is only temporary and that the recovery will enjoy a bounceback through the spring.¶ "This is not a weak economy," said Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics. "This is an economy that had two bad months because of the weather and got back to normal in March."¶ The major U.S. stock indexes opened in the red Wednesday. By late morning, the tech-heavy Nasdaq was down slightly, while the broader Standard & Poor's 500 was slightly above flat. The blue-chip Down Jones Industrial Average was up 0.12 percent.¶ Ashworth predicts that growth in the second quarter will pick up to an annual rate of 3.5 percent before settling down to 3 percent for the year. Private data released Wednesday morning by human resources firm ADP showed the country added 220,000 jobs in April --better than analysts had anticipated. The government's official tally of job creation is slated for release Friday. ¶ "The job market is gaining strength," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, which calculates the ADP report. "After a tough winter, employers are expanding payrolls across

nearly all industries and company sizes."¶ But there are concerns that the dismal report could signal more fundamental weakness in the economy. In particular, the real estate market has softened as rising prices and higher mortgage rates have made homes less affordable. New home sales were below expectations in March, while pending home sales plunged that month.¶ But data released Tuesday suggested the increase in home prices may be moderating. According to the S&P/Case-Shiller index, prices were up 13 percent for the 12 months ending in February in 20 major cities, a slower pace than in January. That could be good news for buyers.

58


US economy is fragileTask 4-24-14 [Aaron Task is the host of The Daily Ticker and Editor-in-Chief of Yahoo Finance, “U.S. economy “not out of the woods,” says former Fed vice chair,” https://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/u-s--economy-%E2%80%9Cnot-out-of-the-woods-%E2%80%9D-says-former-fed-vice-chair-132141538.html]

When U.S. first-quarter GDP numbers are reported next week, economists aren't expecting much, with estimates ranging from 1% to 1.5%. Update: A sharp drop in March new homes sales Wednesday morning prompted greater concern about first-quarter growth; in reaction, Goldman Sachs downgraded its Q1 GDP forecast to 1.4% from 1.9%.¶ But the consensus is for a big rebound in the rest of the year, with estimates of 3% for the second quarter and 2.7% for the full year, according to a Bloomberg survey. That's consistent with the "central tendency" of Federal Reserve board members, who are expecting a 2.8% to 3% growth rate for all of 2014.¶ But one former Fed official isn't so sure.¶ "I certainly think there's going to be a rebound from the first quarter [but] to make a 3% year...we've got to do a lot better than 3% in the remaining three quarters and I"m just not quite that optimistic," says Princeton professor and former Fed Vice Chair Alan Blinder. "I just don't see where the growth is going to come from." American consumers are "doing fine" but unlikely to provide a big boost to growth, Blinder says. Meanwhile, fiscal policy may be less of a drag in 2014 vs. 2013 -- but it will still be a drag, he notes.¶ And if the growth isn't a strong as expected, expectations for the Fed to accelerate its tapering program or (gasp) actually tighten monetary policy are likely to prove premature, yet again.¶ "The hawks on the Fed...would certainly like to see that outcome but I don't think the hawks are in control and that's a good thing," Blinder says. "We're still not out of the woods."¶ Based on that, Blinder says Fed Chair Janet Yellen is doing the right things by continuing Ben Bernanke's policies and reiterating the flexibility of monetary policy. "The path of the economy is uncertain and effective monetary policy must respond to unexpected twists and turns the economy may take," Yellen said in a speech last week at the Economic Club of New York.

59


Ocean economy low nowPoor fishery management is causing economic disaster- sustainable approaches solveLischewski ‘13 [Chris Lischewski is currently the President and CEO of Bumble Bee Foods LP, the largest branded seafood company in North America. He is a panelist on the Global Partnership for Oceans Blue Ribbon Panel, “The Economic Impacts of Bad Fishing Practices,” http://www.globalpartnershipforoceans.org/economic-impacts-bad-fishing-practices]

It may be difficult to govern in Washington at anything less than a point of crisis, but we can’t make the same mistake with our oceans. The consequences are too dire. If we fail to work together now, we risk the collapse of 71% of the Earth’s

surface with severe economic consequences. We threaten hundreds of millions of jobs and billions of people who rely on seafood for protein and nutrition. These frightening assertions are not exaggerations, but facts based on undeniable data. Meanwhile much of the international community is barely waking up to the problem and many are still hitting the snooze button despite the warning signs. More than

80 other nations are involved in the fishing trade, an industry that generates $102 billion dollars yearly. In addition to providing food

and livelihoods, the oceans help absorb 25% of our carbon emissions and international trade generates trillions of dollars in commerce

thanks to the unobstructed transit routes the oceans provide for shipping. Although commercial fishing has grown tremendously in the past 50 years, 30% of the world’s fisheries are overexploited, depleted or recovering from depletion. The economic consequences of poor fishery management to large businesses as well as small-scale producers are dire. Currently, we are experiencing an

estimated $50 billion in lost economic potential every year from mismanagement of ocean fisheries. Some 350 million jobs are directly linked to the world’s five oceans. That’s more than double the number of people in the

U.S. workforce. Needless to say, as a civilization we stand to squander a great deal if we don’t put real effort into protecting the sustainability of our oceans, and the private sector needs to be involved.¶ Without question, sustainability efforts require some degree of sacrifice

and come at a cost, at least in the short term. But the long-term reward is far greater. The trouble is that the most vulnerable ocean regions, which have

the most urgent need for capacity to change, are largely found off the shores of developing economies. These are states where resources are scarce, and what income is generated must go to sustain its people with little left over to sustain the environment. Coastal states need support from the private sector, international organizations and civil society groups, which is why partnerships between diverse stakeholders is needed for success. It is in these developing economies that achieving the right balance of environmental and socio-economic goals is most critical.¶ In some instances, competitors even work together with scientists and conservationists to achieve improvements that benefit everyone. The tuna industry, for example, joined with World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and scientists in 2009 to develop the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), which is now leading the way in tuna sustainability advancements that impact food and economic security, as well as long-term marine ecosystem conservation. A majority of companies selling crab in the U.S. continue to work together, along with governments in Southeast Asia, in support of Blue Swimming Crab sustainability initiatives. Partnerships like these are the reason that hundreds of conservation projects are currently

active on, near, and for the ocean. What’s been missing, until now, is a guiding framework that consistently prioritizes investments and measures the progress of resulting projects.¶ A Blue Ribbon Panel report, released last month by the Global Partnership for Oceans, sets an important standard for determining the most urgent projects and communicating their successes. I sat on the panel and I’m proud of this report. It represents the views of a diverse group of stakeholders

and suggests that priority be given to projects that align ocean health and human well-being. Anything that creates a healthy ocean, along with

sustainable livelihoods, social equity and food security should go to the top of the list.¶ Building capacity and innovation, as well as

effective governance systems will also lead to the long-term viability of ocean resources. The panelists agreed that the solutions we invest in must take into consideration the different socio-ecological and economic systems and variables at play. Projects must be integrated across all sectors and benefit all stakeholders in order to be considered fair and equitable.¶ While this may be important work, it is not easy work. New partnerships that scale-up the implementation of practical solutions will require a tremendous amount of trust to be built where, in many cases, trust has struggled to exist. Other collaborations will be built among partners working together for the first time.

60


Oceans k2 econHealthy ocean sectors are key to the economy- plan solves growth and spills over to other industriesJOCI ’11 [The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative publishes the work of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission, its leadership council is composed of experienced individuals from a variety of sectors, including industry, government, academia, and security at the national, state, local, and regional levels, “America’s Ocean Future: Ensuring Healthy Oceans to Support a Vibrant Economy,” http://www.jointoceancommission.org/resource-center/1-Reports/2011-06-07_JOCI_Americas_Ocean_Future.pdf]

Our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes provide this nation with food, energy, desirable¶ places to live, recreation, and tourism activities, and are the major avenue for U.S. international trade activities. Continued provision of many of these goods and services is highly dependent on the health of ocean and coastal ecosystems . Among the many¶ benefits of properly functioning ocean and coastal ecosystems are seafood, climate regulation,¶ disease and pest regulation, coastal protection, detoxification, fuel wood, wildlife habitat,¶ sediment trapping, and numerous aesthetic, spiritual, educational, and recreational benefits.¶ The oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes produce goods and services that support the livelihoods¶ of many Americans every year. In 2007, coastal counties contributed almost $8 trillion to U.S. g ross d omestic p roduct and 69 million jobs . Many of these jobs are provided by ocean dependent¶ sectors, including commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, shipping,¶ offshore energy exploration and production, boating, wildlife watching, beach going,¶ military and national security activities, and scientific and academic endeavors. Many of these are good jobs that depend on close proximity to America’s coasts and therefore cannot¶ be shipped abroad .¶ As illustrated below, our oceans and coasts make a substantial contribution to the U.S. economy: • From 2007 to 2009, the average annual value of U.S. marine fisheries landings was $4 billion. In 2010 , 1.5 million jobs were associated with the U.S. commercial fishing industry yielding over $45 billion in income .¶ • In 2006, saltwater anglers spent more than $30 billion, representing more than $80 billion¶ in total economic impact and supporting 500,000 jobs. In the Great Lakes, recreational¶ fishing generated more than $7 billion in total economic output, $2 billion in income, and¶ supported more than 58,000 jobs. • In 2010, the value of imports through U.S. ports was almost $2 trillion, and in 2008,¶ commercial ports supported 13 million U.S. jobs. Ports that accommodate oceangoing¶ vessels move 99.5 percent of U.S. overseas trade by volume and 64 percent by value.¶ Compared to 2001, total freight moving through U.S. ports will increase by more than 50¶ percent by 2020. • In 2007, the leisure and hospitality industry in U.S. coastal states supported almost¶ 11 million jobs and more than $214 billion in wages. The cruise ship industry and its¶ passengers contribute another $12 billion in spending every year.¶ • The oceans contain approximately $8 trillion in oil and gas reserves. Of the 368,000¶ jobs tied to Gulf of Mexico offshore operations in 2011, coastal states account for about¶ 270,000, with nearly 98,000 jobs in non-coastal states. It is projected that total U.S. Gulf¶ of Mexico spending by the offshore energy industry will be approximately $41 billion in¶ 2013, 73 percent of which will be in Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas. Our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes hold significant untapped potential for new and¶ emerging ventures. Development of offshore renewable energy from wave, wind, tidal,¶ and geothermal sources is a promising area that is expected to see significant growth in¶ the future. Emerging fields such as offshore aquaculture, marine-based research and drug¶ discovery, short sea shipping, and deep seabed mining hold the promise of new jobs and sources of revenue. These fields will impact entire supply chains, including technology developers, engineers, manufacturers, installers, managers, and consumers of energy, seafood, and other goods . Arctic exploration and newly accessible shipping lanes due to¶ melting sea ice will result in new scientific discoveries, faster trade routes, and access to¶ previously unavailable natural resources.¶ Future scientific and technological innovation, coupled with ecosystem protection and restoration will lead to new and revitalized opportunities for sustainable economic development of our ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. Through implementation of¶ the National Ocean Policy and better integrated management, our oceans, which are held in¶ the public trust for all Americans, will be utilized in a sustainable manner for the benefit of¶ current and future generations. Avoiding Engine Failure and Investing in Prosperity ¶ Research has shown that the health of our oceans has declined sharply, largely as¶ a result of past mismanagement and our failure to invest in the science needed¶ to understand complex ocean and coastal ecosystems. Impacts include poor¶ coastal water quality, stressed commercial and recreational fisheries, degraded habitats for¶ ocean life, and struggling recoveries of threatened and endangered species. In addition,¶ there is growing interest in expanding ocean uses and activities. Sometimes these uses are¶ compatible with one another; often they are not. The current sector-by-sector management¶ system is incapable of providing the integrated, comprehensive, and flexible approach needed to ensure that conflicts among proposed uses are minimized and potential benefitsenhanced. Funding for ongoing science and technology is needed to better understand ocean¶ ecosystems and make informed decisions about their management.

61


More sustainable fish production can jump-start the economyConathan and Kroh ’12 [Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at American Progress, holds a master’s degree in marine affairs from the University of Rhode Island, Kiley Kroh is the Co-Editor of ClimateProgress, formerly worked on the Energy Policy team at American Progress as the Associate Director for Ocean Communications,“The Foundations of a Blue Economy,” June 27, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/06/27/11794/the-foundations-of-a-blue-economy/]

The ocean is integral to our society. According to data from the 2010 census, more than half of all Americans now live in coastal watershed counties, which comprise less than 20 percent of U.S. land (excluding Alaska) and have an average population density more than five times higher than inland regions. Anyone who has ever seen the words “waterfront property” on a real estate advertisement knows that demand for such locales

far outstrips supply.¶ Groups such as the Center for the Blue Economy, which now encompasses the National Ocean Economics Program, are increasingly

striving to develop models to evaluate the overall fiscal benefits of our oceans, pulling together some heretofore unknown metrics of the overall effect coastal counties and states have on America’s economic health. To date, their topline findings have been significant: In 2010 shore-adjacent counties, those touched or encompassed by a state’s defined coastal zone, contributed more than $6 trillion to our gross domestic product and accounted for 44 million jobs. Despite these efforts, finer-scale economic data about our oceans and coasts remain elusive. We can quantify employment, salaries, and expenditures in some cases—offshore energy workers, fishermen, and lifeguards at public beaches, for example. But others are more difficult to nail down. How do we classify a desk clerk at a hotel 10 miles from the shore? The owner of a convenience store that sells sunscreen and beach chairs alongside eggs and milk? How much a bird watcher spends to kayak through a marsh?¶ And how can we put a price on the resources themselves? Wetlands filter pollution, protect upland property from storm surges, and serve as nurseries for fish and other marine species. So how much is an acre of marshland really worth?¶ This brief launches the Blue Economy project at the Center for American Progress, laying out the groundwork for what will be an ongoing effort to promote industries that recognize and augment the clean and healthy ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems that drive our financial, biological, cultural, and spiritual well-being.¶ In this brief we make the case for supporting, sustaining, and growing four fundamental components of the Blue Economy:¶ Sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries¶ Tourism, recreation, and uses of ocean and coastal space that do not result in direct use or consumption of resources¶ Coastal restoration, protection, and adaptation¶ Offshore renewable energy development¶ These components are certainly not the only drivers of the ocean economy, nor are they necessarily the largest contributors or the ones for which we have the best supporting data. But they constitute what we consider the foundation for healthy and productive oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes.¶ This initial list has some notable omissions. This report, for example, will not wrestle the gorilla of offshore oil and gas development. While this industry has massive and undeniable economic value, risks of environmental destruction that many consider unacceptable counterbalance these contributions.¶ The BP Deepwater Horizon catastrophe has largely faded from public consciousness more than two years after it occurred. In the interim, Congress has failed to take any action to make offshore drilling safer or increase the liability for the companies that threaten marine resources. Meanwhile, we seem to be marching incessantly toward even riskier development of offshore resources in the remote and pristine Arctic Ocean.¶ We also will not delve into maritime transportation, another of the largest economic activities in our oceans. The global shipping industry carries 90 percent of world trade, shapes all commerce, and underpins the global economy. Yet because this report focuses on the nexus of the environment and economy, we do not have space to address shipping. Ships, after all, don’t care whether the water that floats them is dirty or clean, though the industry can be “greened” at relatively low cost and with great benefit to coastal ecosystems.¶ Instead, we focus on industries that depend upon and can coexist with and benefit from healthy oceans yet still lack full definition of their tremendous potential economic benefits—either because of difficulty quantifying them or because the industries are emerging or in flux, thus requiring additional resources and attention before we can truly evaluate their benefits.¶ These industries have the added benefit of fueling our passion, feeding our souls, and protecting the resources that make our oceans and coasts so fundamental to the human experience. Is it possible to put a price tag on that? Perhaps not. But our goal is to better understand the true value of America’s Blue Economy.¶ The summaries below provide a blueprint for future CAP work defining the contributions these sustainable ocean sectors make to our economic well-being.¶ Sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries¶ Fishing is perhaps the first vocation that comes to mind when considering ocean and coastal economic activity. Fish brought the earliest European settlers to the Americas—before gold or trade routes or colonization became the targets of future exploration.¶ Today, most Americans still connect to the ocean through fish, whether they are among the nation’s 12 million recreational anglers or simply enjoy an occasional Filet-O-Fish sandwich.¶ We also have better data for the fishing industry than many other ocean industries. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, which manages our nation’s commercial and recreational fisheries in the

oceans and Great Lakes, “fish processing, restaurants, grocery stores, sales of tackle and gas, icehouses, and a multitude of other businesses are involved with the seafood and fishing supply chain, generating $183 billion per year to the U.S. economy and more than 1.5 million full- and part-time jobs.” While much of today’s fishing news is doom and gloom—preponderance of overfishing, reports that oceans will be nothing but jellyfish by midcentury, and scary predictions of species collapse for everything from the majestic bluefin tuna to the lowly menhaden—there is actually ample reason for optimism. Sustainability is taking hold with consumers, regulators, and industry members alike.¶ We have ended deliberate overfishing in the United States, and the NOAA’s most recent “Status of Stocks” report to Congress showed a record number of domestic fish populations rebuilt to sustainable levels. In addition, consumer-driven initiatives have led many major retailers to change their buying habits and exclude unsustainably-caught seafood from their

shelves.¶ Establishing long-term, sustainable fisheries will be tremendously beneficial to both our environment

and our economy. In testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in 2011, NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco

estimated that rebuilding all U .S. fish populations to sustainable levels could generate “an additional $31 billion in sales impacts, support an additional 500,000 jobs and increase the revenue fishermen receive at the dock by $2.2 billion … more than a 50 percent increase from the current annual dockside revenues” (emphasis in original).¶ Meanwhile, U.S. seafood consumption has dipped slightly, down from 16 pounds per person in 2008 to 15.8 pounds in 2009, while global seafood consumption has doubled in the last 40 years. At the same time, the percentage of fish we import has skyrocketed. Today, roughly 85 percent of the fish we eat is caught, grown, or processed in other

countries. The U.S. trade deficit in seafood products is a staggering $9 billion, ranking second among natural resources only to crude

oil.¶ This is bad news not just for our economy but for the environment as well. The United States is home to some of the most sustainably

managed fisheries on the planet. Each fish we buy from a country with less stringent standards not only takes a bite out of American fishermen’s bottom lines, but also contributes to the decline of global fisheries .¶

Aquaculture, or fish farming, is increasingly playing a greater role in putting fish on our plates. Fully half the fish

62


imported in 2010 was a farmed product. Given the escalating dietary needs of a booming world population, aquaculture will have to be a part of the future of fish. Yet aquaculture, which can be carried out either in the ocean or at land-based fresh or salt water facilities, comes with its own set of environmental concerns, including high concentrations of waste, the need to catch wild fish to feed farmed fish, and potential for corruption of wild populations’ gene pools. But in this sector, too, the United States has far more stringent environmental and human health regulations than virtually any of our trade partners.¶ Given the

clear differences between domestic and imported seafood in terms of sustainability, product quality, and local sourcing, consumer education and market forces can provide a springboard for increasing the value of U.S.-caught fish. This will return more dollars to our fishermen and allow them to make a living without increasing their harvest and compromising the future availability of a finite yet renewable natural

resource.¶ Rebuilt fisheries will pay dividends for recreational fishermen and local economies as well. Anglers spent $18 billion on equipment and for-hire vessels in 2006 alone, according to the NOAA’s most recent figures. These contributions rippled through coastal economies, ultimately contributing $49 billion and creating nearly 400,000 jobs . Further, these figures don’t account for revenues earned by support industries that provide hotel rooms, meals, travel, and other services of which recreational fishermen avail themselves in their quest to land the big one.

63


Aquaculture solves econNew support for aquaculture bolsters economic growthSpeer 4-23-14 [Dr. Nevil C. Speer is with Western Kentucky University and serves on the board of the National Institute for Animal Agriculture, “U.S. aquaculture could use jump-start,” http://feedstuffs.com/blogs-aquaculture-use-jumpstart-commentary-8433]

First, consider that U.S. imports of fish and fish products in 2013 equaled $17.8 billion, while exports totaled only $4.8 billion. At that level, the trade deficit for fish and fish products has been described as the third-largest category of imported products behind only energy and vehicles.

We're missing a tremendous opportunity for U.S. agriculture in terms of net value added to the domestic

economy. Second is the issue of food security. Fish consumption in the U.S. is ranked second in the world, but we import approximately 90% of our total supply. We seem to be content to depend on our trade partners to provide such an important component of our protein consumption. Third, and perhaps most important, is the issue of food safety. Inspection comes on two fronts: (1) the Food & Drug Administration is responsible for ensuring that seafood imports are safe for U.S. consumers, and (2) the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration is primarily responsible for audits of seafood processing plants, product inspection and training. However, despite having two government agencies involved, only approximately 1% of imported seafood is inspected, and a far smaller percentage is tested for various items such as banned substances or drug residues. Given the current demographics of the U.S. and the

realities surrounding purchasing behavior, fish consumption isn't going to reverse direction. Furthermore, consumers increasingly want to

know more about their food and where it comes from. Meanwhile, there's an enduring need to bolster the economy and create jobs. Granted, growing the U.S. industry means overcoming challenges. If it were easy, it would have been done already. Nonetheless, it's hard to imagine any industry better suited for incentivized public/private partnership than U.S. aquaculture. Jump- starting the industry would provide numerous benefits for consumers and the economy. There's no time like

the present, because there's a huge opportunity waiting out there.

US aquaculture expansion saves the economyENS ’11 [Environment News Service, “Obama Administration Promotes Aquaculture in U.S. Waters,” http://ens-newswire.com/2011/06/13/obama-administration-promotes-aquaculture-in-u-s-waters/]

The United States needs to stop buying so much farm-raised fish from other countries and start producing its own, the Obama administration officials said Friday, releasing the first set of national sustainable marine aquaculture policies.¶ Foreign aquaculture accounts for about half of the 84 percent of seafood

imported by the United States, contributing to the $9 billion trade deficit in seafood, said Commerce Secretary Gary Locke.¶ “Our current trade deficit in seafood is approximately $9 billion,” said Locke . “Encouraging and developing the U.S. aquaculture industry will result in economic growth and create jobs at home, support exports to global markets, and spur new innovations in technology to support the industry.” “Sustainable domestic aquaculture can help us meet the

increasing demand for seafood and create jobs in our coastal communities,” said NOAA Administrator Jane

Lubchenco, PhD. “Our vision is that domestic aquaculture will provide an additional source of healthy seafood to complement wild fisheries, while supporting healthy ecosystems and coastal economies.” Global wild fisheries are in decline, with habitat such as estuaries in critical condition. But the farming of fish that eat other fish, like salmon, does not help. Numerous studies have shown that salmon farming has negative impacts on wild salmon, as well as the forage fish that need to be caught to feed them. Aquaculture can be more environmentally damaging than wild fisheries on a local basis. Concerns include waste handling, side-effects of antibiotics, competition between farmed and wild animals, and using other fish to feed more marketable carnivorous fish.¶ To maximize growth and enhance flavor, aquaculture farms use large quantities of fishmeal and fish oil made from less valuable wild-caught species, including anchoveta and sardine.¶ In 2009, aquaculture for the first time supplied half of the total fish and shellfish for human consumption,¶ “Aquaculture’s share of global fishmeal and fish oil consumption more than doubled over the past decade to 68 percent and 88 percent, respectively,” wrote Rosamond Naylor, a professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford University and director of the Stanford Program on Food Security and the Environment in a 2009 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.¶ “The huge expansion is being driven by demand,” wrote Naylor. “As long as we are a health-conscious population trying to get our most healthy oils from fish, we are going to be demanding more of aquaculture and putting a lot of pressure on marine fisheries to meet that need.”¶ The new aquaculture policies, which reflect the public comments received after draft policies were released on February 9, focus on:¶ encouraging and fostering sustainable aquaculture that increases the value of domestic aquaculture production and creates American business, jobs, and trade opportunities¶ making timely management decisions based on the best scientific information available¶ advancing sustainable aquaculture science¶ ensuring aquaculture decisions protect wild species and healthy coastal and ocean ecosystems¶ developing sustainable aquaculture compatible with other uses;¶ working with partners domestically and internationally¶ promoting a level playing field for U.S. aquaculture businesses engaged in international trade, working to remove foreign trade barriers, and enforcing our rights under U.S. trade agreements¶ Along with the Obama administration’s new policy, the Commerce Department and NOAA announced additional steps in the future to support the development of the aquaculture industry through:¶ Developing a National Shellfish Initiative in partnership with the shellfish industry to increase commercial production of shellfish, which would create jobs, provide locally-produced food, restore shellfish populations and habitats, and improve water quality.¶ Implementing the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Plan for Aquaculture, which includes the regulatory infrastructure needed for offshore aquaculture development in the Gulf.¶ The domestic aquaculture industry – both freshwater and marine – currently supplies about five percent of the seafood consumed in the United States.¶ The cultivation of shellfish, such as oysters, clams, and mussels, comprises about two-thirds of U.S. marine aquaculture production.¶ Salmon and shrimp aquaculture contribute about 25 percent and 10 percent, respectively. Current production takes place mainly on land, in ponds, and in states’ coastal waters.¶ “This new focus on helping us develop and expand sustainable aquaculture is welcomed,” said Bill Dewey, a

shellfish biologist and clam farmer of more than 27 years based in Shelton, Washington. “ When done right, aquaculture can improve the environment, provide jobs and reclaim American dollar s that are being spent on imported aquaculture products.”

64


Offshore aquaculture benefits spill over to other industries Knapp ’08 [Gunnar, Ph.D. in Economics from Yale University, Director and Professor of Economics at the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage, former member of an evaluation team for the Moore Foundation’s Wild Salmon Ecosystem Initiative, “Chapter 8: Potential Economic Impacts of U.S. Offshore Aquaculture,” http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/people/knapp/personal/pubs/Knapp_Economic_Impacts_of_US_Offshore_Aquaculture.pdf]

Figure 8.1 provides a simple categorization of industries associated with fish farming—¶ those industries which depend in some way on fish farming. We may group these industries into ¶ six categories: ¶ ¶ Figure 8.1. Industries associated with fish farming. • Fish farms. These are aquaculture operations growing fish or shellfish. ¶ ¶ • “Upstream industries” supplying fish farms. These are industries from which the fish ¶ farms purchase direct inputs. Among the industries which account for the greatest share ¶ of fish farm purchases are hatcheries, feed manufacturing, and cage and equipment manufacturing. • “Downstream” industries supplied by fish farms. These are industries in the distribution ¶ chain from fish farms to consumers, including processing, transportation, wholesaling, retail and food service. • Industries supplying upstream industries. These are industries from which the ¶ “upstream” industries purchase inputs. For example, the feed manufacturing industry ¶ purchases raw material for making fish feed from both the agriculture and the ¶ commercial fishing industries. ¶ ¶ • Industries supplying downstream industries. These are industries from which the ¶ “downstream industries purchase inputs. For example, the processing industry purchases ¶ boxes from the packaging industry. ¶ ¶ • Industries supported by household spending. These are industries throughout the entire ¶ economy that are supported by spending of household income earned in the other ¶ industries. ¶ ¶ Clearly the nature and degree of association with fish farming varies widely among these ¶ different categories of industries. There are only a few industries which would disappear entirely ¶ without fish farming, such as cage manufacture. However, there are many industries, across many sectors of the economy—which benefit in some way from fish farming. ¶ ¶ Figure 8.1 helps to illustrate two simple but important points. First, the economic impacts of fish farming are larger—potentially much larger—than those which occur at fish farms. We cannot count the employment created by aquaculture simply by adding up the jobs at ¶ aquaculture companies. ¶ ¶ Second, the economic impacts of fish farming are spread over a far greater geographic area than the communities where fish farms are located or from which they are supported. While ¶ the hatchery supplying a fish farm may be located relatively near the farm, the company ¶ manufacturing the cage or the restaurant selling the fish may be located thousands of miles away. ¶ ¶ One indicator of the relative significance of “upstream industries” in aquaculture ¶ production is the share of purchased product inputs in gross output value. As shown in Table 8.2, ¶ purchased inputs accounted for 69% of total gross output value of Canadian aquaculture in 2005, ¶ and feed purchases alone accounted for 31%. The shares of different inputs varied between ¶ provinces, reflecting different mixes of species in total production. ¶ Viewed in a different way, gross value added in Canadian aquaculture was only 31% of ¶ gross output in 2005. Thus more than two-thirds of gross output value was generated in other ¶ “upstream” industries. Estimating Total Employment and Income Impacts of Fish Farming ¶ ¶ Adding up how many people work on fish farms and what they earn is a relatively ¶ straightforward process. Speculating about how many people might work on future offshore fish ¶ farms is also relatively straightforward (although highly uncertain given uncertainty about the ¶ future scale and characteristics of the industry). It is far less straightforward to measure the full ¶ economic impacts, across all industries, of existing fish farms--or to project the potential full ¶ economic impacts of future fish farms. ¶ ¶ The standard technique for estimating economic impacts of an industry is input-output ¶ analysis, which calculates economic impacts using assumptions about inter-industry purchases ¶ per dollar of output of an industry. These are then used to caculate three types of economic ¶ impacts: “direct,” “indirect,” and “induced.” Applied to fish farming, “direct impacts” are those ¶ occurring within the fish farming industry; “indirect” impacts are those driven by purchases of ¶ the fish farming industry from other industries, and “induced impacts” are those driven by ¶ household spending of income created by direct and indirect impacts. . Each of these types of ¶ impacts is typically measured in three ways: annual average employment, wage and salary ¶ income, and sales or “output.” ¶ ¶ Input-Output analysis typically measures only the impacts of an industry and its ¶ associated upstream activities. If we wish to measure the impacts of the “downstream” activities ¶ of processing and distributing farmed fish, we may apply the same approach to estimating the ¶ direct, indirect and induced impacts of these industries (net of those associated with fish ¶ production). ¶ A significant challenge for input-output analysis is that it requires extensive data on inter-industry purchases. This is particularly a challenge for marine aquaculture, partly because it ¶ relies heavily on purchases from other industries, and partly because it is a relatively new ¶ industry for which relatively little data are available. The National Offshore Aquaculture Model is an input-output model which was ¶ developed for the specific purpose of estimating potential economic impacts of offshore ¶ aquaculture. Chapter 7 of this report uses this model to estimate economic impacts for ¶ hypothetical offshore farming operations for five different species. For each species, the model ¶ required specific assumptions about the scale of the operation and different kinds of expenditures ¶ such as farm installation costs, vessel maintenance, feed costs, etc. The model then calculates ¶ direct, indirect and induced impacts generated by the farming operation as well as “downstream” ¶ activities. ¶ ¶ Details of the model’s economic impact calculations are presented in Chapter 7. The ¶ purpose of our brief discussion here is to contrast the relative scales of different kinds of ¶ projected impacts, and of impacts from different kinds of farming. ¶ ¶ As shown in the first row of Table 8.2, the direct employment impacts of fish farming ¶ account for between only 11% and 19% of the projected total employment impacts of farming ¶ from all upstream and downstream activities as well as induced activity in the rest of the ¶ economy. As shown in the fourth row, the total impacts attributable to farming (as opposed to ¶ downstream activities) represent only 27% to 38% of total impacts. ¶ ¶ These estimates serve to emphasize the point made above: the potential total economic impacts of offshore fish farming are much larger than those which would occur at the farming operations alone—potentially five to ten times larger. Put differently, simply adding up jobs and ¶ wages at the farms would greatly underestimate the total economic impacts created by offshore ¶ farming.

65


The fish industry is a huge economic engine- proper management is keySmith 2-12-14 [Russell Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Fisheries, NOAA, “Commerce’s Smith on Support of International Fisheries Agreements,” http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2014/02/20140214293095.html?CP.rss=true#axzz31L5oOxrk]

Before I address the four treaties, I wish to provide some context about why they are important to U.S. national interest. Marine fish and fisheries, such as salmon

in the Pacific Northwest and cod in New England, have been vital to the prosperity and cultural identity of coastal communities in the United States. U.S. fisheries play an enormous role in the U.S. economy. Commercial fishing supports fishers and fishing

communities, and provides Americans with a sustainable, healthy food source. The seafood industry in the U.S.—harvesters, seafood processors

and dealers, seafood wholesalers and seafood retailers, including imports and multiplier effects—generated $129 billion in sales impacts and $37 billion in income impacts, and supported 1.2 million jobs in 2011.1 Recreational fishing also makes significant contributions to employment and the economy in the United States. Recreational fishing generated an estimated $56 billion in sales impacts, $18 billion in income impacts, and supported 364,000 jobs in 2011.2 Subsistence fishing provides an essential food source and is culturally significant for indigenous peoples.¶ To ensure the long-term benefits of these resources to the American people, NOAA relies on clear, science-based rules, fair, effective and consistent enforcement, and a shared commitment to sustainable management. Much of this work occurs under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), which sets forth standards for the conservation, management and sustainable use of our Nation’s fisheries resources. The application of these standards has resulted in a federal fishery management system that has made very significant progress in ending overfishing and rebuilding our Nation’s fisheries.¶ The United States is also one of the world’s largest importers and consumers of seafood. In 2011, seafood imports contributed 176,000 jobs, $48.4 billion in sales impacts, and $14.8 billion in value added impacts.3 As such, the United States is in a unique position to support sustainable fisheries around the world while providing a level playing field for our domestic fishermen. Working in collaboration with the Department of State and the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA engages in international fisheries fora, such as Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), to ensure that global fish stocks are sustainably managed, including by ensuring that management is based on the best available science. As the United States is a leader in sustainably managing fisheries, often we seek to draw from our experience and convince RFMOs to apply, in the waters under their jurisdiction, management measures comparable to those applied in U.S. waters.¶ One of the greatest challenges to

our international efforts to ensure the sustainable management of global fisheries is combating illegal, unreported, or unregulated (IUU) fishing. IUU

fishing is a global problem that threatens ocean ecosystems and impacts fisheries, food security, and coastal communities around the world. Experts estimate the global value of economic losses from IUU fishing range between $10 and $23.5 billion.4 By circumventing conservation and management measures, companies and individuals engaging in IUU fishing cut corners and lower their operating costs. As a result, their illegally caught products provide unfair competition for law-abiding fishermen and seafood industries in the marketplace, and can undercut the sustainability of international and U.S. fisheries.5

66


Plan solves overfishingAquaculture restores fish populationsPittenger et al ‘07 [Richard Pittenger is chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, former Vice President


In addition to the food fish production¶ that has been described, the aquaculture industry in the U.S. includes several other¶ segments, including restoration programs and the production of ornamental fish . Aquaculture can play an important role in restoration efforts for marine fish species, especially those that have declined from overfishing and habitat destruction. While¶ it does not address the root causes of the¶ decline of wild stocks, aquaculture can assist¶ in restoration efforts by supplying hatcheryraised individuals to supplement wild populations .¶ Efforts to restore endangered stocks¶ of salmon rely heavily on hatchery programs, although these programs have been costly,¶ controversial and have met with only mixed¶ success. Aquaculture has been an important part of the restoration efforts for many other species of finfish and shellfish, such as striped bass, sturgeon, and oysters .

67


Overfishing internalsSolving overfishing bolsters economic growthSafina ’13 [Carl Safina, president of the Blue Ocean Institute “The Continued Danger of Overfishing,” http://issues.org/19-4/safina-2/]

New studies continue to chronicle how overfishing and poor management have severely hurt the U.S. commercial fishing industry. Thus, it makes sense to examine the effectiveness of the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, which overhauled federal legislation guiding fisheries management. At the time, I predicted that, if properly implemented, the act would do much to bolster recovery and sustainable management of the nation’s fisheries. Today, I see some encouraging signs but still overall a mixed picture.¶ The 1996 legislation amended the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of two decades earlier. The original law had claimed waters within 200 miles of the coast of the United States and its possessions (equivalent to some two-thirds of the U.S. continental landmass) as an “exclusive economic zone.” In so doing, it set the stage for eliminating the foreign fishing that had devastated commercially important fish and other marine life populations. Although it set up a complicated management scheme involving regional councils, the original legislation failed to direct fishery managers to prohibit overfishing or to rebuild depleted fish populations. Nor did it do anything to protect habitat for fishery resources or to reduce bycatch of nontarget species. Under purely U.S. control, many fish and shellfish populations sank to record low levels.¶ The only sensible course is to move forward: to eliminate overfishing, reduce bycatch, and protect and improve habitat.¶ The 1996 act addressed many of those management problems, especially the ones connected with overfishing and rebuilding. In the previous reauthorization of the earlier act, for example, the goal of “optimum yield” had been defined as “the

maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as modified by any relevant social, economic, or ecological factor.” A tendency of fishery managers to act on short-term economic considerations had often led to modifications upward, resulting in catch goals that exceeded sustainable levels and hence in overfishing , depletion, and the loss of economic viability in numerous fisheries.¶ The Sustainable Fisheries Act changed the word “modified” to “reduced.” In other words, fishery managers may no longer allow catches exceeding sustainable yields. Other new language defined a mandatory recovery process and created a list of overfished species. When a fish stock was listed as overfished, managers were given a time limit to enact a recovery plan. Because undersized fish and nontarget species caught incidentally and discarded dead account for about a quarter of the total catch, the law enabled fishery managers to require bycatch-reduction devices.¶ Although I had high hopes for the act when it was passed, its actual implementation, which began only in 1998, has been less than uniform. Fishery groups have sued to slow or block recovery plans, because the first step in those plans is usually to restrict fishing. Meanwhile, conservation groups have sued to spur implementation.¶ In that contentious climate, progress has been somewhat halting. On the one hand, overfishing continues for some species, and many fish populations remain depleted. One of the most commercially important fish–Atlantic cod–has yet to show strong increases despite tighter fishing restrictions.¶ On the other hand, in cases in which recovery plans have actually been produced, fish populations have done well. For example, New England has some of the most depleted stocks in U.S. waters. But remedies that in some cases began even before the law was reformed–closures of important breeding areas, regulation of net size, and reductions in fishing pressure–have resulted in encouraging upswings in the numbers of some overfished species. Not least among the rebounding species are scallops, yellowtail flounder, and haddock. Goals have been met for rebuilding sea scallops on Georges Bank and waters off the mid-Atlantic states. There has even been a sudden increase in juvenile abundance of notoriously overfished Atlantic swordfish. That is because federal managers, responding to consumer pressure and to lawsuits from conservation groups, closed swordfish nursery areas where bycatch of undersized fish had been high and cut swordfishing quotas. Some other overfished species, among them Atlantic summer flounder, certain mackerel off the Southeast, red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, and tanner and snow crabs off Alaska, are rebounding nicely.¶ The trend in recovery efforts is generally upward. The number of fish populations with sustainable catch rates and healthy numbers has been increasing, and the number that are overfished declining. And

rebuilding programs are now finally in place or being developed for nearly all overfished species. Maintaining healthy fish populations is not just good for the ocean, of course, but also for commerce: Fish are worth money. Ocean fishing contributes $50 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product annually, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But because fish are worth money only after they are caught, not everyone is pleased with aggressive efforts to ensure that there will be more fish tomorrow. Some people want more fish today. Restrictions designed to rebuild depleted stocks are costing them money in the short term.¶ For that reason, various amendments have been introduced in Congress that would weaken the gains of the Sustainable Fisheries Act and jeopardize fisheries. In particular, industry interests have sought to lengthen recovery times. Currently, the law requires plans for rebuilding most fish populations within a decade, with exceptions for slow-growing species. (Many fish could recover twice as fast if fishing was severely limited, but a decade was deemed a reasonable amount of time: It is practical biologically, meaningful within the working lifetime of individual fishers, and yet rapid enough to allow trends to be perceived and adjustments made if necessary.) Longer rebuilding schedules make it harder to assess whether a fish population is growing or shrinking in response to management efforts. The danger is that overfishing will continue in the short term, leading to tighter

restrictions and greater hardship later on.¶ Recovered fish populations would contribute substantially to the U.S. economy and to the welfare of fishing communities. In just five years since the Sustainable Fisheries Act went into effect, the outlook for

U.S. fisheries has improved noticeably, for the first time in decades. The only sensible course is to move forward: to eliminate overfishing, reduce bycatch, and protect and improve habitat. It would be foolish to move backward and allow hard-gotten gains to unravel just when they are gaining traction. Yet the debate continues.

68


Low deficit k2 econReducing the deficit is key to sustainable growth- outweighs any alternate causesTonelson ‘11 [Alan, Research Fellow at the U.S. Business & Industry Educational Foundation, July 29, “Trade Deficit Reduction -- America's Only Way Out,” http://americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=4658]

This morning’s dismaying report from the government on gross domestic product confirms that economic growth is virtually dead in the water. It also reveals that none of the recovery strategies dominating the headlines, and none of the issues being debated during the current budget crisis, by themselves can generate desperately needed output and hiring without boosting America’s already dangerous levels of debt. Literally trillions of dollars of stimulus from the Fed and the last two administrations obviously have flunked this test since the crisis began. And major tax cuts plus more Fed stimulus flunked it in the pre-crisis years, producing the weakest U.S. expansion until the present. The message to the President and Congress, and Republicans, Democrats, and Tea Partyers alike couldn’t be clearer: America’s damaged economy will never be healed unless recovery programs emphasize slashing the nation’s still-massive and chronic trade deficits. Greatly narrowing the gap between exports and imports represents the only realistic way to foster growth without artificially boosting anemic domestic demand further – whether through more government spending or more tax cuts. As a result, it’s the realistic way to promote output and job-creation without plunging the economy even deeper into the red financially . The new government report revised the economy’s growth figures going back to 2003, and thus included an update on U.S. performance from the last recession’s official onset at the end of 2007. Its verdict: the downturn, which officially ended in mid-2009, was considerably worse than originally estimated. Rather than growing at an average annual rate of 0.1 percent between 2007 and 2010 (after inflation), the government now says the economy shrunk by an average annual rate of 0.3 percent in real terms. This year’s “soft patch” in growth, moreover, is looking more worrisome, too, as a result of the revisions. Rather than expanding at a 1.9 percent annualized rate in real terms during the first quarter of 2011, growth was only 0.4 percent – barely measurable. Preliminary figures for second-quarter annualized growth were better, but still sickly at 1.3 percent. Real growth for 2010 was revised upward slightly, from 2.9 to 3 percent. But the new data also showed that the second half of last year saw a sharper-than-reported slowdown in real growth, with the fourth quarter number being slashed from 3.1 percent to 2.3 percent. As this morning’s report showed, a greater worsening of the trade deficit than originally estimated dragged down first quarter growth this year much more than either weaker consumption, business investment, or government spending. Although the new data peg export growth during the quarter at an annualized 7.9 percent rather than 7.3 percent, they also show a much greater rise in imports – from an annualized 5.1 percent increase to 8.3 percent According to preliminary figures, moreover, the trade deficit’s shrinkage made the private sector‘s biggest contribution to the modest growth speed-up in the second quarter. But these new government numbers also demonstrate that the way the trade deficit is narrowed matters greatly. Since the economic crisis broke out in the summer of 2007, the only significant progress on this front has come when domestic demand has nosedived, and sharply depressed imports. Trade deficit reduction strategies must emphasize replacing imports with domestically produced goods and services on a massive scale. Only this way can growth be accelerated without inflating current levels of demand – and indebtedness . In fact, trade deficit reduction can boost growth even if domestic demand falls. Increasing U.S. exports, as President Obama has proposed, can help of course. But as the U.S. Business and Industry Council keeps reminding him, export expansion per se can only increase growth and job-creation on net if it’s great enough to reduce the trade deficit. And given today’s world of still-formidable foreign trade barriers and slowing growth, that’s clearly a pipe dream. These conditions, of course, also further undermine the weak case for the Colombia, Korea, and Panama trade agreements as American growth and employment bonanzas. Bottom line: Without tight curbs on imports, such as those the Council has long urged, the U.S. economy will be stuck in a slow-growth/high-unemployment mode for years. And that’s the most optimistic scenario.

69


High trade deficits cause economic instabilityElwell ’10 [Craig K., Specialist in Macroeconomic Policy at the Congressional Research Service, “The U.S. Trade Deficit: Causes, Consequences, and Policy Options,” July 12, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA525490]

Trade deficits often raise concern about the potential instability of external sources of finance. What if foreign investors begin to pull their funds out of the U nited S tates, causing interest rates to rise sharply, disrupting domestic capital markets and the wider economy? 19 The “dollar crash” scenario is as follows. Growing perceptions of an unsustainable accumulation of foreign debt in the U.S. economy result in a widespread expectation that the dollar will eventually depreciate substantially. It is argued that this expectation raises the prospect of a run on the dollar that leads to a rapid and disorderly depreciation of the dollar that goes far beyond what is needed for the desired economic adjustment. The fear in some minds is that the move out of dollars could become a stampede if investors try to simultaneously sell their dollar assets on a large scale. This leads not only to a sharply falling exchange rate, but also to sharply rising interest rates in U.S. financial markets as lower asset prices translate into higher effective interest rates. Sharply rising interest rates in the United States will dampen spending in interest-sensitive sectors and stress financial markets . There are, of course, positive impulses associated with a falling dollar, such as increased export sales in the United States and stimulus to interest sensitive sectors abroad. In the dollar crash scenario, however, the negative impulses have a more immediate effect .

70

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA525490


Deficit=China warA high trade deficit independently risks a trade war with ChinaWorld Politics News Review ‘11 [Online news service, “A Coming Trade War With China?” October 8, http://worldpoliticsblog.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/a-coming-trade-war-with-china/]

The United States runs a $273 billion annual trade deficit with China, meaning it imports much more than it exports to the rising Asian power. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) recently estimated that this U.S.-China trade deficit cost the U.S. 2.8 million jobs between 2001 and 2010, with all 50 U.S. states affected by job losses in the manufacturing and services sectors. As EPI notes, “increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in the United States, and increases in imports tend to lead to job loss. Thus, a growing trade deficit signifies growing job loss.” American leaders have increasingly blamed this trade deficit on China’s unwillingness to “play fair” when it comes to trade by keeping its currency’s value artificially low relative to the dollar . While a weak currency doesn’t sound like a good thing, it makes a country’s exports cheaper abroad and it makes other countries’ imports more expensive at home. This means goods and services produced in China are more competitive both in China and abroad, which creates jobs and economic growth in China and harms competing countries’ economic prospects. In retaliation for China’s currency manipulation, the United States Congress is now considering legislation that would impose tariffs (essentially a tax) on Chinese imports. China has claimed that such action would violate the rules of the W orld T rade O rganization , which focuses on lowering trade barriers worldwide, but Congressional supporters of the legislation dispute that. Proponents claim these steps could ultimately create up to 2 million American jobs. The Senate is in favor of the bill but House leaders have blasted it as “dangerous” and President Obama appears unenthusiastic but noncommittal. For its part, China has warned that such action could lead to a trade war, which would not be good for America’s economy. In New York Times editorial last week noted economist Paul Krugman downplayed the risks of a trade war: “And the reality of the unemployment disaster is also my answer to those who warn that getting tough with China might unleash a trade war or damage world commercial diplomacy. Those are real risks, although I think they’re exaggerated. But they need to be set against the fact — not the mere possibility — that high unemployment is inflicting tremendous cumulative damage as we speak.”

That escalates to global war and economic collapseDroke ’10 [Clif, editor for the Momentum Strategies Report, “America and the Next Major War,” 3-29-10, http://www.greenfaucet.com/technical-analysis/america-and-the-next-major-war/79314]

In the current phase of relative peace and stability we now enjoy, many are questioning when the next major war may occur and speculation is rampant as to major participants involved. Our concern here is strictly of a financial nature, however, and a discussion of the geopolitical and military variables involved in the escalation of war is beyond the scope of this commentary. But what we can divine from financial history is that "hot" wars in a military sense often emerge from trade wars. As we shall see, the elements for what could prove to be a trade war of epic proportions are already in place and the key figures are easily identifiable. Last Wednesday the lead headline in the Wall Street Journal stated, "Business Sours on China." It seems, according to WSJ, that Beijing is "reassessing China's long-standing emphasis on opening its economy to foreign business....and tilting toward promoting dominant state companies." Then there is Internet search giant Google's threat to pull out of China over concerns of censorship of its Internet search results in that country. The trouble started a few weeks ago Google announced that it no longer supports China's censoring of searches that take place on the Google platform. China has defended its extensive censorship after Google threatened to withdraw from the country. Additionally, the Obama Administration announced that it backs Google's decision to protest China's censorship efforts. In a Reuters report, Obama responded to a question as to whether the issue would cloud U.S.-China relations by saying that the human rights would not be "carved out" for certain countries. This marks at least the second time this year that the White House has taken a stand against China (the first conflict occurring over tire imports). Adding yet further fuel to the controversy, the U.S. Treasury Department is expected to issue a report in April that may formally label China as a "currency manipulator," according to the latest issue of Barron's. This would do nothing to ease tensions between the two nations and would probably lead one step closer to a trade war between China and the U.S. Then there was last week's Wall Street Journal report concerning authorities in a wealthy province near Shanghai criticizing the quality of luxury clothing brands from the West, including Hermes, Tommy Hilfiger and Versace. This represents quite a change from years past when the long-standing complaint from the U.S. over the inferior quality of Chinese made merchandise. On Monday the WSJ ran an article under the headline, "American Firms Feel Shut Out In China." The paper observed that so far there's little evidence that American companies are pulling out of China but adds a growing number of multinational firms are "starting to rethink their strategy." According to a poll conducted by the American Chamber of Commerce in China, 38% of U.S. companies reported feeling unwelcome in China compared to 26% in 2009 and 23% in 2008. As if to add insult to injury, the high profile trial of four Rio Tinto executives in China is another example of the tables being turned on the West. The executives are by Chinese authorities of stealing trade secrets and taking bribes. There's a touch of irony to this charge considering that much of China's technology was stolen from Western manufacturing firms which set up shop in that country. It seems China is flexing its economic and political muscle against the West in a

71

http://www.greenfaucet.com/technical-analysis/america-and-the-next-major-war/79314

http://worldpoliticsblog.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/a-coming-trade-war-with-china/


show of bravado. Yet one can't help thinking that this is exactly the sort of arrogance that typically precedes a major downfall. As the Bible states, "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." In his book, "Jubilee on Wall Street," author David Knox Barker devotes a chapter to how trade wars tend to be common occurrences in the long wave economic cycle of developed nations. Barker explains his belief that the industrial nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China will play a major role in pulling the world of the long wave deflationary decline as their domestic economies begin to develop and grow. "The are and will demand more foreign goods produced in the United States and other markets," he writes. Barker believes this will help the U.S. rebalance from an over weighted consumption-oriented economy to a high-end producer economy. Barker adds a caveat, however: if protectionist policies are allowed to gain force in Washington, trade wars will almost certainly erupt and. If this happens, says Barker, "all bets are off." He adds, "The impact on global trade of increased protectionism and trade wars would be catastrophic, and what could prove to be a mild long wave [economic] winter season this time around could plunge into a global depression." Barker also observes that the storm clouds of trade wars are already forming on the horizon as we have moved further into the long wave economic "winter season." Writes Barker, "If trade wars are allowed to get under way in these final years of a long wave winter, this decline will be far deeper and darker than necessary, just as the Great Depression was far deeper and lengthier than it should have been, due to growing international trade isolationism. He further cautions that protectionism in Washington will certainly bring retaliation from the nations that bear the brunt of punitive U.S. trade policies. He observes that the reaction from one nation against the protectionist policies of another is typically far worse than the original action. He cites as an example the restriction by the U.S. of $55 million worth of cotton blouses from China in the 1980s. China retaliated by cancelling $500 million worth of orders for American rain. "As one nation blocks trade, the nation that is hurt will surely retaliate and the entire world will suffer ," writes Barker.

High trade deficits risk a trade war with ChinaPrasad ’10 [Eswar, teaches trade policy at Cornell University, Marketplace, "The House's bill against foreign currency manipulation," 9-29-10, http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/09/29/pmthe-houses-bill-against-foreign-currency-manipulation/]

RYSSDAL: For all that we are talking about currency now in this country, and we have been for a number of months -- at least in Congress -- is this all going to go away after the election? Does politics explain the popularity? PRASAD: Right now in the U.S., there is a very combustible mix not only of leading up to election season and we have very vulnerable Congressmen. But in addition to that, the jobs picture is very weak, the trade deficit in the U.S. is beginning to rise again -- and China counts for about half of that so far this year. So it is a volatile mix and that I think is what is being reflected in what is typically overheated rhetoric now getting translated into more substantive actions directed at China.

72

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/09/29/pmthe-houses-bill-against-foreign-currency-manipulation/

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/09/29/pmthe-houses-bill-against-foreign-currency-manipulation/


US k2 global econUS is key to the global economyJames and Lombardi 12-3-13 [Harold James is Professor of History and International Affairs at Princeton University, Professor of History at the European University Institute, Florence, and a senior fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation, Domenico Lombardi is Director of the Global Economy Program at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, “Who Should Lead the Global Economy?” http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/harold-james-and-domenico-lombardiconsider-whether-china-or-the-eurozone-has-what-it-takes-to-replace-the-us-as-the-world-s-economic-leader]

In terms of global economic leadership, the twentieth century was American, just as the nineteenth century was British and the sixteenth century was Spanish. Some Chinese and Europeans think that they are next. Are they? And should they even want to be?¶ The most important prerequisite for global economic leadership is size. The bigger an economy, the greater its systemic importance, and the more leverage its political representatives have in

international decision-making. The United States is the world’s largest economy, with a GDP of roughly $16.7 trillion. The eurozone’s $12.6 trillion output puts it in second place, and China, with a GDP of around $9 trillion, comes in third. In other words, all three economies are conceivably large enough to serve as global economic leaders.¶ But an economy’s future prospects are also crucial to its leadership prospects – and serious challenges lie ahead. No one thinks that the eurozone will grow more quickly than the US in the coming years or decades. While China is expected to overtake the US in terms of output by 2020, decades of rigid population-control measures will weaken growth in the longer run, leaving the US economy as the most dynamic of the three.¶ Another key requirement for global economic leadership is systemic importance in commercial, monetary, and financial terms. Unlike China, a large trade power with underdeveloped monetary and financial capabilities, the eurozone meets the requirement of systemic significance in all three areas.¶ There is also a less concrete aspect to leadership. Being a true global leader means shaping and connecting the global economic structures within which states and markets operate – something the US has been doing for almost 70 years.¶ At the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, the US crafted the post-World War II international monetary and financial order. The basic framework, centered around the US dollar, has survived financial crises, the Soviet Union’s dissolution, and several developing countries’ integration into the world economy.¶

Today, American leadership in global trade and financial and monetary governance rests on inter-related strengths. The US provides the world’s key international currency, serves as the linchpin of global demand, establishes trends in financial regulation, and has a central bank that acts as the world’s de facto lender of last resort .¶ Beyond delivering a global

public good, supplying the world’s central currency carries substantial domestic benefits. Because the US can borrow and pay for imports in its own currency, it does not face a hard balance-of-payments constraint. This has allowed it to run large and sustained current-account deficits fairly consistently since the early 1980’s.¶ These deficits raise persistent concerns about the system’s viability, with observers (mostly outside the US) having long

predicted its imminent demise. But the system survives, because it is based on a functional trade-off, in which the US uses other countries’ money to act as the main engine of global demand. In fact, export-oriented economies like Germany, Japan, and China owe much of their success to America’s capacity to absorb a massive share of global exports – and they need to keep paying America to play this role.¶ Given this, the big exporters have lately come under intense pressure to “correct” their external surpluses as part of responsible global citizenship. While this has contributed to a sharp contraction of the Chinese and Japanese surpluses, the eurozone’s current-account surplus is growing, with the International Monetary Fund expecting it to reach 2.3% of GDP this year (slightly less than the Chinese surplus).¶ A global economy led by a surplus country seems more logical, given that creditors usually dictate terms. At the time of the Bretton Woods conference, the US accounted for more than half of the world’s manufactured output. The rest of the world needed dollars that only the US could supply.¶ Chinese or European leadership would probably look more like the pre-World War I Pax Britannica (during which the United Kingdom supplied capital to the rest of the world in anticipation of its own relative economic decline), with the hegemon supplying funds on a long-term basis. But this scenario presupposes a deep and well-functioning financial system to intermediate the funds – something that China and the eurozone have been unable to achieve.¶ Despite the 2008

financial crisis, the US remains the undisputed leader in global finance. Indeed, American financial markets boast unparalleled depth, liquidity, and safety, making them magnets for global capital, especially in times of financial distress. This “pulling power,” central to US financial dominance, underpins the dollar’s global role, as investors in search of safe, liquid assets pour money into US Treasury securities .

US is key to the global economyMcIntyre 1-15-14 [Douglas, partner at 24/7 Wall St., LLC. former Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of Financial World Magazine, first president of Switchboard.com when it was the 10th most visited website in the world, former CEO of FutureSource, LLC and On2 Technologies, Inc, is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard, “U.S. Key to Global Recovery, Says World Bank,” http://247wallst.com/economy/2014/01/15/u-s-key-to-global-recovery-says-world-bank/]

While the developed economies of the world will stage improvements this year, and the growth of the developing world will accelerate sharply, the U nited States, the largest nation based on gross domestic product (GDP), is the key to a strong global recovery in 2014. At the core of the U.S. effect is the activity of Federal Reserve and its efforts to taper its stimulus programs. The recovery, in other words, may come down to the decisions of a single central bank. Economists in America and abroad say that if access to money at extremely low interest rates in the United States begins to disappear, the

73


American economy cannot sustain growth, which has only picked up sharply in the past few quarters, both based on GDP improvement and employment gains. The jobless rate in the United States, at 6.7%, is still well above the average when the economy is in strong recovery. American consumer activity is still about two-thirds of GDP, and the foundations of that activity are still modest.¶ The World Bank reports in its new “Global Economic Prospects” analysis that:¶ Growth prospects for 2014 are, however, sensitive to the tapering of monetary stimulus in the United States, which began earlier this month, and to the structural shifts taking place in China’s economy.¶ China likely will continue to step into the limelight as its cements it position as the world’s second largest nation as measured by GDP, and one that is growing much faster than the United States.¶ Other World Bank forecasts:¶ The report forecasts growth in developing countries to pick up from 4.8 percent in 2013 to a slower than previously expected 5.3 percent this year, 5.5 percent in 2015 and 5.7 percent in 2016. While the pace is about 2.2 percentage points lower than during the boom period of 2003-07, the slower growth is not a cause for concern. Almost all of the difference reflects a cooling off of the unsustainable turbo-charged pre-crisis growth, with very little due to an easing of growth potential in developing countries. Moreover, even this slower growth represents a substantial (60 percent) improvement compared with growth in the 1980s and early 1990s.¶ Global GDP is projected to grow from 2.4 percent in 2013 to 3.2 percent this year, stabilizing at 3.4 percent and 3.5 percent in 2015 and 2016, respectively, with much of the initial acceleration reflecting a pick-up in high-income economies.¶ In other words, the consuming economies will help those that produce the goods that are fruits of the recovery in the United States, Europe and Japan.

74


Impacts- Econ=nuclear warsEconomic decline causes every major impactGreen ‘09 [Michael J., Senior Advisor and Japan Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Associate Professor at Georgetown University, Asia Times Online, 3.26.9, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/KC26Dk01.html AD 6/30/09]

Facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, analysts at the World Bank and the US Central Intelligence Agency are just beginning to contemplate the ramifications for international stability if there is not a recovery in the next year. For the most part, the focus has been on fragile states such as some in Eastern Europe . However, the Great Depression taught us that a downward global economic spiral can even have jarring impacts on great powers. It is no mere coincidence that the last great global economic downturn was followed by the most destructive war in human history. In the 1930s, economic desperation helped fuel autocratic regimes and protectionism in a downward economic-security death spiral that engulfed the world in conflict . This spiral was aided by the preoccupation of the United States and other leading nations with economic troubles at home and insufficient attention to working with other powers to maintain stability abroad. Today's challenges are different, yet 1933's London Economic Conference, which failed to stop the drift toward deeper depression and world war, should be a cautionary tale for leaders heading

to next month's London Group of 20 (G-20) meeting. There is no question the US must urgently act to address banking issues and to restart its economy . But the lessons of the past suggest that we will also have to keep an eye on those fragile threads in the international system that could begin to unravel if the financial crisis is not reversed early in the Barack Obama administration and realize that economics and security are intertwined in most of the critical challenges we face. A disillusioned rising power? Four areas in Asia merit particular attention, although so far the current financial crisis has not changed Asia's fundamental strategic picture. China is not replacing the US as regional hegemon, since the leadership in Beijing is too nervous about the political implications of the financial crisis at home to actually play a leading role in solving it internationally. Predictions that the US will be brought to its knees because China is the leading holder of US debt often miss key points. China's currency controls and full employment/export-oriented growth strategy give Beijing few choices other than buying US Treasury bills or harming its own economy. Rather than creating new rules or institutions in international finance, or reorienting the Chinese economy to generate greater long-term consumer demand at home, Chinese leaders are desperately clinging to the status quo (though Beijing deserves credit for short-term efforts to stimulate economic growth). The greater danger with China is not an eclipsing of US leadership, but instead the kind of shift in strategic orientation that happened to Japan after the Great Depression. Japan was arguably not a revisionist power before 1932 and sought instead to converge with the global economy through open trade

and adoption of the gold standard. The worldwide depression and protectionism of the 1930s devastated the newly exposed Japanese economy and contributed directly to militaristic and autarkic policies in Asia as the Japanese people reacted against what counted for globalization at the time. China today is similarly converging with the global economy, and many experts believe China needs at least 8% annual growth to sustain social stability. Realistic growth predictions for 2009 are closer to 5%. Veteran China hands were watching closely when millions of migrant workers returned to work after the Lunar New Year holiday last month to find factories closed and jobs gone. There were pockets of protests, but nationwide unrest seems unlikely this year, and Chinese leaders are working around the clock to ensure that it does not happen next year either. However, the economic slowdown has only just begun and nobody is certain how it will impact the social contract in China between the ruling communist party and the 1.3 billion Chinese who have come to see President Hu Jintao's call for "harmonious society" as inextricably linked to his promise of "peaceful development". If the Japanese example is any precedent, a sustained

economic slowdown has the potential to open a dangerous path from economic nationalism to strategic revisionism in China too. Dangerous states It is noteworthy that North Korea, Myanmar and Iran have all intensified their defiance in the wake of the financial crisis , which has distracted the world's leading nations, limited their moral authority and sown potential discord. With Beijing worried about the potential impact of North Korean belligerence or instability on Chinese internal stability, and leaders in Japan and South Korea under siege in parliament because of the collapse of their stock markets, leaders in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang have grown increasingly boisterous about their country's claims to great power status as a nuclear weapons state . The junta in Myanmar has chosen this moment to arrest hundreds of political dissidents and thumb its nose at fellow members of the 10-country Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Iran continues its nuclear program while exploiting differences between the US, UK and France (or the P-3 group) and China and Russia - differences that could become more pronounced if economic friction with Beijing or Russia

crowds out cooperation or if Western European governments grow nervous about sanctions as a tool of policy. It is possible that the economic downturn will make these dangerous states more pliable because of falling fuel prices (Iran) and greater need for foreign aid (North Korea and Myanmar), but that may depend on the extent that authoritarian leaders care about the well-being of their people or face internal political pressures linked to the economy . So far, there is

little evidence to suggest either and much evidence to suggest these dangerous states see an opportunity to advance their asymmetrical advantages against the international system.

75


US economic decline causes WMD warsNyquist ‘05 [J.R. renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations, WorldNetDaily contributing editor, “The Political Consequences of a Financial Crash,” February 4, www.financialsense.com/stormw...2005/0204.html]

Should the United States experience a severe economic contraction during the second term of President Bush, the American people will likely support politicians who advocate further restrictions and controls on our market economy – guaranteeing its strangulation and the steady pauperization of the country. In Congress today, Sen. Edward Kennedy supports nearly all the economic dogmas listed above. It is easy to see, therefore, that the coming economic contraction, due in part to a policy of massive credit expansion, will have serious political consequences for the Republican Party (to the benefit of the Democrats). Furthermore, an economic contraction will encourage the formation of anti-capitalist majorities and a turning away from the free market system . The danger here is not merely economic. The political left openly favors the collapse of America’s strategic position abroad. The withdrawal of the United States from the Middle East, the Far East and Europe would catastrophically impact an international system that presently allows 6 billion people to live on the earth’s surface in relative peace. Should anti-capitalist dogmas overwhelm the global market and trading system that evolved under American leadership, the planet’s economy would contract and untold millions would die of starvation. Nationalistic totalitarianism, fueled by a politics of blame, would once again bring war to Asia and Europe . But this time the war would be waged with mass destruction weapons and the United States would be blamed because it is the center of global capitalism. Furthermore, if the anti-capitalist party gains power in Washington, we can expect to see policies of appeasement and unilateral disarmament enacted. American appeasement and disarmament, in this context, would be an admission of guilt before the court of world opinion. Russia and China, above all, would exploit this admission to justify aggressive wars, invasions and mass destruction attacks. A future financial crash, therefore, must be prevented at all costs. But we cannot do this. As one observer recently lamented, “We drank the poison and now we must die.”

76


AT: Past recession disproves Despite the past recession, it could be much worse if we can’t stave off another downturnReich ’10 [Robert, professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and former secretary of labor during the Clinton administration, “The root of economic fragility and political anger,” 7-13-10, http://www.salon.com/news/great_recession/?story=/news/feature/2010/07/13/reich_economic_anger]

The crash of 2008 didn’t turn into another Great Depression because the government learned the importance of flooding the market with cash , thereby temporarily rescuing some stranded consumers and most big bankers. But the financial rescue didn’t change the economy’s underlying structure — median wages dropping while those at the top are raking in the lion’s share of income . That’s why America’s middle class still doesn’t have the purchasing power it needs to reboot the economy, and why the so-called recovery will be so tepid — maybe even leading to a double dip . It’s also why America will be vulnerable to even larger speculative booms and deeper busts in the years to come.

Continued worsening of the recession increases likelihood of warMead ‘09 [Walter Russell, Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, New Republic, February 4, http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2]

So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war : The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight .

77

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2


AT

78


AT: IMTA exists nowCurrent IMTA models are insufficient- new support is keyOgden ’13 [Lesley Evans Ogden, Ph.D., Wildlife Ecology from Simon Fraser University, M.Sc. in Biological Sciences from York University, former wildlife ecologist, freelance science writer, “Aquaculture’s Turquoise Revolution,” BioScience 63: 697–704, http://www2.unb.ca/chopinlab/articles/files/Evans%20Ogden%202013%20Aquaculture's%20Turquoise%20Revolution%20BioScience.pdf]

One of the greatest challenges that IMTA now faces is creating a workable, commercial, practical system . Using the early iPad and other tablet¶ computers as an analogy for IMTA,¶ Robinson suspects that lots of people are waiting to see who is going to emerge as a market leader . New Brunswick’s¶ Cooke Aquaculture has taken¶ a leap of faith on IMTA, a move that¶ Robinson thinks “deserves a pat on¶ the back.” Since becoming involved in¶ the project in 2005, Cooke Aquaculture¶ has invested nearly $2 million in IMTA¶ research and development. Frank Powell,¶ Cooke Aquaculture’s alternative¶ species manager, says, “It’s early days for IMTA… so [it is] difficult to tell at this stage how large a scale it will be.” Scaling up farming of new species within a system often depends on getting regulatory approval , explains¶ Powell, but he says that his company¶ will invest in IMTA for the foreseeable¶ future. “As stewards of the marine¶ environment, we strive to continually¶ improve our methods,” he adds.¶ As society begins to care more about food quality and sustainability, Robinson¶ suspects that governments, which¶ often lag behind technologies, will eventually need to introduce new food production systems that move away from managing on a species-by-species basis . We’re now looking beyond “just the rabbits, just the deer, and just the¶ wolves” and toward thinking more¶ holistically, says Robinson, and some¶ of our legislation and policies need¶ to move along those lines , he argues.¶ Buschmann agrees that governments have yet to recognize and promote the benefits of more sustainable aquaculture systems and approaches . “A lot of the economic models in the Western world focus on short-term gain; continuous¶ growth; and money, money,¶ money,” says Chopin. “The challenge¶ is that in the biological world, you cannot¶ have exponential growth continuously.” He cautions that sustained and¶ responsible growth in the long-term¶ should be the goal .

79


AT: Other countries out-competePlan spurs US aquaculture despite global competitionKnapp ’08 [Gunnar, PhD in Economics from Yale, director of the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER), after acting as interim director since January, is a long-time professor of economics at ISER, widely respected for his studies of Alaska’s commercial fisheries and other aspects of the state’s economy, “Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities,” July, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/economics_report/econ_report_all.pdf]

U.S. offshore fish farms may be economically viable even if other farms have lower costs, as long as the total supply from lower-cost farms is limited. What matters is not whether competitors can produce fish at a lower cost, but whether they can produce enough fish at a lower cost to keep prices below levels at which U.S. offshore farming is profitable. ¶ ¶ For any given fish species, the economic viability of U.S. offshore fish farms depends on far more than the relative cost of U.S. offshore farming in comparison with other sources of ¶ world fish supply. Note that farming—rice, wheat, poultry, beef—occurs worldwide in countries ¶ and environments with vastly different costs of production, not just in the lowest-cost countries and environments.

80



AT: Warming destroys aquacultureAdaptation measures solve warming’s effect on aquacultureHishamunda et al ‘14 [Nathanael Hishamunda, Senior Aquaculture Officer at the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Neil Ridler, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of New Brunswick, Elisabetta Martone, FAO consultant, “Policy and governance ¶ in aquaculture ¶ Lessons learned and way forward,” http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3156e/i3156e.pdf]

At the regional level, climate change and extreme weather could reinforce regional institutions and structures (FAO, 2008b). Increased supply volatility, and the need to ¶ reduce carbon footprints, could oblige individual producers to review supply chains and distribution outlets, encouraging more local trade. There may also be regional cooperation in such areas as the gathering of common data and the sharing of best practices, as well as fish disease and the introduction of exotic species. Therefore, ¶ climate change could reinforce regional governance of certain issues in aquaculture. Aquaculture may also need to combine with other resource sectors in order to ¶ influence policies, because as a relatively small sector, it lacks a “voice” in international ¶ discussions on climate change policy, in spite of its vulnerability, and its contribution ¶ to food security.

Aquaculture can adapt to warmingSwaminathan ‘12 [Dr. M.S. Swaminathan, PhD, former director general of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, minister of Agriculture, director general of the International Rice Research Institute, president of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources “Farming the Waters for People and Food,” http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2734e/i2734e.pdf]

Climate change is likely to be a powerful driver of change, and it has to be¶ accepted that humans cannot control ecosystems and that social-ecological¶ stability is the exception rather than the norm. To cope with climate change¶ that is likely to be both rapid and unpredictable, aquaculture systems must be¶ resilient and able to adapt to change. Resilient aquaculture systems are those¶ that are more likely to maintain economic, ecological and social benefits in the¶ face of dramatic exogenous changes such as climate change and price swings.¶ Resilience requires genetic and species diversity, low stress from other factors,¶ and “healthy” and productive populations. Effective ecosystem approach to¶ aquaculture (EAA) should lead to resilient social-ecological systems. In the face of uncertainty, aquaculture food production systems should be established which are diverse and relatively flexible, with integration and coordination of¶ livestock and crop production.¶ Aquaculture is the best adaptation of fisheries to climate change, due to its¶ ability to respond to demand, improve efficiency of resource use and overcome¶ disease shocks . Improving efficiency of resource use is mainly through improved feeding technology, diet formulation, conversion and integration on a global scale,¶ and zero exchange systems, recirculation systems, integration with irrigation and¶ intensification (e.g. striped catfish, Pangasianodon hypophthalmus, production of¶ up to 300 tonnes/ha in Viet Nam). Aquaculture’s ability to respond to disease¶ shocks is through better site selection and vaccines in salmon, use of low and¶ zero water exchange systems, the selective breeding of disease-free and disease¶ resistant stocks in shrimp, and the introduction of new species in oysters.¶ Farming systems and diversification in fresh and brackishwater¶ Increasing investment in aquaculture and aquatic ecosystems is an investment¶ in the “liquid assets” of adaptation. Aquatic ecosystems play a crucial role in buffering and distributing climatic shocks, whether from storms, floods, coastal¶ erosion or drought. Aquaculture provides opportunities to adapt to climate change by integrating aquaculture and agriculture, which can help farmers cope ¶ with drought while increasing livelihood options and household nutrition. Water¶ from aquaculture ponds can help sustain crops during periods of drought while¶ at the same time, the nutrient-rich waters can increase productivity. Farmers can¶ use saline areas no longer suitable for crops (expected to increase due to sea¶ level rise) to cultivate fish. The impacts on small-scale farmers and commercialscale large farmers may be different. For example, for small-scale farmers,¶ providing food and/or income at the household or community level may be¶ seriously affected by an extreme event such as a flood, which may result in an¶ immediate reduction in the availability of food and money. Small-scale farmers may not have sufficient financial resources to overcome these situations.¶ The integration of aquaculture, fisheries, agriculture and other productive or ecosystem management activities has an integral role to play in the future of the¶ aquaculture industry. The techniques include ranching, integrated agriculture aquaculture (IAA), integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA) and links with¶ renewable energy projects. Integration is a key element of the ecosystem approach¶ to aquaculture (EAA), which “is a strategy for the integration of the activity within¶ the wider ecosystem in such a way that it promotes sustainable development,¶ equity, and resilience of interlinked social and ecological systems” (Soto et al.,¶ 2008). Trends include the expansion of the farming of low-trophic-level fish, the culture of more efficient shrimp species (i.e. Litopenaeus vannamei vs Penaeus¶ monodon), more efficient feed conversion, lower protein and fishmeal content in diet, use of zero water exchange systems, closed breeding cycles, domesticated¶ specific pathogen free (SPF) and specific pathogen resistant (SPR) stocks, and the more efficient use of fishmeal and fish oil inputs.

81


AT: State siting conflictsExisting law solves siting concernsPittenger et al ‘07 [Richard Pittenger is chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, former Vice President


The Coastal Zone Management Act¶ (CZMA) provides a tool the states can use to ensure that federal activities are not in conflict with state efforts to manage coastal areas ¶ and resources. The CZMA requires federal¶ activities, including issuing a permit for private¶ activities, within or affecting the coastal¶ zone of a state to be consistent “to the maximum¶ extent practicable” with enforceable¶ policies of a state’s coastal zone management¶ plan. Activities affecting a state’s coastal zone must be evaluated for consistency with the state plan and a state may dispute the socalled¶ consistency determination. If necessary,¶ disputes among permit applicants, permitting¶ agencies, and a state or states can be¶ adjudicated by the Secretary of Commerce. In practice, however, most consistency issues are resolved by modifications to the proposed permit or activity .

82


AT: Offshore conditions block solvencyNew advancements solve offshore adaptationUpton and Buck ’10 [Harold F. Upton, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy for the Congressional Research Service, Eugene H. Buck, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy for the CRS, “Open Ocean Aquaculture,” August 9, http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RL32694.pdf]

Since open water aquaculture is a relatively new industry, many potential operators are¶ inexperienced with the technical requirements for open ocean facilities. Historically, development¶ has been limited by technology that requires water depths of 100-150 feet; this narrow band of¶ acceptable depth exists from ¼ mile to about 50 miles offshore, depending on location. Open ocean aquaculture facilities, moored or floating miles off the coast in a high-energy environment, experience numerous environmental conditions that differ from nearshore aquaculture operations, including exposure to wind and wave action from all directions, short and steep wave patterns,¶ strong currents, seasonal anoxic (oxygen-lacking) conditions, and other severe ocean conditions that can prevent operators from being able to access their cages for days to weeks.7 Systems have been developed to overcome these obstacles, including cage designs that do not deform under strong current and wave loads, submersible cages, and single-point moorings . Cage-mounted autonomous feeding systems have been developed that can operate both at the surface and submerged. Others have developed closed containment systems for open ocean use to address environmental concerns. Universities and private-sector research interests are developing automated buoys that can monitor the condition of stock and feed fish on a regular basis for weeks at a time. Other research groups are working on automated, floating cages that would travel with the currents and be tracked by satellite .8 These ship-like structures could float on¶ favorable oceanic currents or be held in the same location with low-energy thrusters.

83

http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RL32694.pdf


2AC Blocks

84


2AC T- “Its”=USFGWe meet- the federal government sponsors and regulates aquaculture development through the plan- it still guides the process

Counter-interpretation- “its” means associated withOxford Dictionaries Online, no Date [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/its?view=uk]

Its Entry from World dictionary Pronunciation:/ɪts/possessive determiner belonging to or associated with a thing previously mentioned or easily identified: turn the camera on its side he chose the area for its atmosphere

Prefer our interpretation- it’s key to aff innovation and federally-sponsored plans like ours that are the core of the topic while still allowing key negative ground

No ground loss- we won’t sever links and we still advocate massive federal investment, which guarantees all core negative ground like spending and Politics DAs and alternate actor CPs

Their interpretation is bad- our 1AC Pittenger card says aquaculture is impossible without federal clarity and permits, which means no aquaculture aff would solve- it’s a core part of the topic since it deals with the entire seafood industry

Other words in the resolution like “substantial” check abuse and guarantee links

Reasonability- good is good enough, competing interpretations cause a race to the bottom when the neg constantly shifts the goalposts and distracts from topic education

Potential abuse isn’t a voter- don’t punish us for what we didn’t do

85

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/its?view=uk


2AC- T- “Ocean development”We meet- aquaculture is ocean developmentOgden ’09 [John C. Ogden, Ph.D. in Biological Sciences from Stanford University, “Our oceans need order, not unregulated aquaculture,” http://www.al.com/opinion/press-register/insight.ssf?/base/opinion/1232878580174400.xml&coll=3]

This month, the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council will take final action on a draft plan for permitting open-ocean aquaculture in the Gulf. This should raise serious concern for all Americans — and not just those along the Gulf Coast or seafood lovers. It represents the first step in the largest industrial development of America's federally managed oceans since 1953. The Gulf Council's plan epitomizes what is wrong with fisheries management in the United States. The regional fishery councils have long been dominated by commercial fishing interests who ignore, at will, science in favor of continued exploitation of threatened stocks. In this tradition, the Gulf Council has proceeded helter-skelter in developing its aquaculture plan, against skepticism from scientists and objections from a broad array of recreational and commercial fishing interests, conservation organizations, and a broad swath of private citizens. Let's make one thing clear: Open ocean aquaculture is not fishing. It is a major industry, akin to factory farming on land, with many well-known environmental impacts and numerous potential unintended consequences. Large-scale aquaculture operations overseas have been responsible for the introduction of non-native fish, altered genetics of local fish stocks, the spread of disease, and pollution from excess feed and drug applications. The Gulf Council makes dubious claims that aquaculture will relieve the relentless pressure on already stressed fisheries in the Gulf, assist in the rebuilding of over-fished stocks and improve fishing. But this assertion is based much more on wishful thinking and hoped-for results than scientific fact and analysis. To survive and to prosper, we must

make good use of the ocean, but we must not use it up. In its landmark 2004 report to President Bush, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy made

comprehensive recommendations which recognized the potential damage of free-for-all industrial development in the nation's coastal ocean. Key among these

was the recommendation that ocean development should be preceded by planning that takes into account all the potential

uses of the ocean, including offshore aquaculture.

Counter-interpretation- “ocean development” includes utilizing resources like fishJIN ‘98 [Japan Institute of Navigation, http://members.j-navigation.org/e-committee/Ocean.htm]

What is ocean development? Professor Kiyomitsu Fujii of the University of ¶ Tokyo defines ocean development in his book as using oceans for mankind, while ¶ preserving the beauty of nature. In the light of its significance and meaning, ¶ the term "Ocean Development" is not necessarily a new term. Ocean development is broadly classified into three aspects: (1) Utilization of ocean resources, ¶ (2) Utilization of ocean spaces, and (3) Utilization of ocean energy. ¶ Among these, development of marine resources has long been established as fishery science and tech nology, and shipping, naval architecture and port/harbour ¶ construction are covered by the category of using ocean spaces, which have grown into industries in Japan. When the Committee initiated its activities, however,¶ the real concept that caught attention was a new type of ocean development, ¶ which was outside the coverage that conventional terms had implied.

86

http://members.j-navigation.org/e-committee/Ocean.htm


2AC Environment DA

Extend the Troell evidence- IMTA is environmentally friendly and conforms to strict safety standards- it’s safer than all other practices

Oceans are dying now- new sustainable efforts are keyIPSO ‘13 [International Programme on the State of the Ocean, an internationally-combined set of research papers on the state of the world’s oceans, “Introduction to the special issue: The global state of the ocean; interactions between stresses, impacts and some potential solutions. Synthesis papers from theInternational Programme on the State of the Ocean 2011 and 2012 workshops,” http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/IPSO-Papers-Combined-15.1.14.pdf]

The problem of overexploitation of marine ecosystems is addressed¶ in Pitcher and Cheung. They point out that despite recent¶ analyses that have claimed that fisheries ‘‘have turned the corner’’(e.g. Worm and Branch, 2012), consideration of fisheries globally¶ suggests otherwise. Overexploitation and depletion of fish stocks is continuing (e.g. Costello et al., 2012; Watson et al., 2012) and together¶ with other human impacts such as ocean warming, acidification¶ and pollution pose a major threat to an important source of¶ human food security and economic activity. Overfishing and destructive fishing practices are also a significant threat to marine biodiversity and ecosystem structure and to date represent the most important cause of extinction and decline in marine ecosystems (e.g. Dulvy et al., 2003). The root cause of these problems are described and clearly lie within inadequate management of fisheries, particularly in the developing world, the very place where climate change impacts are likely to be greatest. Pitcher¶ and Cheung put forward the argument that rather than aiming¶ for the gold standard of full stock assessment alternative methods¶ are required that are less data intensive but which can be employed¶ in parts of the world and in States where the infrastructure¶ and finances do not exist for comprehensive fisheries science. Approaches¶ using MSY coupled with a resilience parameter for the¶ species in question can be effective (e.g. Froese and Martell,¶ 2012). Protection of biodiversity can be achieved through application of ecosystem-based management principles aimed at maintaining not only target fish stocks but also other speciesdependent on those same stocks and on the ecosystems within¶ which they occur. Such approaches include the use of marine protected¶ areas which have been repeatedly shown to enhance the¶ abundance, biomass and diversity of ecosystems as a result of protection¶ from fishing, as well as a wider range of benefits both for¶ humankind and for nature (Angulo-Valdés and Hatcher, 2010;¶ Fox et al., 2012).

Extend our Smith evidence- the plan solves overfishing by restoring key fish populations

Overfishing is the root cause of ocean decline- it’s increasing nowRader 2-26-14 [Douglas, Environmental Defense Fund's chief ocean scientist, “Trending: Concern for ocean health and the resources to help,” http://www.edf.org/blog/2014/02/26/trending-concern-ocean-health-and-resources-help]

While great strides have been made in the eight years since the study was written, overall oceans' health continues to decline . Globally, nearly

two-thirds of fisheries are in trouble with pollution, overfishing, and habitat loss all continuing to pose a very real threat to oceans and their resilience in the face of new threats, including climate change and ocean acidification.¶ Overfishing: The root cause of oceans decline¶ During our talk,

Dr. Worm and I discussed these issues and took a deeper dive into the root cause of oceans decline—overfishing. The world’s population is rising steadily and is estimated to reach about 8 billion people by 2024 and 9 billion by 2040. As the population increases, so too does the world’s appetite for

seafood. As a result, fish are taken out of the ocean faster than they can reproduce. This can cause obvious problems up

to and including extinction of especially vulnerable species (thus the catchy but grim headline on the HuffPo story, “Scientists Predict Salt-

Water Fish Extinction”).¶ Frankly, extinction is not the biggest problem. Overfishing reduces the abundance of vulnerable species, but it also alters ecosystem structure and function , as other species react to the reduced abundance through what ecologists call “ecological cascades.” Valuable large fish that help maintain stable ocean ecosystems can be replaced by more opportunistic, “weedy” species. Under severe fishing pressure, the ability of marine food webs to sustain themselves can be compromised – a real problem with the challenges that lie ahead from climate change.¶ When

our oceans suffer, we do too. Overfishing affects the three billion people around the world who rely on seafood as a source of protein and millions more that depend on healthy fisheries for their livelihoods. Furthermore, poor management costs the world’s fisheries $50 billion annually.

87


Aquaculture management is improving- IMTA solvesDiana et al ’13 [James S. Diana, Professor of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, Research Scientist, Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences, UM, Chairman, Resource Ecology and Management Concentration, SNRE, Hillary S. Egna, Research Center Director at Oregon State University and Director of the Aquaculture & Fisheries Collaborative Research Support Program, Dr. Thierry Chopin, Scientific Director at the Canadian Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture Network, “Responsible Aquaculture in 2050: Valuing Local Conditions and Human Innovations Will Be Key to Success,” BioScience 63: 255–262, http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/4/255.full.pdf]

Many of the environmental impacts of aquaculture are being effectively addressed by improvements in management For example, the reliance on fish meal in feeds has been reduced to 15% for many carnivorous species by replacement ¶ with plant-based proteins or other feed sources (Naylor et al. ¶ 2009)—a change made in response to environmental and ¶ economic concerns.

Biomitigative approaches, such as IMTA, have been developed to deal with the environmental burden of intensive cage culture . IMTA is based on cocultivating in ¶ proximity organisms selected purposely at different trophic levels for their complementary ecosystem

functions and services (Chopin et al. 2008). The cocultured organisms produce additional valuable crops and remove nutrients and materials wasted from aquaculture using intensive feeding.¶ LCAs provide a quantitative means of comparing energy ¶ and material efficiency and of determining the environmental impacts of food production systems. LCAs on aquaculture systems have shown that the farming phase is ¶ more important than the hatchery, processing, or transportation phases in terms of energy use and most pollution burdens (Cao et al. 2013). For marine shrimp, semi-intensive ¶ production in China reduces acidification, eutrophication ¶ potential, greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, and biotic resource use by 50% relative to intensive systems for each ¶ ton of production (Cao et al. 2011).

88



AT: DiseaseIMTA innovations solve diseaseFOC ’13 [Aquaculture Science Branch of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, “AQUACULTURE in Canada: Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA),” http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/sci-res/imta-amti/DFO_Aquaculture-IMTA-eng.pdf]

Researchers are exploring new cultivation techniques and various infrastructure designs to improve how a site operates, taking into consideration the specific hydrography of each site (e.g., currents, ¶ tides, waves). Models are being tested to help scientists predict the dispersal of farm waste and recapture of nutrients needed to achieve the right balance of inorganic and organic extractive species in an IMTA system. This information will help future IMTA sites scale up to commercial production levels. Aquatic Animal Health The influence of IMTA aquaculture practices on wild species, such as the effect of sea lice treatment products on sea worms (polychaetes), is being examined. Innovative research is also being done on filter-feeding bivalves, such as blue mussels, as a possible “green technology” to help control sea lice on farmed fish. By filtering out and ingesting sea lice larvae, they could potentially reduce outbreaks and limit the transfer of diseases , thus improving the overall health of the site and minimizing potential risks to wild species. Potential IMTA Species and Species Interactions A variety of new species are being examined to help fill the different feeding niches within an IMTA system. Part of this research will include looking at the efficiency at which these species can consume – and incorporate into their own biomass – the nutrients produced from aquaculture activities. Species will also be evaluated with respect to the biosecurity of the aquaculture site and how they might help to naturally control parasites and pathogenic viruses and bacteria. This will help reduce the environmental impact of a site, increase profits for the growers and provide consumers with a greater variety of safe products.

89


1AR- Solves diseaseIMTA prevents diseasePietrak ’11 [Michael Pietrak, Aquaculture Research Institute, University of Maine, “Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture: A Workshop,” http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/imta/imta_white_paper.pdf]

Potential for Disease Transmission on an IMTA Farm: “Can I add another species? ¶ Michael Pietrak, Aquaculture Research Institute, University of Maine ¶ Does adding a species to an IMTA site increase disease risk on the farm, or might there be a potential benefit? Can we insert mussels in the route of a waterborne pathogen and intercept it before it gets to our ¶ finfish? If so, what is the complete interaction is between the mussel and the pathogen? Our approach is to use a transmission model, and realtime PCR for analysis. Based on experiments, we are fairly certain that for infectious salmon anemia virus (ISAV), mussels make a barrier, and we can use mussels as a highly preventative strategy to reduce the infection of ISAV on a site. It’s not coming through the water as a pathogen if it’s filtered by the mussels and it’s not going through any sort of alternative pathways. With ¶ Vibrio, we did a similar experiment, putting the bacterial pathogen and mussels together in water. The mussels immediately took up bacteria out of the water, and very quickly bioconcentrated a 2 log order of ¶ viable bacteria in the tissues. A depuration study showed that subsequently, none of the bacteria was ¶ ejected into the water, but rather, only in the fecal and pseudofecal material. The literature suggests that ¶ Vibrio can live in sediment. We tested this by exposing fish to fecal matter from mussels and found that ¶ Vibrio can infect them after passage through the gut of a mussel. Another pathway of infection is via sediment. Even when we are careful in species selection and we engineer our sites deliberately, there can be ¶ unintended consequences that may or may not be able to be fixed. When you bring new animals onto the ¶ farm, you have new disease threats: completion of life history cycles of parasites, and a suite of indirect ¶ interactions. Although the fate of a pathogen in the system is going to depend on the physiology of the ¶ pathogen as well the species that you’re growing on the site, in a larger view, these disease interactions are probably going to be relatively minimal, especially because we can apply good management techniques to minimize risk.

IMTA solves disease- studies proveTowers ’13 [Lucy, editor of TheFishSite, a news service dealing with the fish industry and global market trends, “Integrated Multitrophic Aquaculture: How to Manage Diseases in an Artificial Ecosystem,” http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/19886/integrated-multitrophic-aquaculture-how-to-manage-diseases-in-an-artificial-ecosystem]

The use of mussels in an Integrated Multitrophic Aquaculture system can help reduce the threat of ISA to fish. This was the result of research done by Ian Bricknell, University of Maine, which looked at how using mussels in an Integrated Multitrophic Aquaculture system can increase or decrease disease pressure, writes Lucy Towers, TheFishSite Editor. Speaking at a State of the Seas series lecture, Mr Bricknell stated that Integrated Multitrophic Aquaculture (IMA) is where more than one species is grown in the same environment. Waste products from the main crop are recycled to provide

nutrients that are used to grow other crops, to support either your main crop or provide additional income to your farm. This system is therefore good to use as it

provides the farmer with economic back up if the main crop fails, provides feed for other crops farmed and it lowers the carbon footprint. However, whereas a monoculture system only needs attention to be paid to one species, IMA requires thought and management to cover a range of species. A good health regime therefore needs to be considered as a treatment for the first crop may affect the secondary crop, Mr Bricknell said. In regards to disease, Mr

Bricknell looked specifically at an IMA system using mussels and seaweed, which is ideal for the marine conditions in Maine, USA. The aim of Mr Bricknell's work was to find out whether or not mussels used in the IMA system acted as a reservoir for disease and therefore whether they helped or hindered the disease risk to fish in the close proximity. It is known that mussels filter bacteria but, can they be used to break bacteria/disease life cycles? Mr Bricknell stated that an integrated multitrophic fish farm, for example, if it had a pathogen event in the fish, the pathogens are shed from the fish and they interact with the mussels. "What we don’t know is whether the mussels will amplify that pathogen and cause a bigger infectious pressure in the wild or reduce that pathogen and provide a smaller infectious pressure in the wild. Equally, if a disease occurs in wild fish, it interacts with the mussels within the farm before it leaves the fish. Does that amplify that infectious pressure and put more pressure on the farm fish or does it reduce it and decrease that pressure?" said Mr Bricknell. In order to find out the

answer, Mr Bricknell looked at infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) and infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPN). With ISA, Mr Bricknell found that the virus could not survive being exposed to mussels. “The mussels have taken up the virus but somehow inactivated and prevented the virus being viable, as we could not get it to grow in a fish tissue culture,” said Mr Bricknell. It is thought that the mussels do this by stripping ISA of its lipid outer layer. Next, Mr Bricknell looked at the tough little virus IPN. Sadly, it was found that with IPN the

virus is cultured and concentrated in the feces of the mussels and then shed into the water where it can infect fish. In conclusion, Mr Bricknell found that the risk of ISA was decreased and with IPN, the risk was increased slightly, but it is quite clear that there are benefits of IMA to disease control, not just in reducing the carbon footprint of aquaculture.

90


AT: Fish escapeesNo impact to escapees- studies provePittenger et al ‘07 [Richard Pittenger is chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, former Vice President


The ability of escaped fish to disperse from and survive outside of the farm setting has been disputed by some researchers. One study observed that experimentally released farmed steelhead trout are likely to remain in the general area of the farm (Bridger et al.¶ 2001). In the study, 75 percent of released farmed fish stayed within 500 meters of the farm for 32 days. Additionally, observations¶ that escaped farm salmon often have empty¶ stomachs when caught may indicate that farmed fish lack knowledge required for foraging, and therefore surviving in the wild (McKinnell and Thomson 1997).¶ In a literature review assessing the risk of¶ interactions between Atlantic salmon and¶ populations of native salmon in Puget¶ Sound, Washington, Waknitz et al. (2003)¶ described many possible effects of aquaculture¶ escapes. The authors argue that Atlantic¶ salmon escapes from commercial aquaculture facilities likely have a very low risk of impacting the ecosystem, especially when¶ compared to the many other species introductions,¶ including deliberate introductions¶ of nonnative species and the stocking of¶ hatchery-reared Pacific salmon. The authors¶ note that over the last century governments¶ in the Pacific Northwest have led programs¶ to introduce Atlantic salmon to the area with¶ no success (Waknitz et al. 2003). Other¶ researchers, however, question whether the¶ historical introductions are an appropriate¶ model for the present. A far different ecological¶ landscape now exists in Pacific¶ Northwest rivers, with many populations of Pacific salmon at all time lows, possibly freeing¶ up habitats for Atlantic salmon to invade¶ (Volpe et al. 2001).

Sterilization solves the impactDiana et al ’13 [James S. Diana, Professor of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, Research Scientist, Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences, UM, Chairman, Resource Ecology and Management Concentration, SNRE, Hillary S. Egna, Research Center Director at Oregon State University and Director of the Aquaculture & Fisheries Collaborative Research Support Program, Dr. Thierry Chopin, Scientific Director at the Canadian Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture Network, “Responsible Aquaculture in 2050: Valuing Local Conditions and Human Innovations Will Be Key to Success,” BioScience 63: 255–262, http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/4/255.full.pdf]

Concerns abound regarding the genetic effects of escaped culture organisms on wild populations (Fleming et al. 2000), ¶ and these concerns may become even more intense as ¶ domestication causes greater differentiation between wild ¶ and domesticated genotypes. Induced sterility through polyploidy y (a genetic manipulation) is widely practiced, and the polyploidy of some species produces 100% sterile animals, ¶ whereas there have been less-certain results for other species ¶ (Piferrer et al. 2009). Another promising sterilization technique is to ablate the production of gonadotropin-releasing ¶ hormones through genetic methods (Weber 2009), but this ¶ is quite far from being a routine application in the field. ¶ The development of genetic technology to cause sterility is a promising technique to stem most problems caused by organisms escaping from culture systems and should ¶ be pursued as a first step in domestication for aquaculture ¶ purposes.

91



AT: PollutionIMTA solves waste issuesWang et al ’12 [Xinxin Wang, Lasse Mork Olsen, Yngvar Olsen, Trondheim Biological Station, Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, “Discharge of nutrient wastes from salmon farms: environmental effects, and potential for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture,” http://www.int-res.com/articles/aei2012/2/q002p267.pdf]

One of the main challenges facing aquaculture¶ today is sustaining a continued increase in fish production¶ while minimizing the impact on the envi -¶ ronment (Sugiura et al. 2006, Navarrete-Mier et al.¶ 2010). The salmon aquaculture industry has taken a number of steps to reduce nutrient release from¶ salmon farming facilities. These efforts include optimizing feed composition and improvements in feed digestibility and feeding tech nology (Cheshuk et al.¶ 2003, Islam 2005). These measures reduced nutrient¶ loading and mitigated pressure on the environment.¶ These improvements of environmental technologies of cage culture have been significant in European¶ aquaculture over recent decades; for instance, the¶ mean economic feed conversion ratio (FCR) for the¶ Norwegian salmon industry was 2.08 in 1974 but can¶ now reach as low as 1.0 to 1.1 (Enell 1995, Piedrahita¶ 2003, Islam 2005).¶ Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) is a practical and viable solution for mitigating the possible¶ negative environmental impacts of waste produced¶ by fish aquaculture. It works by exploiting fish waste as a food resource for extractive and filter feeding species at lower trophic levels , thereby also giving¶ an added value to the investment in feed for cage¶ aquaculture (Barrington et al. 2001). IMTA has been¶ practiced for centuries in Asia (Li 1987, Fang et al.¶ 1996, Qian et al. 1996), where it is now commercially¶ successful at industrial scales. An example is the cultivation¶ of scallop, kelp and abalone in the marine¶ IMTA system of Sungo Bay, China, (Fang et al. 1996,¶ Troell et al. 2009). The approach is now also becoming¶ widely accepted in western countries (Troell et al.¶ 2009, Abreu et al. 2011, MacDonald et al. 2011) and¶ several pilot experiments using IMTA have recently¶ been conducted in Canada, Scotland and Australia¶ (Stirling & Okumus 1995, Cheshuk et al. 2003, Barrington¶ et al. 2010). In the Bay of Fundy, Canada,¶ blue mussels Mytilus edulis and kelps (Saccharina¶ latissima and Alaroa esculenta) reared close to¶ Atlantic salmon cages exhibited growth rates that¶ were 46 and 50% higher , respectively, than at control¶ sites . The products are now being sold commercially,¶ adding value to salmon production (Reid et al. 2009,¶ Troell et al. 2009).

Pollutants are small and covered by existing safeguardsPittenger et al ‘07 [Richard Pittenger is chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, former Vice President


Marine aquaculture facilities produce a variety of wastes that are potentially harmful to the environment and which are discharged untreated into coastal and ocean waters. Wastes from marine aquaculture generally include dissolved (inorganic) nutrients, particulate (organic) wastes (feces, uneaten food and animal carcasses), and chemicals for maintaining infrastructure and animal health. In the United States, aquaculture discharges are currently small compared to other sources of water pollution, but little is known about the assimilative capacity of the marine environment for these pollutants. Additionally, marine aquaculture operations tend to cluster geographically, raising the¶ potential for cumulative impacts. If marine aquaculture expands considerably in the U.S., the choices made regarding the species and methods of culture, as well as¶ the location and concentration of facilities, will determine whether pollution effects from marine aquaculture will be substantial or minor. Discharges of pollutants from most marine aquaculture facilities are regulated under the Clean Water Act, which provides a variety of tools to protect marine water quality . If used effectively and creatively, the tools provided by the Clean Water Act can control pollution from marine aquaculture.

92


AT: Profit motive=poor standardsIndustry players will be safe- there’s an economic incentivePittenger et al ‘07 [Richard Pittenger is chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, former Vice President


If U.S. marine aquaculture expands dramatically, as called for by the Department¶ of Commerce and others, pollution from a¶ greatly expanded industry could have significant¶ effects locally and regionally. On the¶ other hand, increased culture of filter-feeding mollusks —for commercial purposes and for wild stock restoration programs—has been proposed as a way to mitigate the harmful effects of eutrophication (NRC 2004).¶ Although net pen or sea cage aquaculture¶ facilities are point sources of pollution that¶ are relatively easy to monitor, there is a wide¶ variety of interpretations regarding the severity¶ of environmental impacts, both locally¶ and regionally. One perspective is that the¶ effects of the aquaculture industry, even if greatly expanded, would be small , especially¶ when one considers that aquaculture wastes make up a small fraction of the pollutants entering coastal waters . Others have argued¶ that on a local scale, pollution from aquaculture¶ can be significant and does in fact pose a serious threat to marine ecosystems. Considering that clean marine waters are a prerequisite for economic success for the¶ aquaculture industry and are highly valued¶ by the public, it is in the interest of the industry as well as society at large to minimize pollution from aquaculture facilities. If the U.S. industry expands considerably,¶ the choices made regarding the species and¶ methods of culture, as well as the location¶ and concentration of facilities, will determine¶ whether pollution effects from marine¶ aquaculture will be substantial or minor.¶ Below we examine studies on pollution from¶ marine aquaculture and its effects on the¶ marine environment. Through this review,¶ as well as through the Task Force’s extensive¶ discussion with marine scientists, aquaculturists,¶ government regulators, and interested¶ members of the public, we attempt to reach¶ some conclusions regarding the nature and¶ severity of such pollution, and the best¶ approaches to control it.

93


2AC Fisheries Industry DAFishing is unsustainable without aquaculture- key to the overall industryRubino ’08 [Michael, representative the Department of Commerce on the executive committee of the U.S. Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, former manager of New Funds Development for the World Bank's Carbon Finance Group, worked for the International Finance Corporation, a private sector affiliate of the World Bank, where he developed renewable energy and biodiversity investment funds, “Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities,” July, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/economics_report/econ_report_all.pdf]

At the NOAA National Marine Aquaculture Summit in June 2007, and in other venues ¶ from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Northwest, some commercial fishermen and others have ¶ expressed concern that aquaculture will hurt wild harvest in the U nited States. It is clear that ¶ aquaculture products, whether imported or domestic, compete with wild caught fisheries. They ¶ also compete with chicken, beef, and pork. Studies have also shown that global aquaculture ¶ production, notably of salmon and shrimp, contributed to reduced market prices for U.S. wild ¶ caught and farmed U.S. shrimp and for U.S. salmon caught from both wild and hatchery raised ¶ and released stocks (Knapp et al. 2007). What is also clear – and often missing from the discussion of competition – is that competition will exist with or without domestic aquaculture. The marketplace is global and demand for seafood products is growing. The United States cannot meet consumer seafood demand through wild caught fishing activities alone. Seafood imports and other forms of ¶ protein, such as beef and chicken, already provide significant competition. Seafood business ¶ executives speaking at the National Marine Aquaculture Summit said that if seafood is not ¶ available from U.S. sources, their customers are demanding that they get it somewhere else ¶ (NMFS 2007b). The challenge therefore is to integrate aquaculture into domestic seafood production so that U.S. boat owners, fishermen, processors, and marketing companies can benefit directly.

Turn- aquaculture helps fishers- increases demandKnapp ’08 [Gunnar, Ph.D. in Economics from Yale University, Director and Professor of Economics at the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage, former member of an evaluation team for the Moore Foundation’s Wild Salmon Ecosystem Initiative, “Chapter 8: Potential Economic Impacts of U.S. Offshore Aquaculture,” http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/people/knapp/personal/pubs/Knapp_Economic_Impacts_of_US_Offshore_Aquaculture.pdf]

The preceding analysis assumes that the demand for fish is unchanged by the introduction ¶ of aquaculture. However, over time introducing new supply from aquaculture is likely to increase demand for fish, shifting the demand curve out. ¶ ¶ There are several reasons for which new supply from aquaculture is likely to increase fish ¶ demand over time. First, at any given time, demand for fish reflects consumers’ tastes and ¶ preferences, which in turn reflect their past consumption experiences. If a particular fish species ¶ is expensive, consumers who have not eaten it in the past are less likely to buy it in a store or ¶ order it in a restaurant. However, if the price falls and consumption increases (as depicted by the ¶ increase in consumption from Q1 to Q2 in Figure 8.6), new consumers may try the fish. If they ¶ enjoy eating it and develop a taste for it, over time they may be willing to pay a higher price for ¶ it than they would have previously. Second, consumer demand for fish is limited by its availability in stores and restaurants. ¶ Even if consumers like a fish and are willing to pay a high price for it, they won’t buy it if it is ¶ not in their local stores or on their local menus. As aquaculture supply expands, fish are offered ¶ for sale in more geographic locations, at more kinds of stores and restaurants, and at more times ¶ of the year—thus increasing the total demand at any given price. ¶ ¶ Third, fish farmers engage in marketing in a systematic effort to increase demand. They ¶ recognize that their economic success depends critically on growing the market for their products. Marketing by fish farmers is not just advertising to consumers. Rather, it is a systematic ¶ approach to understanding and responding to the needs of both consumers and store and ¶ restaurant buyers, reflected in (for example) product forms, quality standards, packaging, and ¶ timing and volume of fish deliveries, long-term contracts, supply guarantees, payment terms, etc. ¶ Without competition from aquaculture, fishermen have far less incentive to engage in marketing, ¶ particularly when prices are high, because they are limited by nature in the volume of fish that they can supply. ¶ ¶ Figure 8.7 illustrates potential effects of an increase in fish demand due to aquaculture. ¶ The equilibrium price increases from P2 to P3, and the quantity of fish supplied and consumed ¶ increases from Q2 to Q3.

94



Fisheries are unsustainable and there’s no tradeoff- aquaculture saves the industryKnapp ’08 [Gunnar, Ph.D. in Economics from Yale University, Director and Professor of Economics at the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage, former member of an evaluation team for the Moore Foundation’s Wild Salmon Ecosystem Initiative, “Chapter 8: Potential Economic Impacts of U.S. Offshore Aquaculture,” http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/people/knapp/personal/pubs/Knapp_Economic_Impacts_of_US_Offshore_Aquaculture.pdf]

Table 8.6 provides similar estimates of average annual employment per thousand metric ¶ tons in several wild fisheries. As in aquaculture, there is wide variation between species in how ¶ much employment is created in harvesting a given volume of fish. For any given species, ¶ employment created in by fish harvesting also varies from year to year, reflecting differences in ¶ total harvest volumes. In general, the ranges of average annual employment per thousand metric ¶ tons in these wild fisheries are comparable to those for aquaculture shown in Table 8.4. ¶ ¶ An important difference between aquaculture and wild fisheries is that employment in ¶ wild fisheries is more seasonal. For example, peak monthly employment in Alaska salmon ¶ fisheries, which occur primarily in the summer, is more than four times as high as average annual ¶ employment. This means that wild fisheries tend to provide jobs for relatively more workers, ¶ working relatively less of the year, to produce a given volume of fish. ¶ ¶ In comparing wild fisheries and aquaculture, such as comparing the employment ¶ estimates in Tables 8.6 and 8.4, it is important to keep in mind that the policy choice faced by the United States is not between harvesting fish in wild fisheries or growing fish in farms. With most United States wild fisheries fully exploited, is not an option for the United States to produce significantly more fish in wild fisheries. Rather, the policy choice is how much fish the United States will grow in fish farms. Even if commercial fishing tended to employ far more workers than aquaculture—which available data suggest is not the case—we would not have the option of creating more jobs by increasing commercial fish harvests. In contrast, aquaculture does provide an opportunity to create more jobs in fish production. What Kinds of Jobs Will Offshore Aquaculture Create? ¶ ¶ On average, the jobs created in offshore aquaculture are likely to be higher-skilled and higher-paying than the jobs in onshore and inshore aquaculture for similar species. These jobs will include, for example, operation and maintenance of vessels and remote monitoring and ¶ feeding facilities and fish nutrition and fish health specialists. As with other higher-skilled and higher paying jobs, not all of the new jobs created by U.S. offshore aquaculture will necessarily be taken by current residents of those communities ¶ nearest offshore aquaculture facilities. The industry is likely to seek the most qualified employees it can find from a broader regional or national pool of workers with the requisite skills. However, local communities may be able to influence local hiring through training programs or tax incentives . Local training or hiring requirements could potentially be incorporated in enabling regulations for offshore aquaculture.

95


2AC Wild Fisheries CPWild fisheries are over-exploited- aquaculture is keyKite-Powell ‘11 [Hauke Kite-Powell, aquaculture policy specialist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, “Where Will We Get Our Seafood?” Sept. 21, http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/where-will-we-get-our-seafood]

Do you think the growth of fish aquaculture is bad for the fishing industry or for environmental groups?¶ Kite-Powell: No, I don't. Wild fisheries are exploited so heavily today that there really isn't room for more production or economic value from “capture fisheries.” So if we want to increase employment in the seafood industry and increase the whole fisheries value chain in the U.S., it will have to come from farmed seafood. Many environmental groups understand the value of seafood in the human diet, and there's a strong argument for farming seafood in a sustainable way.¶ We had fishermen at our meeting comment on this. They see their future and the future of their colleagues as being a mix of wild-capture fishing, maybe six months out of the year, and fish farming the other six months, probably shifting more to farming over time. Historically, that's how it's gone with land-based food production.

96


2AC Inland CPInland aquaculture destroys the environment- IMTA is keyChopin et al ‘10 [Dr. Thierry Chopin, Doctorate from the University of Western Brittany, President of the International Seaweed Association, advisor to the International Foundation for Science, Dr. Max Troell, Associate Professor, Systems Ecologist, and Researcher at the Beijer Institute and Stockholm University, Dr. Gregor K. Reid, University of New Brunswick, “Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture: Part II. Increasing IMTA Adoption,” http://research.rem.sfu.ca/papers/knowler/GAANov-Dec2010pp17-20.pdf]

Moving to land-based or closed containment operations is one approach that ¶ may help address some sustainability issues but is not without its problems. Large amounts of energy , often diesel or electric power, are required to pump and aerate water. Nutrients are either pumped back into the water or settled somewhere and ¶ “trucked” off site. All of these processes leave a ‘carbon footprint’ , and only partly solve the issue of excess nutrients. IMTA , or its variations called “aquaponics” or ¶ “hydroponics”, will have to be added to closed-containment or land-based systems to treat the effluents. One ‘impact’ may simply be traded for another. Ayer and Tyedmers (2009), in their life cycle assessment of alternative aquaculture ¶ technologies, warned that we could be in a case of environmental problem shifting, not solving, where, while reducing local ecological impacts, the increase in material and energy demands may result in significant increased contributions to several environmental impacts of global concern, including global warming , non-renewable resource depletion, and acidification.

Inland aquaculture causes NIMBY battles that destroy benefitsWalsh ’11 [Bryan Walsh is a senior editor at TIME, NIMBY= “Not in my backyard,” “Can the U.S. Close Its Seafood Trade Deficit?” July 8, http://science.time.com/2011/07/08/can-the-u-s-close-its-seafood-trade-deficit/]

American fish farmers who work along coastlines—like the salmon farmers of Maine—also face a battle over simple space. As the fishing industry in the Northeast has contracted, coastal towns that once depending on a working waterfront now rely on seasonal tourism. As it turns out, summer residents who spend big bucks on a coastal view aren’t that keen to spend their vacations looking down on a fish farm. NIMBY battles have erupted in Maine amid complaints over the pollution, noise and disruption caused by fish farms. More often than not aquaculture—a tiny industry—loses out. “People have a strong feeling about the environmental impact of aquaculture and they voice those opinions, even though they’re only summer residents,” says Sebastian Belle, the head of the Maine Aquaculture Association. “We try to be receptive to the public’s criticisms. But how do that, but continue to compete from a commercial point of view with countries that have few regulations.”¶ Aquaculture does have pollution issues, but for that matter, so does agriculture on land. But the U.S. agricultural lobby is incredibly powerful, while the U.S. aquaculture lobby is…pretty much nonexistent. As the new kid on the block, and a small one at that, U.S. aquaculture comes under more scrutiny than it probably deserves. Nor does it help that there has been little in the way of a national aquaculture policy, no streamlined permits. America doesn’t seem very interested in having a strong domestic aquaculture industry—but we are interested in eating more seafood. All that does is push demand overseas. “We have the luxury to displace aquaculture to another country where we don’t have to see or hear it,” says one U.S. fish farmer. “Most countries don’t have that luxury.”

97


2AC NGO CPCP can’t solve- industry oppositionBuck ‘12 [Lisa E. Buck, Master of Marine Affairs from the University of Washington, “U.S. Development of Offshore Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors,” https://digital.lib.washington.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1773/21752/Buck_washington_0250O_10741.pdf?sequence=1]

All interviewees were asked to state who, in their opinion, were the most important ¶ stakeholder groups involved in offshore aquaculture and how their positions have ¶ influenced the development of the industry. Responses are summarized in Figure 4 ¶ below. As shown, there was a near consensus on the involvement of environmental ¶ NGOs in the development of offshore aquaculture. The majority of interviewees offered the opinion that environmental NGOs have influenced the development of offshore ¶ aquaculture by creating impediments to growth of the industry. Interviewees in ¶ regulatory, industry, research and political interest categories noted efforts by environmental NGOs to slow development of offshore aquaculture through information dissemination, litigation, and by taking an overly precautionary standpoint on regulation . It was stated by interviewees in agency, industry and research categories that info rmation disseminated by NGOs is often misleading and not based in fact in order to sway its ¶ intended audience towards opposition to offshore aquaculture development. Interviewees ¶ in these categories also noted suits brought against NMFS by environmental NGOs ¶ looking to halt development of offshore aquaculture in the United States. Interviewees in ¶ the industry and research categories also offered the opinion that the precautionary approach to development of offshore aquaculture adopted by environmental NGOs was overly cautionary and not based in rational thought. As noted earlier, interviewees cited ¶ the NSOAA of 2009 and 2011 as outlining a precautionary approach to offshore ¶ aquaculture development that built precaution into regulations in a way that they felt ¶ would inhibit adaptive management in the industry. A differing opinion of the NSOAA ¶ was offered by an interviewee in the political interest category who stated that the bill ¶ took an adaptive approach to regulation of offshore aquaculture and provided a ¶ framework for research to be conducted in order to build necessary environmental ¶ safeguards into federal regulation.

CP fails- no accountability Hishamunda et al ‘14 [Nathanael Hishamunda, Senior Aquaculture Officer at the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Neil Ridler, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of New Brunswick, Elisabetta Martone, FAO consultant, “Policy and governance ¶ in aquaculture ¶ Lessons learned and way forward,” http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3156e/i3156e.pdf]

Non-governmental organizations have certain inherent deficiencies. They are not accountable, unlike politicians who are often

democratically elected. They do not have to compromise but merely satisfy a narrow interest or place group, and single-issue

partisans may not be representative of the broader society. Moreover, reliance on donor funding can lead to sensationalism in order to attract media attention. The result ¶ may be rejection of aquaculture without considering economic and social benefits that ¶ accrue from aquaculture

98


2AC International CPForeign aquaculture is unsustainable- poorly regulatedConathan ’11 [Michael Conathan, Director of Ocean Policy at American Progress, “Fish on Fridays: Dealing with the Aquaculture Dilemma,” June 17, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2011/06/17/9711/fish-on-fridays-dealing-with-the-aquaculture-dilemma/]

Foreign fish farms aren’t exactly models of sustainability—they’re often poorly regulated and sited with little or no attention to environmental factors. Shrimp is one of the worst offenders. A National Geographic report published in 2004 found

that Southeast Asian shrimp farms accounted for up to 38 percent of the decline in the world’s mangrove areas—fragile coastal wetlands that protect shores from storm surge and serve as vital carbon sinks. The report also referenced a 1995 study by the American Society of Microbiology stipulating that “the use of antibiotics in aquaculture as potentially a leading cause of the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in

humans.”¶ There are also health concerns. The United States suspended imports of some Chinese-farmed seafood in 2007

because samples contained residues of drugs banned from use in U.S. food production, including some that

were not even approved under Chinese law. The Washington Post reported that fish had been found that “carried the tell-tale greenish tinge of malachite green, a disinfectant powder that has been banned in China for five years because it is a suspected carcinogen but is still commonly used.”¶ And The New York Times quoted a professor from Hong Kong who had found “heavy metals, mercury and flame retardants in fish samples we’ve tested.”¶ Expecting the U.S. government to catch every piece of tainted tilapia entering the U.S. food supply is naïve at best when the Food and Drug Administration and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, have the capacity to inspect less than 2 percent of the seafood we import. So while foreign-farmed fish is clearly here to stay as part of the American diet, I won’t be putting it on my family’s dinner table.¶ 4. Farm more fish domestically.¶ Last week the NOAA announced a new domestic aquaculture policy intended to support an increase in domestic marine aquaculture. As expected, the move was greeted with largely negative reactions from environmental groups and fishing industry organizations.¶ But as we’ve just discussed, Americans will continue to consume fish; our wild fisheries are, for the moment, running at capacity;

and foreign sources of farmed fish are rife with unsustainable and even unhealthy management practices . So we really have but one alternative remaining: more domestic fish farming.

99

debateus.org file · web viewdebateus.org

Documents