Topicality

Extra T Violation Interpretation: The plan action must be mandated by the resolution and no more – can only include development of ocean resources, space, and energyJIN 98 (JIN Japan Institute of Navigation 1998 "Ocean Engineering Research Committee"

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 technology, 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.

Violation: The plan does action that is not mandated by the resolution The National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act advocates un-topical action – not ocean development/explorationGov Track Jun 24, 2011

“Text of the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2011”; Gov Track; June 24, 2011; https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2373/text; Accessed July 5, 14//

The purposes of this Act are the following:¶ (1)To establish a regulatory system for sustainable offshore aquaculture in the United States exclusive economic zone.¶ (2)To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to determine appropriate locations for, permit, regulate, monitor, and enforce offshore aquaculture in the exclusive economic zone.¶ (3)To require the Secretary of Commerce to issue regulations for permitting of offshore aquaculture in the exclusive economic zone that prevent impacts on the marine ecosystem and fisheries or minimize such impacts to the extent they cannot be avoided.¶ (4)To establish a research program to guide the precautionary development of offshore aquaculture in the exclusive economic zone that ensures ecological sustainability and compatibility with healthy, functional ecosystems. NOAA Office¶ (1)In general¶ The Secretary shall establish an Office of Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture within the National Marine Fisheries Service at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration headquarters, and satellite offices of such office in each of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s regional fisheries offices.¶ (2)Duties¶ The Office shall be responsible for implementing this Act, and shall—¶ (A)conduct the regional programmatic environmental impact studies under section 4;¶ (B)implement the permitting and regulatory program under section 5;¶ (C)administer the research program established under section 7;¶ (D)coordinate aquaculture and related issues within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;¶ (E)perform outreach, education, and training;¶

(F)provide opportunities for consultation among owners and operators of offshore aquaculture facilities, Regional Fishery Management Councils, nonprofit conservation organizations, and other interested stakeholders;¶ (G)organize through each regional office a network of regional experts, in coordination with relevant organizations such as the National Sea Grant College program and other academic institutions, to provide technical expertise on aquaculture;¶ (H)maintain the database required by paragraph (3); and¶ (I)perform such other functions as are necessary to carry out this Act.¶ (3)Database¶

The Secretary shall establish and maintain within the Office an aquaculture database, which shall include

information on research, technologies, monitoring techniques, best management practices, and recommendations of the Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Advisory Board established under subsection (b). The Secretary shall make the database available to the general public in a manner that protects proprietary information of owners and operators of offshore aquaculture facilities.¶ (b)Advisory board¶

(1)In general¶ The Office shall establish a Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Advisory Board, the members of which shall be appointed by the Secretary.¶

Counterplans

***Fishing Ban CP

1NCText: The United Nations should implement a legally binding agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas to ban fishing in the high seas. High seas ban solves the aff—no economy or enforcement DAsWhite and Costello 14

Crow, Ph.D. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology UC Santa Barbra, Christoper, professor of Environmental and Resource Economics at the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, UC Santa Barbara, Close the High Seas to Fishing?, March 25, PLoS Biol 12(3): e1001826, http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001826

The past 60 years have been a tumultuous period for the world's marine fisheries. In the early 1950s few stocks had been exploited heavily; but without explicit governance, 5ge industrial fisheries took hold and systematically overexploited many stocks [1],[2]. In 1994 the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) implemented Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) adjacent to all coastal nations (Figure 1). These property rights extend 200 nm (~42% of the ocean) and allow countries to exclude foreign fleets and exclusively manage fisheries within their jurisdictions [3],[4]. Indeed, for countries with science-based fisheries management policies, many local stocks and fisheries contained in their EEZs are rebuilding [5]–[7]. But for many pelagic, migratory stocks such as tuna, billfish, and shark, the size of the EEZs has been insufficient to incentivize sustainable fishing behavior [8]–[10]. Fish that traverse multiple EEZs and the high seas ([HS], ~58% of ocean) are overexploited relative to those contained in a single EEZ [11],[12].¶ This observation accords with two long-standing theoretical predictions: First, that open access tends to produce a “tragedy of the commons” (an unregulated state of affairs in which individuals inefficiently compete for a shared, limited resource, resulting in its eventual ruin [13]), where fishermen will race to fish, drive stocks down, and compete away economic value [12],[14]. Thus, we may expect HS stocks to be overexploited. Second, that spatial property rights, such as EEZs, will mediate overexploitation, but only to the extent that they enclose the full range of the species [15],[16]. If fish migrate [17],[18] and/or have dispersive larvae [19], the ensuing spatial externality presents a competitive situation in which countries act like players in a non-cooperative game [20]. Thus, we may expect that the more EEZs a stock traverses, the less likely a sustainable outcome. When put together, these theories suggest that migratory species pose perhaps the greatest global challenge to sustainable fisheries management [9].¶ In an ideal world, all nations would cooperate in the management of transboundary stocks. Indeed for decades hundreds of attempts have been made at multi-lateral agreements primarily through regional fishery management organizations, which aim to coordinate fishing across EEZs and on the HS. While some exceptions exist, these efforts are widely regarded as a failure [12],[16],[21],[22].¶ It is within this context that we analyze the alternative of a complete HS closure. While large marine protected areas (MPAs) in the HS are of increasing interest [23]–[25], a complete closure has not been proposed, and what little analysis exists suggests there would be substantial economic losses from such a policy [26]. Smaller MPAs, increasingly common and well-studied in coastal waters [27],[28], are too small to produce significant benefits for most migratory stocks [26]. Also, closing only a portion of the high seas may simply displace fishing effort to other open-access areas [29], thereby leaving the problem unsolved. Instead, a complete closure of the HS may

simultaneously achieve three desirable outcomes: (1) It acts as a coordination mechanism across EEZs; (2) it reduces overall exploitation rates; and (3) it protects a sufficient range of the stock to allow rebuilding. ¶ The “risk” of closing the HS is that some species may not range sufficiently far into EEZs, leaving those stocks underexploited. Therefore, we also consider changing the size of the EEZs. A key aspect of our analysis involves modeling the behavioral competition between countries for stocks in EEZs and on the HS. To do so, we adopt a game theoretical perspective (for estimating the strategic decisions among interacting players in a competitive scenario), and use coupled biological-economic models in which stocks traverse multiple EEZs and the HS and the relevant players compete for fisheries profits. Thus, rather than making assumptions about exploitation rates we derive the likely behavioral adjustments under any given policy.¶ We model a large range of governance and biological scenarios that represent the range of conditions for pelagic, migratory species in the world's oceans. Any given scenario is defined by: (1) the fraction of the fish stock's range (and fishery) in EEZs (the remainder being on the HS); (2) the number of EEZs traversed by the stock; (3) the biological parameters of the stock; and (4) the degree of site fidelity of individual fish. For each scenario we evaluate three states of governance of the HS: open access (“HS open [OA]”), closed to fishing (“HS closed”), or competed for by N players (“HS open [N]”). We use a widely used cost function throughout. Our baseline model adopts conservative parameter values, stacking the deck against a HS closure. As a benchmark we also model the idealistic case of complete global cooperation across the entire range of the stock. Full methods are given in Text S1.¶ We examined the effects of a HS closure first with a simple example. Suppose a reasonably fast-growing stock (r = 0.2) [30] has high site-fidelity (S = 0.75), and is proportionally distributed across the HS (58%) and ten EEZs (42%). Our model predicted that when the HS were open, the ten countries would compete on both the HS and their EEZs, and drive stocks to a third of the economically optimal stock size. When the HS were closed, countries would compete across EEZs, but no fishing would occur on the HS: stock increased everywhere (4-fold on the HS and 30% in EEZs), profit more than doubled, and yield increased by 42% (though profit and yield are still only 68% and 84% of their theoretical values under complete cooperation). The disproportionate increase in profit is due to interacting effects of elimination of the inefficient overexploitation on the HS, enhanced coordination across EEZs incentivized by the spillover and protection of fish from the HS, and reduced fishery cost from harvesting a higher stock density in the EEZs. Collectively, these factors raise profit (and yield) beyond the loss from not fishing on the HS. ¶ The figures plot various results against the fraction of the fishery contained in EEZs. When a fishery is mostly in EEZs, the problem boiled down to a transboundary one—where an international fish stock was not contained in any one country's jurisdiction. In that case, closing the HS did not, by itself, fix coordination problems across nations (Figures 2A and S2), because escaped stocks still could be harvested by a competing fishery [9]. Instead, if a fishery is primarily on the HS, closing the HS eliminated the fishery, generating a loss. For fisheries targeting pelagic, migratory stocks, typically some but not all of the fishery occurs in EEZs [8],[17],[18],[31],[32]. In those cases, closing the HS nearly always benefited the fishery: with our baseline parameters, if at least 10% of the fishery were contained in EEZs, then closing the HS increased fishery profits (Figures 2A and S2A). Across the full range of parameters, if at least 20% of the fishery were contained in EEZs, then closing the HS increased profit. The explanation is simple: most species harvested on the HS are vulnerable to overexploitation when the HS are fished, but are likely to recover (and benefit sovereign fisheries via spillover) when the HS are closed. As expected, profits and yields from a HS closure were never as large as levels achievable under complete global cooperation of harvest levels across the HS and EEZs (at best, they were on average ~60% and ~80% as high, occurring when ~40% of the fishery is in EEZs; Figures 2A

and S1). Regarding conservation, a HS closure always resulted in large increases in fish stocks (possibly by >100%; Figures 2B and S2C), consistent with the literature cataloging the conservation benefits of marine reserves [28] (but see [29],[33] for counter-examples, particularly in relation to cumulative impacts and management challenges in marine ecosystems).¶ The more EEZs traversed by the stock (N) the worse was the tragedy of the commons, and the greater was the percentage increase from a HS closure (Figures 3 and S3). Under typical values of N (say, N = 10–20), the gain was considerable. If fish are evenly distributed between HS and EEZs, so 42% are enclosed in EEZs, then any N>3 scenario provided benefits, and any N>10 more than doubled the value of the fishery. In the extreme, for stocks that traverse 50 or more EEZs, the gains could exceed 500%. If the true N is large (say, N = 20), but nations cooperate, the effective N may be small (say, N = 5). Even in that case, a HS closure increased fishery profit. We assumed relatively high site fidelity (S = 0.75); results were strengthened under lower site fidelity (Figure S4). All of the above results held over a large range of growth rates, though gains from HS closure were largest for slower-growing species (Figure S5).¶ Holding a species' range constant, larger EEZs will increase the fraction of the fishery contained in EEZs (rightward shift in Figures 2–3 and S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6). Focusing on the blue and red shading in Figure 2, except for narrow EEZs, closing the HS typically generated large gains for both profit and stock (also see Figure S2). Further, when the HS are open, the worst possible EEZ width was around 40%—this width gave rise to the lowest profit and stock of any possible configuration of EEZs (on average, around 25% and 20% of what was possible for each). Thus the status quo (open HS and 42% in EEZs) was nearly the worst case scenario: the HS are heavily overexploited and countries' EEZs are too small to protect stocks from non-cooperative harvest. Why not simply extend the EEZs [16]? Doing so entailed a benefit, but as the EEZs enlarge, the source of overharvest changed from being primarily a HS problem to being primarily a transboundary problem. Rather, we have shown that completely closing the HS to fishing provided ample protection to the migratory stocks from transboundary overharvest, and without changing EEZ size still allowed each country sufficient space to harvest profitably in their EEZ.¶ While our main finding is likely to hold across many, if not all, ocean basins, there inevitably will be distributional impacts. For example, the handful of countries whose current fishing fleets specialize in fishing the HS (e.g., Japan, China, and Spain [31]) may be harmed by the closure. On the other hand, these countries' HS losses may be offset by enhanced fishing opportunities in their EEZs as stocks rebuild. Developing countries whose stocks are depleted by HS over-exploitation but who have not invested in HS fleets may benefit most from a HS closure. Thus, for a HS closure to be considered in practice, it will be important for future work to explore empirically the fishery and country-level distributional impacts of this proposal.¶ While a complete policy analysis is beyond our scope, a few comments are worth noting. Closing the HS to fishing may seem politically unviable, partly because UNCLOS recognizes the freedom to fish there by all nations [3]. However, UNCLOS also requires ecosystem protection and equitable and efficient utilization of the ocean's resources. Thus, there is demand for a new legal instrument for HS governance [34],[35]; it could support a HS closure to meet the UNCLOS equity, economic, and conservation objectives. First, gains from a HS closure are attributable to fish spillover into EEZs, thus although not fishing in the HS, the freedom to fish resources from the HS is maintained. Second, the closure may only apply to mobile fishery species (and perhaps over-exploited by-catch species), and not sessile species (S = 1) where fishery value would be reduced (Figure S4). Third, a portion of the gains from closing the HS could be distributed among land-locked nations in a fashion similar to existing transfers for transboundary fisheries [36]. Finally, although perfect compliance with a HS closure may not be necessary for gains to emerge (Figure S6), enforcement is a concern [8],[25]. Yet major advances in fishery surveillance

technology [23], recent increases in the scope and use of agreements on the HS (including with MPAs) [8],[23],[25],[37],[38], and perhaps part of the fishery gains due to the HS closure, could be used to support its enforcement. Research on the viability of these options would contribute substantially to our understanding of the political and economic feasibility of closing the high seas.

2NC Solvency—HS Ban

High seas fishing ban solves overfishing impactsBland 14

Alister, Should We Close Part Of The Ocean To Keep Fish On The Plate?, April 2, http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/04/02/297840486/should-we-close-part-of-the-ocean-to-keep-fish-on-the-plate

For lovers of fatty tuna belly, canned albacore and swordfish kebabs, here's a question: Would you be willing to give them up for several years so that you could eat them perhaps for the rest of your life?¶ If a new proposal to ban fishing on the open ocean were to fly, that's essentially what we might be faced with. It's an idea that might help restore the populations of several rapidly disappearing fish – like tuna, swordfish and marlin — that we, and future generations, might like to continue to have as a food source. ¶ The novel conservation plan , introduced recently in a in the journal PLoS Biology, would close international waters – where there's currently pretty much a fishing free-for-all — to all fishing and restrict commercial fishermen to coastal areas managed by individual nations. The authors, and , suggest turning the open ocean into a worldwide reserve for the migratory species that travel huge distances.¶ That reserve would give these fish populations to chance to rebound. And the fish that strayed into coastal national waters, where fishing would remain legal, could meanwhile be caught by fishermen. Overall, under such a plan, fish populations would grow healthier , fishing would become a more lucrative business and we would have more fish to eat, the researchers argue.¶ But let's face it: Closing off most of the ocean to fishing boats would be a pretty drastic move.¶ But as White, a marine biologist at the California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, notes, the policies we currently have in place to regulate fisheries — catch quotas, seasonal closures and minimum size limits — aren't working.¶

"We're already failing to create, much less enforce, other fishery regulations on the high seas," White tells The Salt.¶ The "high seas," according to the Food and Agriculture Organization, are international waters more than 200 miles from land that make up 64 percent of ocean's surface and 95 percent of its volume.¶ In these waters, millions of tunas, sharks and billfish every year are hauled onto enormous industrial-scale fishing vessels at a rate faster than they can reproduce. Tunas are a main target of high seas fishing boats, with species like the Atlantic bluefin, albacore and bigeye especially impacted by overfishing.¶ Costello, an environmental and resource economist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, tells The Salt that populations of these fish could start rebounding within five or ten years of enacting a high seas fishing ban. He says catches — and availability for consumers — would decline for only a few years. ¶ "By catching less fish in the short run we'd be able to catch more fish every year on a sustainable basis forever," he says. "This has huge implications for food security ."’ ¶ Enforcement could be relatively simple, too, says White — with the help of satellites. Any large ship observed moving slowly, meandering in circles or simply drifting in international waters would be considered suspicious.¶ White and Costello expect some nations — like Spain, China and Japan, which have major investments in fishing fleets in international waters — to resist the idea of a ban. White says that Spain,

especially, could be impacted because, while it currently relies heavily on offshore fish populations, it has relatively little of its own national waters to exploit.¶ White and Costello aren't the only ones raising the idea of a fishing ban in international waters. Martin Stuchtey, with the global management consulting firm McKinsey & Company, recently argued that high seas fishing operations are overall a losing endeavor, . Fishing on the high seas is often supported with subsidies. But Stuchtey calculated that closing the high seas would cost every person on earth $2 but would ultimately give them a return of $4. ¶ There could be unintended environmental consequences, however. Gib Brogan, fisheries campaign manager with Oceana, wonders if restricting the global fishing fleet to nearshore waters could have adverse effects on fishes like flounder, snapper and grouper that occupy these waters year round.¶ "If we swap diffuse fishing across a wide swath of ocean for intense fishing on the edges and near shore, will this be a good thing or will it just concentrate the effects near shore?" Brogan says in an email.¶ Costello, the environmental economist, says no, because overfishing of nearshore species could be avoided if each nation steps up to manage its own resources and protect them from foreign plundering. ¶

Costello and White are now taking the next step toward a high seas fishing ban by trying to determine precisely how such a measure might affect individual nations, certain fish species and seafood consumers. Costello expects that research to be published in about a year.¶ "All big ideas have to start somewhere," White says.

2NC Solvency—UNCOLSUNCOLS solvesBan et al. 13

Natalie C., School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, ARC Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Systematic Conservation Planning: A Better Recipe for Managing the High Seas for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use, January 22, Conservation Letters, 7(1), 41–54

Given that no existing management regime comprehen- sively encompasses SCP on the high seas, nor do they have a mandate to engage in the full planning process, other avenues must be developed. Two complementary approaches are emerging as ways to implement conservation and sustainable use of the high seas: a legally binding agreement under UNCLOS and regional multi- lateral agreements (Table 3). Some argue that an agreement to implement and update the general environment provisions under UNCLOS would be the more effective (Gjerde 2012). As with a prior UNCLOS implementing agreement for straddling and highly migratory fish stocks (UN Fish Stocks Agreement), this approach could operationalize management principles such as ecosystem- based and precautionary management. It could set explicit goals, objectives, and targets for protection of bio- diversity and the marine environment alongside sustain- able use of resources, designate responsible organizations to implement tools such as MPAs and cumulative im- pact assessments on the basis of a systematic approach (Gjerde 2012). It need not replace existing sectoral or re- gional organizations, rather it could establish a conference of parties and secretariat to facilitate coordination, enhance coherence, and promote compliance through global-level review and assistance. In short, it could establish the balancing mechanism for decision-making that is currently lacking, and the legal mandate and procedure for incorporating a systematic approach into management planning and decision-making. As scientific input is vital, a new agreement could designate or cre- ate a science body to inform the systematic planning efforts.

UN high sea fishing resolutions are effective—empirically provenDeep Sea Conservation Coalition 14

What's Been Done, In the Water, Bottom Trawling, http://www.savethehighseas.org/whatsbeendone/inthewater.cfm

Each of the resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (in 2004, 2006, 2009 and 2011) has been progressively stronger than the last. Though much more still needs to be done, this momentum has led to increasing action by States and regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) to regulate deep-sea fishing on the high seas, in particular bottom trawling. To date, States and RFMOs have not fully implemented the United Nations General Assembly resolutions and much of the high seas still remain unprotected from the unregulated and destructive impact of deep-sea fishing. ¶

Nonetheless, as result of our work and in response to the debate and resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, significant changes have already occurred on the water. Tangible results achieved, moving chronologically backward from the most recent, include: ¶ Closure tos bottom fishing of a substantial portion of deep-sea areas at fishable depths (i.e. < 2000m) on the high seas of the Northeast Atlantic south of Iceland, including a number of areas where cold water coral reefs are known

to occur; the prohibition of deep-sea bottom gillnet fishing; and environmental impact assessments (EIAs) required for bottom fishing in most of the remaining high seas areas.¶ Closure in the Northwest Atlantic of 12 deep-sea areas along the continental slope to all bottom fishing, to protect concentrations of corals and sponges; closure of six seamount areas to bottom fishing (with the proviso that up to 20% of each area could be fished on an exploratory basis), and prior EIAs required for any bottom-fishing in previously unfished areas.¶ Negotiation of a new treaty to establish a North Pacific RFMO to regulate deep-sea fisheries and a requirement for EIAs to be conducted for all high seas bottom fisheries in the region.¶ Negotiation of a new treaty to establish a South Pacific RFMO to regulate deep-sea fisheries; a temporary prohibition on the expansion of bottom fishing in the South Pacific into new high seas areas; the closure of some 40% of the area previously bottom trawled by New Zealand's orange roughy fleets on the high seas; and a ban on bottom gillnet fishing.¶ Closure of 10 seamount areas in the Southeast Atlantic (revised in 2010), and a prohibition of bottom gillnet fishing. ¶ A prohibition on bottom trawling and bottom gillnet fishing in Antarctic (Southern Ocean) waters, and a requirement for EIAs as a pre-condition for bottom longline fisheries.¶ Prohibition of bottom trawling below 1000m in the Mediterranean, and closure of three areas to bottom fishing at lesser depths to protect a seamount, cold seep and cold-water corals.¶ All of these actions are positive steps forward, and many of them will serve to protect some species and deep-sea ecosystems in some areas. However, the set of actions called for by the United Nations General Assembly are far from having been fully implemented. The impact assessments produced to date are partial and inconclusive at best and while some high seas areas have been closed to bottom fishing, many high seas areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) are likely to occur remain open to bottom fishing with few or no constraints. The move-on rule is often the only conservation regulation in place to protect VMEs in both existing and new or unfished areas; however it is of limited value in protecting VMEs given the high threshold levels established as triggers for the move-on rule in many of the high seas fisheries.

2NC AT Perm—Enforcement DAPerm creates regulatory uncertainty and undermines enforcement mechanism—only way to prevent free-riders and opt-out Global Ocean Commission 14

Initiative of The Pew Charitable Trusts, in partnership with Somerville College at the University of Oxford, Adessium Foundation and Oceans 5, “From Decline to Recovery A Rescue Package for the Global Ocean,” Global Ocean Commission Report 2014

It is clear that the threats facing the high seas today are global and, even more so than in 1982, international cooperation is essential if they are to be tackled effectively. The conclusion we have come to is that the current governance system for the management of human activities impacting the high seas is no longer fit for purpose to ensure long-term sustainability or equity in resource allocation, nor to create the conditions for maximising economic benefits from the high seas.¶ Essentially, the problems with the international governance regime for the high seas are threefold.¶ First, even though UNCLOS enshrines in its Preamble¶ the notion that all “problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be addressed as a whole”, the regime is essentially sectoral in nature, based around the siloed regulation of industries and activities such as fisheries, shipping and seabed mining. A large number of agreements and institutions are mandated to regulate these sectoral activities, but there is little interplay between the various sectors. ¶ Conservation of species, habitats and ecosystems – the core components of biological diversity – too often slip through the cracks. Transparency, accountability and compliance-reporting are especially weak, and few mechanisms exist to assess or manage the cumulative effects of multiple industrial activities on the same ocean environment.¶ Unlike many other global conventions adopted in the past 20 years – for example the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) – UNCLOS did not establish a separate secretariat tasked with monitoring its implementation. Nor did it establish any built- in compliance mechanisms to monitor the performance of States and issue sanctions where necessary . Instead UNCLOS created three entirely separate institutions tasked with implementing certain specific parts of the Conventionb while leaving many other provisions to be implemented either by States or through ‘competent international organisations’, agencies and bodies, at regional or global levels. The result is a bewildering proliferation of authorities, often with competing and overlapping mandates but for the most part lacking any real regulatory or enforcement power. States are free to opt out of measures they do not agree with and there is very little accountability at the global level. ¶ Where regulatory mechanisms do exist for specific sectors,¶ they vary widely in their effectiveness and there is inconsistency¶ in the rules set in each sector and how they are applied. In¶ some areas regulation is relatively effective. In the case of high seas fishing, however, which is managed primarily through regional arrangements under the auspices of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), there are severe challenges as a result of a lack of cooperation between States; conflicting interests in resource utilisation and conservation; fragmented responsibilities; lack of political will; lack of enforcement; and perverse economic incentives for ‘free riders’ to cheat the system.

Study CP

1NC

Text: The United States Federal Government should enact the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act after there is conclusive evidence that it does not harm the environment.

Congress wants more research on aquaculture before it passes any legislationMarianne Cufone 08, an environmental attorney and  taught law and graduate college courses and many guest lectures at assorted academic institutions. She maintains positions on management advisory committees for Hillsborough County (Florida), the State of Florida and the federal government. “Aquaculture Not Ready for Primetime”

http://southernoffshorefishingassociation.com/fish-news/new-england/senators-support/67-not-ready.html?fontstyle=f-smaller

On May 9th, Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV), chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee, re-confirmed what consumer group Food & Water Watch and others have been advocating for years - that more research is needed on the potential environmental and socio-economic threats associated with fish farming. His statement came in response to a report released by the Government Accountability Office on offshore aquaculture, the growing of fish in large cages in open ocean waters. Last February, Chairman Rahall asked the GAO to do a study on offshore aquaculture, citing the

need for clear regulatory framework for the industry that should consider ecological and economic sustainability. “We have regularly expressed concerns about the long term implications of ocean fish farming, in particular with respect to consumer health, harm to ocean resources and negative economic impacts to coastal communities and fishermen,” stated Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “The GAO report reaffirms our position that offshore aquaculture is not ready for primetime.” In a press release from Rahall’s office, the congressman emphasizes the need to consider the “viability of the fishing industry” and the “health of our oceans” in the development of offshore aquaculture. Food & Water Watch addresses these issues in their report, Fishy Farms, The Problems with Open Ocean Aquaculture that examines four fish farms in Hawaii, New Hampshire, and Puerto Rico, each with assorted

problems and most unable to operate without tax-payer funded grants. “So far, the industry has failed to demonstrate that the practice is environmentally sustainable, financially viable, or technically possible on a meaningful commercial scale.” Hauter said. “This industry will likely cause more problems than it proposes to solve.”

The GAO report notes that there are a number of "important environmental safeguards that need to be carefully considered to help regulate the offshore aquaculture industry," including "a regulatory process to review, monitor, and mitigate the potential environmental impacts of offshore aquaculture facilities.”

“We applaud Congressman Rahall for his initiative in requesting the GAO study. More research is still needed before the government moves forward with any offshore aquaculture legislation,” concludes Hauter. “Any proposed legislation must have safeguards to deal with the potential risks to the marine environment, fishing communities and consumers.”

2NC Solvency ExtensionsThe federal government should delay Offshore aquaculture legislature until further studies are conducted

Watch 08, The food and water watch is a nonprofit consumer organization that works to ensure clean water and safe food. “Offshore Aquaculture: Bad news for gulf” https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/common-resources/fish/fish-farming/gulf-of-mexico/offshore-aquaculture/

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been promoting offshore aquaculture — growing fish in nets or cages between three and 200 miles from shore — as the best way to increase U.S. seafood output. Now, NOAA wants to establish this large-scale fish farming off the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast. Since January 2007, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, one of eight regional councils Congress established to help manage U.S. fisheries, has been developing a plan to streamline the permitting and regulation of open water aquaculture. Unfortunately, the Gulf Council‚ draft Generic Offshore Aquaculture Amendment fails to really consider, among other matters, the possible negative economic consequences of ocean fish farming, also known as open ocean or offshore aquaculture. The plan itself concedes that “the increased supply of aquaculture fish from the Gulf may tend to decrease the ex-vessel price commercial harvesters receive for their catch if the increased supply does not come on the market slowly, or if new markets for products are not created, or if the demand for seafood does not increase.” 1 Yet, there is little further discussion of this issue. Based on experience elsewhere, the practice of offshore aquaculture, combined with the influx of farmed fish imports, could threaten the economic wellbeing of the Gulf‚ active fishing industries. In 2006, the commercial fisheries there landed more than half a billion dollars worth of seafood.2 And from 2004 to 2005, Gulf recreational fishing pumped $5.6 billion, including expenditures on such items as hotels, food, and ice, into the regional economy.3 Rather than pressing forward with this plan, the U.S. government would best serve the public interest by delaying any move toward offshore aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico until completion of comprehensive, peer-reviewed economic and environmental studies showing that it will not harm the economy or environment of the region.

Further research is need on aquacultureWatch 08, The food and water watch is a nonprofit consumer organization that works to ensure clean water and safe food. “Offshore Aquaculture: Bad news for gulf” https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/common-resources/fish/fish-farming/gulf-of-mexico/offshore-aquaculture/

Gulf commercial and recreational fishing communities support thousands of jobs and haul in billions of dollars in revenue for the region. Offshore aquaculture is fraught with uncertainty for that continued economic vibrancy. Given this, the U.S. government should not promote offshore aquaculture that could threaten coastal communities and the marine environment in the Gulf of Mexico, and further research is needed on the issue before moving forward.

More research is needed to assess the potential environmental impactStephano UD, 12 Experience of offshore fish farming in Cyprus. In : Muir J. (ed.), Basurco B. (ed.).

Mediterranean offshore mariculture. Zaragoza : p. 57-64 (Options Méditerranéennes :

Série B. Etudes et Recherches; n. 30)http://om.ciheam.org/om/pdf/b30/00600648.pdf

A relevant government policy and infrastructure, to safeguard the sustainable future development of aquaculture in an environment of free competition and in harmony with the environment is considered to be of utmost importance. The introduction of a legal framework covering all aspects of aquaculture is essential as well as the preparation/implementation of a coastal zone management plan where aquaculture activities will be included. The need is now emerging for the adoption of more advanced technology for the exploitation of deeper waters, further away from the coast, in exposed area, including new cage designs, self-contained units, remote sensing/control equipment, new management practices, higher levels of mechanization and more

sophisticated mooring systems. More research is also needed on environmental aspects and on the interactions of offshore aquaculture and the environment, to overcome the existing reservations on their perceived impact. A limited number of new farms could be set up in "new" areas. A lot depends on the technology to be employed, since the siting of farms further offshore is expected to be less favourable than for the existing units. Their establishment is expected to be scrutinized according to a set of criteria (technological, financial, managerial, etc.). The marketing prospects of aquaculture products will play a substantial role in every development, because a decisive factor for the achievement of the targets will be the conditions prevailing both in the local as well the international market. The potential for further increase of local market of aquaculture products, the replacement of imports and the development of exports will dictate the rate of production increase, as well as the levels of production. The further growth of offshore

mariculture will safeguard the potential for production of good quality fish, in sufficient quantities, at reasonable prices.

Repeal Subsidies

1NCPlan text: The World Trade Organization should mandate the repeal of fishery subsidies.Subsidies are not profitable and causing over-exploitationSumaila ‘10(Ussif Rashid, Professor and Director of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit at UBC Fisheries Centre and he specializes in bioeconomics, marine ecosystem valuation and the analysis of global issues such as fisheries subsidies, IUU (illegal, unreported and unregulated) fishing and the economics of high and deep seas fisheries; “A bottom-up re-estimation of global fisheries subsidies” Journal of Bioeconomics, Vol. 12, Issue 3, pp. 201-225; Oct. 2010; Access: 6/29/14)//ck

Using a recently developed database of fisheries subsidies for 148 maritime countries spanning 1989 to the present, total fisheries subsidies for the year 2003 is computed. A key feature of our estimation approach is that it explicitly deals with missing data from official sources, and includes estimates of subsidies to developing country fisheries. Our analysis suggests that global fisheries subsidies for 2003 are between US$ 25 and 29 billion, which is higher than an earlier World Bank estimate of between US$ 14–20 billion. This new estimate is lower than our 2000 global subsidies estimate of US$ 30–34 billion. We find that fuel subsidies compose about 15–30% of total global fishing subsidies, and that capacity enhancing subsidies sum to US$ 16 billion or about 60% of the total. These results

imply that the global community is paying the fishing industry billions each year to continue fishing even when it would not be profitable otherwise—effectively funding the over-exploitation of marine resources.

The solution to overfishing can’t be biological- must be economic and solve fishery subsidiesAnyanova ‘08(Ekaterina, Lecturer in the law of the sea, I. Kant State University of Russia and Ph.D candidate, Hamburg University, Germany; "Rescuing the Inexhaustible... (The Issue of Fisheries Subsidies in the International Trade Policy)" Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, Vol. 3, Issue 3; 2008; Access: 6/29/14; heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/jcolate3&div=18&id=&page=)//ck

The international community has started to combat over fishing by different means and techniques: fishing of some species is totally prohibited, while for other species seasonal quotas, protection during the spawning season and minimum mesh sizes have been established

(Tomasevich, 1971 p. 46). Biological solutions like these have not worked out, however. This is not surprising, since the main causes of over fishing are not biological or environmental, but rather economic exploitation of the ocean’s fishing resources. Since the problem is an economic one, the appropriate response to it also has to be an economic one. Proper fisheries management and restrictions on fleets’ capacity (including the issue of fishery subsidies) also would be very effective.

Only the WTO can solve global fishery subsidiesSumaila et al. ‘07(Ussif Rashid, Professor and Director of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit at UBC Fisheries Centre and he specializes in bioeconomics, marine ecosystem valuation and the analysis of global issues such as fisheries subsidies, IUU (illegal, unreported and unregulated) fishing and the economics of high and deep seas fisheries; “The World Trade Organization and global fisheries sustainability” ScienceDirect; Aug. 31, 2007; Access: 6/29/14

http://www.incofish.org/results/pdf%20files/Sumaila%20et%20al.%20Fisheries%20Research%202007%20subsidies.pdf)//ck

If fisheries globally are to attain sustainability, the elimination of overfishing subsidies is necessary and overdue (Pauly

et al., 2002). There is, however, a catch: unilateral action by individual countries is not attractive because fisheries in such countries will suffer trade disadvantages. Further, unilateral action is not likely to work because some important fish species (e.g., tuna) do not respect national Exclusive Economic Zones, and fish- ing fleets are mobile and can operate worldwide.

This implies that the only effective approach to the problem of overfishing subsidies is through multilateral action, with all fishing nations ending or reducing these subsidies under similar rules. The WTO is the only global multilateral organization that can enforce its agreements. Furthermore, the WTO’s main mandate is to level the trade ‘playing field’ for all countries of the world. These two aspects of the WTO make it the ideal institution to tackle the global problem of overfishing subsidies.

Subsidies BadSubsidies have negative impactsMunro and Sumaila ‘01(Gordon R. and Ussif Rashid; Associated Emeritus Faculty- Professor Emeritus of Economics in Fisheries Economics Research Unit (FERU); Professor and Director of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit at UBC Fisheries Centre and he specializes in bioeconomics, marine ecosystem valuation and the analysis of global issues such as fisheries subsidies, IUU (illegal, unreported and unregulated) fishing and the economics of high and deep seas fisheries; “Subsidies and Their Potential Impact on The Management of the Ecosystems of the North Atlantic” from “Fisheries Impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Evaluationsand Policy Exploration” Fisheries Centre Research Reports 2001 Vol. 9 No. 5; 2001; Access: 6/28/14;

http://data.fisheries.ubc.ca/report/impactpolicy/9-5.pdf#page=13)//ck

This paper provides both an estimate and assessment of subsidies in fisheries in the North Atlantic. The sub- sidies are estimated, on the basis of data taken from an OECD study and the Sea Around Us Project database, to be in the order of U.S.$ 2.0 to 2.5 billion per year. The assessment of the impact of the subsidies upon re- source management and sustainability requires an ex- amination of the

underlying economics of subsidies in fisheries. There is general agreement, to which we sub- scribe, that fisheries subsidies do great harm by exacerbating the problems arising from the ‘common pool’ aspects of capture fisheries. Many economists, how- ever, believe it that, if the “common pool” aspects of a fishery could be removed by, for example, establishing a fully-fledged property rights system, the negative im- pact of fisheries subsidies would prove to be trivial. This paper demonstrates that the aforementioned com-

fortable belief is unfounded. Fisheries subsidies can be seriously damaging, even if the ‘common pool’ aspects of the fishery are removed. There is also a widely held belief, among economists and government officials, that subsidies used for vessel decommissioning schemes, far from being harmful, actually have a beneficial impact upon resource management and sustain- ability. About twenty percent of the fisheries subsidies in the North Atlantic are directed towards these pur-

poses. In this paper, we argue that these seemingly beneficial subsides can, in fact, be highly negative in their impact.

Subsidies cause overfishing and exploitation which leads to the collapse of speciesWWF ‘14“Our oceans are being plundered” from “Unsustainable fishing” WWF; 2014; Access: 6/28/14

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/blue_planet/problems/problems_fishing/)//ck

Massive overfishing

The global fishing fleet is 2-3 times larger than what the oceans can sustainably support.

In other words, people are taking far more fish out of the ocean than can be replaced by those remaining. As a result: 53% of the world’s fisheries are fully exploited, and 32% are overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion. Most of the top ten marine fisheries, accounting for about 30% of all capture fisheries production, are fully exploited or overexploited1 Several important commercial fish populations have declined to the point where their survival is threatened

Unless the current situation improves, stocks of all species currently fished for food are predicted to collapse by 20482 Needless slaughter It's not just the fish we eat that are affected. Each year, billions of unwanted fish and other animals - like dolphins, marine turtles, seabirds, sharks, and corals - die due to inefficient, illegal, and destructive fishing practices. Why is this happening? Overfishing is largely due to: Poor fisheries management

Pirate fishers that don’t respect fishing laws or agreements

Massive bycatch of juvenile fish and other marine species

Subsidies that keep too many boats on the water

Unfair Fisheries Partnership Agreements that allow foreign fleets to overfish in the waters of developing countries

Destructive fishing practices

Exploitation leads to collapse of species and ecosystems and loss of jobsWWF ‘14“Our oceans are being plundered” from “Unsustainable fishing” WWF; 2014; Access: 6/28/14

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/blue_planet/problems/problems_fishing/)//ck

FROM THE COAST TO THE DEEP SEA As coastal and pelagic (open ocean) fisheries around the world have collapsed, fishing effort has shifted to the deep sea and previously unexploited fish species. Here, overfishing can quickly deplete local fish populations - even within a single season. Some newly fished populations , such as monkfish,

Patagonian toothfish, blue ling, and orange roughy, have already collapsed in some areas. There is insufficient data on other populations to determine what level of fishing is sustainable. At present most deep-water species are likely to be over-exploited - and as many as 40% of the world’s fishing grounds are now in waters deeper than 200m. PAINFUL

IMPACTS The impacts of declining fish catches are being painfully felt by many coastal fishing communities around the world. Newfoundland in Canada is an early example. For centuries the cod stocks of the Grand Banks seemed inexhaustible.

But in 1992 the cod fishery collapsed - and some 40,000 people lost their jobs overnight, including 10,000 fishermen. Nearly 20 years later, the cod have still not recovered. Science also indicates that the ecosystem has substantially changed, meaning that the cod may never make a comeback.

SolvencyRemoval of subsides necessary to reverse impactsMunro and Sumaila ‘01(Gordon R. and Ussif Rashid; Associated Emeritus Faculty- Professor Emeritus of Economics in Fisheries Economics Research Unit (FERU); Professor and Director of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit at UBC Fisheries Centre and he specializes in bioeconomics, marine ecosystem valuation and the analysis of global issues such as fisheries subsidies, IUU (illegal, unreported and unregulated) fishing and the economics of high and deep seas fisheries; “Subsidies and Their Potential Impact on The Management of the Ecosystems of the North Atlantic” from “Fisheries Impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Evaluationsand Policy Exploration” Fisheries Centre Research Reports 2001 Vol. 9 No. 5; 2001; Access: 6/28/14;

http://data.fisheries.ubc.ca/report/impactpolicy/9-5.pdf#page=13)//ck

The impact of subsidies upon the management of fishery resources, and the surrounding aquatic ecosystem, has been a source of rapidly increasing concern over the past decade. The Food and Agri- cultural

Organization of the United Nations (FAO), early in the decade, maintained that a critical first step towards reversing the severe overexploitation of capture fishery resources is the removal of harmful subsidies in fisheries (FAO, 1992). The FAO continued examining the subsidy issue through the 1990’s into the new millennium (see for instance, Steenblik and Munro, 1999). Along with the FAO, there has been a steadily increasing stream of studies on the impact of subsides on fisheries, that have been undertaken by national governments, e.g. the U.S.A (Congressional Research Services,¶ 1995), by NGOs, such as the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (1997) and by other international or- ganizations other than the FAO. Prominent stud- ies have been undertaken for the World Bank (see Milazzo, 1998) and the Organisation for Eco- nomic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The OECD study (OECD, 2000), will be drawn upon heavily in this paper.

Land-Based CP Neg

1NC Shell Text: The United States Federal Government should provide grants and subsidies for land Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. Urban aquaculture exists but needs fundingWheeler ’13. Garret Wheeler is a Doctor of Jurisprudence Candidate 2013, Golden Gate University School of Law. “A feasible alternative: the legal implications of aquaculture in the United States and the promise of sustainable urban aquaculture systems”, Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal. 6 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. 295

As the federal government continues to encourage the expansion of ocean-based aquaculture in the EEZ, not only will the environment be subject to an array of potential threats, but those looking to invest in the domestic production of seafood will also be confounded by legal uncertainties and liabilities imposed by the CWA and other laws. Rather than continue to press for an unsustainable system plagued by liability and staunch opposition from the environmental community and fishermen, new incentives in the form of grants, subsidies, and political support are needed to aid the development of a sustainable urban aquaculture industry. The alternative is to allow the American legal system to continue regulating through enforcement and litigation, an option that is both inefficient and costly. Although the extent to which sustainable aquaculture practices will be implemented in the United States is not clear, the promise of domestic seafood production flourishing within its cities is real . Minimal impact on the environment equates to minimal legal expenditure, and investors and entrepreneurs are already beginning to show interest. It is the challenge and duty of future generations "to encourage the art of aquaculture in urban areas and plan creatively for its beauty and utility in revitalized cities." n181 In more concrete terms, urban aquaculture may be the only way to provide fresh, local seafood while steering clear of environmental problems and possible legal liability.

Land RAS is legally and environmentally superior to ocean aquacultureWheeler ’13. Garret Wheeler is a Doctor of Jurisprudence Candidate 2013, Golden Gate University School of Law. “A feasible alternative: the legal implications of aquaculture in the United States and the promise of sustainable urban aquaculture systems”, Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal. 6 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. 295

Although considerable scholarly analysis has been devoted to the environmental problems and legal complexities surrounding the development of open-ocean aquaculture, n11 little has been written on the alternative: sustainable land-based facilities . These systems are models of modern ecological engineering and can be located anywhere , including urban settings such as brownfields, n12 abandoned industrial sites, and warehouses. They can feed local populations and provide local jobs without compromising the health of our oceans and wild fish stocks. Sustainable land-based systems are already operating in American cities like Brooklyn, n13 Baltimore, n14 and Milwaukee. n15 Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) and aquaponic systems are closed-loop, land-based farms that re-use water and are capable of producing fish, vegetables, flowers, fruits, and herbs. n16 RAS technology eliminates the environmental problems associated with conventional aquaculture methods, such as outdoor pond systems and ocean net pen systems. RAS facilities are "sustainable, infinitely expandable, environmentally compatible, and have the ability to guarantee both the safety and the quality of fish produced." n17 Unlike conventional systems, which are limited by environmental and geographic

constraints, as well as the threat of disease transference, indoor systems can produce fish in completely controlled environments without risk of escapement or spread of disease. n18 Moreover, RAS conserves heat and water through water reuse , running on ninety to ninety-nine percent less water than conventional systems and providing environmentally safe waste-management treatment . n19 [*298] Growth and change are all but inevitable for the United States' aquaculture industry. The environmental problems associated with ocean-based operations and their traditional land-based counterparts are inexorably linked and therefore must inform both established and developing regulatory bodies of law. The current legal regimes affecting aquaculture production in the United States, in particular the federal Clean Water Act, will play a central role in shaping the development of the industry. Sustainable, land-based aquaculture technologies, including recirculating systems, promise to provide environmentally sound aquaculture methods that are in many ways legally and economically preferable to ocean-based technologies. These systems are not only feasible, but essential to achieving an environmentally sustainable aquaculture industry . T he implementation of such tech nologies should therefore be encouraged through the introduction of new law and policy initiatives.

CP solves best—location of RAS means no depletion of marine ecosystems- solves ecosystems, starvation ASA 9 [Alliance For Sustainable Aquaculture; Joint Non-Profit Organization with Food and Water Watch Organization and Research; “Land-Based Recirculating Aquaculture Systems”; September 2009; http://www.recirculatingfarms.org/downloads/RAS.pdf; JW]

In the production of farm-raised fish , the feed plays a large role in determining sustainability and quality of farmed fish. Farmed fish are often fed wild forage fish, such as anchovies, sardines and herring, after being processed into fishmeal or oil.

These prey fish are a crucial part of the marine ecosystem , serving as food for marine mammals, birds and large

predatory fish. Since taking these fish from the oceans can disrupt food chains and ecosystem balance , feed conversion rate is always a concern with farm-raised fish. The ideal feed conversion is one pound or less of wild fish to

raise one pound of farmed fish. Although existing feed sources do not always have completely efficient 1:1 conversion rates, RAS farms and scientists are conducting r esearch and d eveloping t echniques that can improve feed quality and reduce the need for wild fish. Examples of innovations in RAS feed efficiency include finding alternative feed ingredients, such as worms and algae, improving feed quality by using algae to increase protein content and raising prey fish in RAS, instead of harvesting wild for- age fish, to feed larger predatory fish.70

Solvency- Environment CP solves better—RAS produces fish quicker and more efficiently while controlling environmental conditions ASA 9 [Alliance For Sustainable Aquaculture; Joint Non-Profit Organization with Food and Water Watch Organization and Research; “Land-Based Recirculating Aquaculture Systems”; September 2009; http://www.recirculatingfarms.org/downloads/RAS.pdf; JW]

RAS production levels are often higher than those in other forms of aquaculture. RAS control the environmental conditions in which products are raised, thus allowing for optimal year-round growth . 16 Some RAS can produce market-sized fish in just nine months, compared to the 15 to 18 months it often takes for the fish raised in other systems to grow to market size.17 It takes 197.6 acres of open ponds to produce the same amount of shrimp that a RAS farm can raise on

just 6.1 acres.18 Tilapia, cobia, black sea bass, branzini, salmon, trout and shrimp are among the many seafood products being raised in RAS. Aquaponic RAS produce a large array of herbs, vegeta- bles, fruits, flowering plants and seaweeds as well.

Solvency- RAS Satisfies Demand Better aquaculture needed to meet demand and alleviate ocean destruction Wheeler ’13. Garret Wheeler is a Doctor of Jurisprudence Candidate 2013, Golden Gate University School of Law. “A feasible alternative: the legal implications of aquaculture in the United States and the promise of sustainable urban aquaculture systems”, Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal. 6 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. 295

The world's ocean fish stocks are in peril. A 2011 report issued by an international team of marine scientists found that the world's marine species face threats "unprecedented in human history" n1 with "loss of both large, long-lived and small fish species causing widespread impacts on marine ecosystems." n2 Nutrient runoff, introductions of non-native species, climate change, over fishing, and physical disturbance are all contributing to the oceans' decline . n3 Meanwhile, global per capita seafood consumption is at an all-time high, n4 as the Earth's growing [*296] population continues to enjoy healthy, protein-laden nourishment. The resulting situation is a stark example of what ecologist Garrett Hardin famously called "the tragedy of the commons," the concept that overexploitation of a limited public resource inevitably occurs when multiple individuals act independently in their own self-interests. n5 The once-bountiful resources of the sea have now been exploited to a point where both marine- scientists and food-economists question the future of this essential food source . n6 While technology undoubtedly played an important role in expediting the loss of ocean resources, n7 technology in the form of aquaculture is now seen as the solution . n9 But can the practice of farming fish resolve the problem of a sea short of seafood? A burgeoning global aquaculture industry believes that aquaculture can satisfy a growing demand for seafood while alleviating damaged ocean ecosystems - an optimistic vision that nevertheless leaves many questions unanswered. n10 Central to the inquiry over ocean resource renewal is the viability of environmentally sustainable aquaculture methods and the legal framework that will ensure ecologically sound practices.

Solvency- “Malthusian Collapse”/StarvationRAS ensures sustainable aquaculture industry—checks production issues ASA 9 [Alliance For Sustainable Aquaculture; Joint Non-Profit Organization with Food and Water Watch Organization and Research; “Land-Based Recirculating Aquaculture Systems”; September 2009; http://www.recirculatingfarms.org/downloads/RAS.pdf; JW]

As a result, RAS can reduce the discharge of waste and the need for antibiotics or chemicals used to combat disease and fish and parasite escapes — all serious concerns raised with open-water aquaculture . RAS provide a diversity of production options . Tilapia, catfish, black seabass, salmon, shrimp, clams and oysters are just a few examples of what can be raised in these systems. RAS can also be operated in tandem with aquaponics — the practice of growing plants using water rather than soil — to produce a variety of herbs, fruits and vegetables such as basil, okra, lettuce, tomatoes and melons. RAS range from small-scale urban aquaculture systems in individual homes to larger, commercial-scale farms that can produce fish and produce equaling millions of dollars in sales each year.¶ Currently, research and development is being conducted at academic, government and business facilities across the country to continuously improve the techniques and methods used in RAS. With innovations in

waste management systems, fish feeds and energy usage, RAS has the potential to be a truly safe and sustainable aquaculture industry.¶ In recent years, the U.S. government has been shockingly insistent that development of open-water aquaculture,¶ in particular ocean aquaculture, is the best way to have an increased seafood supply in the United States. Given the many

ecological concerns associated with OOA, rather, the United States should be looking to explore more sustainable fish production, such as RAS . This report challenges natural resource managers and consumers to be more active in helping to promote a cleaner, greener, safer domestic seafood supply by learning more about RAS and requesting grocery stores and restaurants carry RAS products rather than those from open-water aquaculture systems.

Solvency- Biosecurity/Ecosystems Unique location of RAS means they are more bio-secure and preserve ecosystems ASA 9 [Alliance For Sustainable Aquaculture; Joint Non-Profit Organization with Food and Water Watch Organization and Research; “Land-Based Recirculating Aquaculture Systems”; September 2009; http://www.recirculatingfarms.org/downloads/RAS.pdf; JW]

RAS fish farms are often fully closed and entirely controlled , making them mostly biosecure — diseases and parasites cannot often get in. Biosecurity means RAS can frequently operate without any chemicals, drugs or antibiotics, making a more natural product for consumers . Water supply is a regular route of pathogen entry,¶

so RAS water is often first disinfected or the water is obtained from a source that does not contain fish or in-

vertebrates that could be pathogen carriers (rain, spring or well water are common sources).12 Biosecurity in RAS requires that the

systems be designed for easy clean- ing, completely and frequently, to reduce pathogens.13 Being self-contained and cleaner also means RAS can be located near markets or within land-locked communities that will use the fish, rather than by natural water sources like oceans or rivers — RAS does not need to be located on water to supply the system or for drainage. Locating RAS by the markets or communities they serve means they can have a smaller carbon footprint due to reduced shipping distance and provide a fresher product to the consumer.

Solvency- Ocean DestructionLocation of RAS means no depletion of marine ecosystems ASA 9 [Alliance For Sustainable Aquaculture; Joint Non-Profit Organization with Food and Water Watch Organization and Research; “Land-Based Recirculating Aquaculture Systems”; September 2009; http://www.recirculatingfarms.org/downloads/RAS.pdf; JW]

In the production of farm-raised fish , the feed plays a large role in determining sustainability and quality of farmed fish. Farmed fish are often fed wild forage fish, such as anchovies, sardines and herring, after being processed into fishmeal or oil.

These prey fish are a crucial part of the marine ecosystem , serving as food for marine mammals, birds and large

predatory fish. Since taking these fish from the oceans can disrupt food chains and ecosystem balance , feed conversion rate is always a concern with farm-raised fish. The ideal feed conversion is one pound or less of wild fish to

raise one pound of farmed fish. Although existing feed sources do not always have completely efficient 1:1 conversion rates, RAS farms and scientists are conducting r esearch and d eveloping t echniques that can improve feed quality and reduce the need for wild fish. Examples of innovations in RAS feed efficiency include finding alternative feed ingredients, such as worms and algae, improving feed quality by using algae to increase protein content and raising prey fish in RAS, instead of harvesting wild for- age fish, to feed larger predatory fish.70

RAS monitors pH levels which checks acidification, ocean destruction ASA 9 [Alliance For Sustainable Aquaculture; Joint Non-Profit Organization with Food and Water Watch Organization and Research; “Land-Based Recirculating Aquaculture Systems”; September 2009; http://www.recirculatingfarms.org/downloads/RAS.pdf; JW]

Monitoring of the pH level is among the most important tasks in RAS. The pH is directly affected by concentrations of

ammonia from fish wastes. When fish waste is produced, most of it eventually breaks down into nitrate, and nitrate accumulation tends to produce a drop in pH and alkalinity, which can be harmful to fish if it is not monitored properly.¶ The scale of pH ranges from 0 to 14, with lower numbers demonstrating increased acidity and higher numbers

showing greater basicity. Seven is considered the equilibrium point of freshwater, where it is neither acidic nor basic. In freshwater RAS, pH is generally maintained around 6 to 7.5. In aquaponic systems, pH may be maintained at a slightly lower level (around 5.5 to 6.5), where the slightly higher acidity level helps plants to obtain nutrients. Some studies have been done in aquaponics systems to reconcile the lower optimal pH of plants with the higher optimal pH of fish, and it has been found that a pH as high as 7

can be maintained without reducing the productivity of plants.35 Marine RAS needs to maintain a slightly higher pH, as the average pH of ocean saltwa- ter is around 8 , which makes it somewhat basic . People who work with recirculating

systems need to monitor¶ pH carefully in order to keep levels within an accept- able range for health and growth of the fish. Some of the aforementioned technologies, such as high rate algal ponds, can act as a counterbalance to the accumulation of certain chemicals within an RAS and can help to balance pH levels naturally .¶ Alkalinity is a measure of the pH-buffering capacity¶ of water.36 The principle ions that contribute to alka- linity are carbonate (CO3-) and bicarbonate (HCO3-). Supplements may be added to water to adjust the alka- linity. Alkalinity of fresh water ranges from less than 5mg/L to more than 500mg/L and salt water is about 120mg/L CaCO3.37

Solvency- Overcomes Legal Liability Urban aquaculture exists but needs fundingWheeler ’13. Garret Wheeler is a Doctor of Jurisprudence Candidate 2013, Golden Gate University School of Law. “A feasible alternative: the legal implications of aquaculture in the United States and the promise of sustainable urban aquaculture systems”, Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal. 6 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. 295

As the federal government continues to encourage the expansion of ocean-based aquaculture in the EEZ, not only will the environment be subject to an array of potential threats, but those looking to invest in the domestic production of seafood will also be confounded by legal uncertainties and liabilities imposed by the CWA and other laws. Rather than continue to press for an unsustainable system plagued by liability and staunch opposition from the environmental community and fishermen, new incentives in the form of grants, subsidies, and political support are needed to aid the development of a sustainable urban aquaculture industry. The alternative is to allow the American legal system to continue regulating through enforcement and litigation, an option that is both inefficient and costly. Although the extent to which sustainable aquaculture practices will be implemented in the United States is not clear, the promise of domestic seafood production flourishing within its cities is real . Minimal impact on the environment equates to minimal legal expenditure, and investors and entrepreneurs are already beginning to show interest. It is the challenge and duty of future generations "to encourage the art of aquaculture in urban areas and plan creatively for its beauty and utility in revitalized cities." n181 In more concrete terms, urban aquaculture may be the only way to provide fresh, local seafood while steering clear of environmental problems and possible legal liability.

AT Perm do both The permutation links to the net benefit-

AT Perm do the CP Perm do the CP is a severance permutation- Severance perms are bad for debate:

1. Destroys Ground – they can sever out of any link we have to the plan2. Moving Target – allows them to shift out of any part of their plan they were

losing3. Destroys education – instead of coming up with solutions to tough CPs they

sever out of their advocacy

Overfishing Advantage

Offshore aquacultures bad- Laundry listTen disads to the affFood and Water Watch 2011 (Top 10 Problems; www.foodandwaterwatch.org/common-resources/fish/fish-farming/offshore/problems/; kdf)

Offshore fish farming, also known as open ocean aquaculture, involves giant cages located about 30 feet under water anywhere from three to 200 miles off the coast. Here are 10 reasons why this is so problematic. Competing/Conflicting Interests Open water aquaculture facilities could cause conflict of interest. Areas of current significant competing economic use or public value must be eliminated for consideration for open ocean aquaculture. These areas include 1) fishing grounds and routes to those fishing grounds; 2) vessel traffic lanes; 3) military sites and areas of concern regarding national security; 4) marine reserves and otherwise protected areas; and, 5) areas of significant multiple use. Escapement Offshore aquaculture of finfish uses cages or pens. These containers, even if well engineeredway out sign and built, will allow some fish escapes into the open ocean, due to various complications like severe weather, equipment failure or human error. In the case of net pens, predators may tear the enclosures. Escapement can affect native populations through disease and dilution of locally adaptive gene complexes, disrupt natural ecosystems and jeopardize the recovery of depleted or endangered species. Consequences could be widespread and devastating. Growing Exotic / Mutated Species Several problems are associated with aquaculture production of non-native species. While the use of local species in aquaculture presents less harmful impacts should escapement occur, often when cultured species reproduce in captivity, they or their offspring are different behaviorally or even genetically. These ‚new” species may invade local areas, breed with or overtake natural populations, through escapement, causing widespread environmental concerns. Growing Genetically Modified /Transgenic Organisms (GMOs) Farm raised fish are bred for profit, thus, those that have certain marketable traits are the most desirable. Selecting and only breeding fish with advantageous characteristics (e.g. largest and fastest growers) is one means to alter genetic composition over time. In some instances, direct genetic manipulation occurs in a lab, to change, for example, appearance and breeding abilities. In either of these circumstances, the outcome produces a genetically different fish than those found in the wild. Similar to problems associated with culture of exotic and mutated species, proposed farming of GMOs raises concerns that through escapement, the constitution of the ecosystem may be altered, not to mention unknown health concerns to the consumer. Habitat Impacts Use of the U.S. EEZ for aquaculture requires construction of appropriate facilities and in some areas could include severe habitat impacts. Dredging, drilling and other sediment and bottom habitat disturbances, can cause displacement of ocean wildlife and other potentially significant ecological changes. Inefficiency Cultured species are fed wild species. This is an inefficient use of wild fish. There are particular concerns that aquaculture operations may increasingly rely on natural food sources, such as krill, squid and other small coastal pelagic fish. These lower trophic level species are a crucial part of the marine ecosystem, serving as prey for marine mammals, birds and fish. Many commercially and recreationally important fish species depend directly on the availability and abundance of such prey species for their survival and recovery. Wild fish populations can only recover if the ecosystem upon which they depend is intact. Mitigation Plans for Hazards A number of threats to wildlife and the environment can come from open water aquaculture. A facility should be prepared to address emergency situations, especially where immediate containment or clean-up are necessary. Permits should only be provided once the applicant develops and submits a plan to mitigate potential harms due to unexpected circumstances, including

escapement of fish, chemical pollution, illness and others. Human Health Concerns Studies indicate that farm-raised fish contain higher levels of chemical pollutants than wild fish, including PCBs, which are known carcinogens. This is due to higher concentrations in the fish feed. Antibiotics are also a problem with farm-raised fish, effecting consumers directly as well as by developing super strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics, making diseases less treatable, and perpetuates the cycle of increased antibiotic use. Unexpected Environmental Harm and Abandoned/Bankrupt Facilities Open-ocean aquaculture depends on various factors, including weather, currents, disease control and human precision. Some of these are not controllable. It is possible that a facility is damaged by any number of unplanned events, causing a major escape or significant chemical pollution. Remedying such situations requires significant monetary resources that might not be available from the company at the time of the occurrence. Water Pollution Water pollution concerns include the following: excess food; feces; cage materials; and, antibiotics/other cleaning/algal growth prohibiting chemicals. Water flowing out of an aquaculture facility can carry excessive nutrients, particulates,rusted drain pipe bacteria, other diseased organisms and polluting chemicals. These may harm surrounding habitats, cause algal blooms, poison ocean wildlife and other severe disturbances. Feed and fecal matter from aquaculture facilities can deplete the dissolved oxygen concentrations within and around the site. Since different fish have varying tolerances to dissolved oxygen levels, the wastewater being discharged from an aquaculture operation may have large impacts outside the facility long before a problem is detected within. Anti-fouling agents used to keep cages/pens clean are highly toxic. For example, the common anti-fouling agent butyltin (specifically tributyltin) has been linked to reproductive problems in gastropod mollusks (i.e. whelks and abalone) and is suspected to cause immune suppression in marine mammals including dolphins, seals and sea otters.

Alt Causes-Laundry listLitany of alt causes to ocean collapseInternational Program on the State of the Ocean 2013 (LATEST REVIEW OF SCIENCE REVEALS OCEAN IN CRITICAL STATE FROM CUMULATIVE IMPACTS; www.stateoftheocean.org/research.cfm; kdf)

London – October 3rd 2013: An international panel of marine scientists is demanding urgent remedies to halt ocean degradation based on findings that the rate, speed and impacts of change in the global ocean are greater, faster and more imminent than previously thought.

Results from the latest International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO)/IUCN review of science on anthropogenic stressors on the ocean go beyond the conclusion reached last week by the UN climate change

panel the IPCC that the ocean is absorbing much of the warming and unprecedented levels of carbon dioxide and warn that the cumulative impact of this with other ocean stressors is far graver than previous estimates. Decreasing oxygen levels in the ocean caused by climate change and nitrogen runoff, combined with other chemical pollution and rampant overfishing are undermining the ability of the ocean to withstand these so-called ‘carbon perturbations’, meaning its role as Earth’s ‘buffer’ is seriously compromised. Professor Alex

Rogers of Somerville College, Oxford, and Scientific Director of IPSO said: “The health of the ocean is spiraling downwards far more rapidly than we had thought. We are seeing greater change, happening faster, and the effects are more imminent than previously anticipated. The situation should be of the gravest concern to everyone since everyone will be affected by changes in the ability of the ocean to support life on Earth.” The findings, published in the peer review journal Marine Pollution Bulletin, are part of an ongoing assessment process overseen by IPSO, which brings together scientists from a range of marine disciplines. The body’s previous 2011 report, which warned of the threat of ‘globally significant’ extinctions of marine species, received global media attention and has been cited in hearings at the United Nations, US Senate and European Parliament as well as the UK Parliament, Among the latest assessments of factors affecting

ocean health, the panel identified the following areas as of greatest cause for concern: De-oxygenation: the evidence is accumulating that the oxygen inventory of the ocean is progressively declining. Predictions for ocean oxygen content suggest a decline of between 1% and 7% by 2100. This is occurring in two ways: the broad trend of decreasing oxygen levels in tropical oceans and areas of the North Pacific over the last 50 years; and the dramatic increase in coastal hypoxia (low oxygen) associated with eutrophication. The former is

caused by global warming, the second by increased nutrient runoff from agriculture and sewage. • Acidification: If current levels of CO2 release continue we can expect extremely serious consequences for ocean life, and in turn food and coastal protection; at CO2 concentrations of 450-500 ppm (projected in 2030-2050) erosion will exceed calcification in the coral reef building process,

resulting in the extinction of some species and decline in biodiversity overall. • Warming: As made clear by the IPCC, the ocean is taking the brunt of warming in the climate system, with direct and well-documented physical and biogeochemical consequences. The impacts which continued warming is projected to have in the decades to 2050 include: reduced seasonal ice zones, including the disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice by ca. 2037; increasing stratification of ocean layers, leading to oxygen depletion; increased venting of the GHG methane from the Arctic seabed (a factor not considered by the IPCC); and increased incidence of

anoxic and hypoxic (low oxygen) events. • The ‘deadly trio’ of the above three stressors - acidification, warming and deoxygenation - is seriously effecting how productive and efficient the ocean is, as temperatures, chemistry, surface stratification, nutrient and oxygen supply are all implicated, meaning that many organisms will find themselves in unsuitable environments. These impacts will have cascading consequences for marine biology, including altered food web dynamics and the expansion of pathogens .

Alt Cause—Land based Pollution Land-sourced pollution is the biggest internal link to ocean destruction and threats to fish stocks DeGeorges et al 10

Andre, Thomas J. Goreau, Brian Reilly, Department of Nature Conservation, Tshwane University of Technology, Global Coral Reef Alliance,“Land-Sourced Pollution with an Emphasis on Domestic Sewage: Lessons from the Caribbean and Implications for Coastal Development on Indian Ocean and Pacific Coral Reefs,” Sustainability 2010, 2, 2919-2949

Coral reefs are threatened globally, primarily from land-sourced pollution and more recently from global warming. Most of the Indian Ocean and Pacific, where the majority of the world‘s coral reefs are found, are fortunate that most of their coastline, other than a few large cities, is relatively undeveloped, as the Caribbean and Florida Keys were back in the 1960s and early 1970s.¶ Improperly treated sewage, as a key component of land-sourced pollution, is one of the prime causes of nutrient pollution, since sewage and grey water is often literally dumped on top of coral reefs. Thus tourism, among other land-sourced activities, is destroying the very attractions that bring tourists to the world‘s coastal zones. Other causes of reef degradation include sedimentation due to poor land use (e.g., cultivation without appropriate soil conservation or improperly located agricultural activities, misuse of agro-chemicals, over-grazing), and industrial pollution. ¶ Ultimately, coral reefs are not only important for marine biodiversity, fisheries, tourism, and shore protection, but contribute and/or have the potential to significantly contribute to the economies of most Indian Ocean and Pacific nations. Developers, governments and residents living in key watersheds critical to the survival of coral reefs need to be sensitized that sustainable development costs (e.g., proper location of lodges behind primary dunes, appropriate sewage technology, etc.), while securing investment in the long-term are similar to unsustainable development costs. However, once lost, even if the sources of pollution are eliminated, it can take generations or more for the coral reefs to regenerate. Global and ocean warming, while issues, must be dealt with on an international scale, such as through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. But if we wait for the larger issues to be dealt with first, land-sourced pollution may have already wiped out the coral reefs . Ultimately, one must ask if humankind wishes to see healthy colourful coral reef or dead and dying reef that is becoming so common across the globe. Africa, Asia, and the Pacific have a chance to learn from the hard lessons provided by the near destruction of the Caribbean‘s coral reefs by over-development. The choice is ours!

Land-sources pollution turns the aff—kills coral reefs and fishery habitats—aff’s regulations can’t solveDeGeorges et al 10

Andre, Thomas J. Goreau, Brian Reilly, Department of Nature Conservation, Tshwane University of Technology, Global Coral Reef Alliance,“Land-Sourced Pollution with an Emphasis on Domestic Sewage: Lessons from the Caribbean and Implications for Coastal Development on Indian Ocean and Pacific Coral Reefs,” Sustainability 2010, 2, 2919-2949

Land-sourced marine pollution in the Indo-Pacific is primarily associated with densely populated areas and industrial zones in urban centres and near river discharge points. These centres of pollution tend to be isolated, sometimes by hundreds of kilometres, creating algae dominated reefs near pollution hotspots (e.g., Sharm El Sheikh, Malindi to Mombasa, Tanga, Dar es Salaam, Old Town Zanzibar, Pemba, Beira, Maputo, Victoria, Port Louis, Boracay, Jakarta, Manila, Cebu, Makassar, etc.). However, rapid urbanization and development of coastal tourism such as the greater Bazaruto Archipelago, Mozambique if not adequately addressed, could result in ―strip development‖ [46] as in the Caribbean that could, and in some places is already, causing widespread reef degradation (for example Boracay in the Philippines, Ko Samui and Phuket in Thailand, Kenting in Taiwan).¶ The consequences of coral die-off, be it from land-sourced pollution or ocean warming are similar; dead reefs, increased beach erosion, decreased fishery habitat, public health issues, declining tourism, and ultimate loss of key economic sectors. One might challenge the importance of land-sourced pollution when the consequences of ocean warming events on coral die-off were as much as 10 times that from other causes in the Seychelles and much of the Western Indian Ocean (e.g., sediment from land or dredging, algae overgrowth, tourist and anchor damage, storm waves, or coral-eating crown of thorns starfish) [71], resulting in 75–99% loss of live coral [36,76]. However, corals have begun recovering from this ocean warming event [49,74]. Recovery can be enhanced by diminishing stresses like land-sourced pollution. Ocean warming must be dealt with through long-term international negotiations, but land-sourced pollution can be dealt with immediately at regional and local levels.¶ In the Indo-Pacific, as in most countries, most sewage is not treated at all, and even when it is treated in urban areas or tourist areas, it is almost never treated past the secondary stage. Secondary treatment gets rid of human pathogens and to some degree, makes waters ―safe‖ for humans to swim in, but it leaves almost all the nutrients dissolved in the effluent water. It is precisely those nutrients, which do not affect human health, that are deadly to coral reefs . Only one country in the world, the Turks and Caicos Islands in the Caribbean, makes it a policy that all developments must treat their sewage to secondary level, and then recycle all the waste water as irrigation on their own property [47]. This model needs to be applied wherever coral reefs are affected by land-sourced pollution.

1NC Link Turn—Overfishing Aquaculture causes more overfishing to feed farmed fishSmith 12

Turner, Law clerk Massachusetts Supreme, Judicial Court, J.D. Harvard Law School. “Greening the Blue Revolution: How History Can Inform a Sustainable Aquaculture Movement,” April 19, http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11938741

Second, aquaculture can, and should, be conceptualized as a contributor to the tragedy of the commons by exploitation.254 While aquaculture arose in part to ameliorate overfishing, it has, ironically, begun to contribute to the problem because many of the most in-demand aquaculture products are carnivorous fish.255 Catching fish to raise fish not only contributes to the pollution problems described above, but also contributes to the exploitation problems of capture fisheries.256 In fact, many commercial aquaculture systems use two to five times more fish protein to feed the farmed species than is supplied by the farmed fish at the end of the aquaculture production cycle.257 While some argue that farmed fish production is still more efficient than the production of carnivorous species in the wild, it is still the case that modern aquaculture still does not wholly solve the exploitation problem.258 Moreover, habitat modification caused by siting of aquaculture facilities, including destruction of mangrove spawning habitats, has contributed to the depletion of wild fish stocks, and aquaculture operations often stock facilities with wild-caught fry, rather than cultured fry, removing those fish from the wild and resulting in discard of large amounts of wild bycatch.259¶

No Solvency- OverfishingAquaculture Can’t Solve OverfishingClements 13 (Jeff Clements, PhD in marine invertebrate ecology. University of New Brunswick (UNB). “A Problematic Solution: The Negative Effects Of Aquaculture” Urban Times. http://urbantimes.co/2011/08/a-problematic-solution-the-negative-effects-of-aquaculture/. May 2013.)

In general, the presence of salmon farms and other artificially raised species has devastating impacts on local populations of fish and other organisms. Ford & Myers (2008) found that survival and abundance rates of numerous fish species significantly decreased with increases in salmon farming, some of these decreases amounting to more than 50%. This is not only evident in salmon aquaculture, but in many of artificially raised species. With the exhaustive amount of fish produced annually by aquaculture (52 million tonnes), you can begin to see the ecological impact that this industry can have on natural fish populations. As Dr. Boris Worm points out, we cannot replace natural fish populations. So the next time someone tries to tell you that the crisis of overfishing can be simply resolved through aquaculture, kindly tell them to “try again”.

Aquacultures Cause Red TidesEmerson 9 (Craig Emerson, Supervising Editor, Aquatic Sciences ASFA, Oceanic. Ph.D. (Oceanography) Dalhousie University, “Aquaculture Impacts on the Environment,” CSA. http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/aquacult/overview.php. December 2009.)

An increasingly significant effect of intensive fish culture is eutrophication of the water surrounding rearing pens or the rivers receiving aquaculture effluent. Fish excretion and fecal wastes combine with nutrients released from the breakdown of excess feed to raise nutrient levels well above normal, creating an ideal environment for algal blooms to form. To compound the problem, most feed is formulated to contain more nutrients than necessary for most applications. In Scotland, an estimated 50,000 tonnes of untreated and contaminated waste generated from cage salmon farming goes directly into the sea, equivalent to the sewage waste of a population of up to three quarters of Scotland's population. Once the resulting algal blooms die, they settle to the bottom where their decomposition depletes the oxygen. Before they die, however, there is the possibility that algal toxins are produced.¶ Although any species of phytoplankton can benefit from an increased nutrient supply, certain species are noxious or even toxic to other marine organisms and to humans. The spines of some diatoms (e.g. Chaetoceros concavicornis) can irritate the gills of fish, causing decreased production or even death8. More importantly, blooms ("red tides") of certain species such as Chattonella marina often produce biological toxins that can kill other organisms. Neurotoxins produced by several algal species can be concentrated in filter-feeding bivalves such as mussels and oysters, creating a serious health risk to people consuming contaminated shellfish (e.g. paralytic shellfish poisoning9).

No modelingSimply economics dictates that the aquacultures won’t be modeled globallyThe World Bank 2013 (FISH TO 2030; Prospects for Fisheries and Aquaculture; AGRICULTURE AND E N V I RONMENTAL S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PAPER 03; WORLD BANK REPORT NUMBER 83177-GLB; kdf)EMBERAs the first exercise, we implement a scenario in which aquaculture production will grow at a faster pace for all species in all countries and regions. We have constructed this scenario in the same spirit as the aquaculture scenarios in the Fish to 2020 study (see Delgado and others 2003, table 4.1), in which the exogenous growth rates of aquaculture production were increased and decreased by 50 percent of the baseline values. Here, we increase the aquaculture growth rates by 50 percent from 2011 through 2030. A scenario of reduced growth rates is discussed later in this chapter in the context of aquaculture disease outbreak. Table 4.1 compares the results of the scenario with the baseline results on aquaculture production. At the global level, the total production at the end of the projection period would increase from 93.6 million tons under the baseline scenario to more than 101 million tons under the current scenario, representing an 8.1 percent increase. At the regional level, the projected aquaculture production levels in 2030 are higher in this scenario compared to the baseline scenario in most regions. Some regions, in particular LAC and MNA, would benefi t proportionately more from this scenario. In contrast, North America and Japan would lose from this scenario. That is, even though we have increased the exogenous growth rates by 50 percent in all regions, it does not necessarily translate into the same growth rate increase across regions in the fi nal results. This is, in part, due to the interactions with the demand side, especially with the market for fi shmeal, an important aquaculture production input. Faster growth of aquaculture production would entail more fi shmeal use by some (mostly carnivorous) fi sh species groups, which is expected to drive fi shmeal price upward. The latter, in turn, would slow down aquaculture expansion for some species. On the other hand, as aquaculture growth accelerates, there would be larger dampening eff ects on fi sh prices, which also in turn would work to slow down the fi sh supply. The manner in which the price would rise or drop diff ers for each commodity. Further, each region has a diff erent commodity mix, some with more fi shmeal-intensive aquaculture and others with fi sh species whose market demands are more sensitive to price changes. Therefore, the fi nal results, obtained as the equilibrium outcome in the global fi sh markets, represent intricate balancing of supply and demand, responding to signals transmitted by world prices. In the Fish to 2020 study, this scenario was aimed to explore what the cross-price response would be in capture production if aquaculture were to grow at an accelerated pace. However, the scenario does not aff ect the capture production in this study because capture supply is not price responsive—it is determined solely by specifi ed exogenous rates of growth in the current model. Therefore, we do not measure the same eff ects as in Fish to 2020. In this study, what we really measure is the eff ects of faster aquaculture growth on commodity prices and the fi shmeal market and their feedback to the aquaculture fi sh supply. Table 4.2 shows the fi nal outcome after such feedback for production and world prices of each species. While the model predicts that global aquaculture production in 2030 under this scenario would increase by 8.1 percent relative to the baseline specifi cation, the increase in total fi shmeal use would be limited to 2 percent, up from 7,582 thousand tons under the baseline scenario to 7,744 thousand tons. In contrast, its projected price in 2030 is higher by 13 percent than under the baseline. Since the supply of fi shmeal ingredients from capture fi sheries is more or less fi xed, the supply response of fi shmeal to price increases is limited. The supply of fi shmeal thus would be reallocated, through the market price mechanism, away from livestock and lower-value fi sh toward higher-value aquaculture species. In the process, supply of some high-value fi sh products, such as mollusks and salmon, is increased so much that their prices are projected to fall noticeably relative to the baseline case. In fact, except for fi shmeal and pelagics, prices in all categories would fall relative to the baseline scenario. Fish in the OPelagic category are the main ingredient of fi shmeal, and greater competition for this category between direct human consumption and use in fi shmeal production would contribute to the price increase. Together, these eff ects explain why the increase in projected aquaculture growth under this scenario is not as uniformly large across regions and across species as one would have expected purely from the scenario design . This exercise also illustrates why the links with fi shmeal and fi sh oil markets are so important in understanding the place of aquaculture products in the world food economy.

California should have solved alreadyUndercurrent News 2014 (California approves state's first offshore aquaculture farm; Jan 9; www.undercurrentnews.com/2014/01/09/california-approves-states-first-offshore-aquaculture-farm/; kdf)

The California Coastal Commission has approved the state’s first aquaculture farm , to be located in federal waters about eight miles offshore of Long Beach, reports Press Telegram. Known as Catalina Sea Ranch, the facility by KZO Sea Farms will primarily grow Mediterranean mussels on 45 lines anchored in the sea floor and suspended horizontally by buoys from a depth of a few feet to 200 feet, in a 100-acre patch of ocean near two existing oil production platforms. The willingness of KZO to agree to extensive monitoring for its first-of-a-kind project helped earn unanimous approval from commissioners. Phillip Cruver, co-founder of Long Beach-based KZO, said the ranch, which was previously approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers, will “put a small dent” in the nation’s $10-billion annual seafood importation deficit. According to National Marine Fishery Service data, 33.7 million pounds of live farmed mussels were imported into the United States in 2012, most of it from Prince Edward Island in eastern Canada. Organizations like Heal the Bay, though not opposed to the project, argued for frequent inspections and video reviews of the site. There was some concern over the mussels not being native, but Coastal Commission staff said the species has already been introduced to California waters and is the primary planted and harvested oyster in the state.

AT: Aquacultures SafeEven with Safe Practices Aquacultures are HarmfulPEW 10 (Pew Environment Group. "Large-scale fish farm production offsets environmental gains, assessment finds." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 28 October 2010. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027092201.htm>.)

Industrial-scale aquaculture production magnifies environmental degradation, according to the first global assessment of the effects of marine finfish aquaculture (e.g. salmon, cod, turbot and grouper) released Oct. 27, 2010. This is true even when farming operations implement the best current marine fish farming practices, according to the findings.¶ ¶ Dr. John Volpe and his team at the University of Victoria developed the Global Aquaculture Performance Index (GAPI), an unprecedented system for objectively measuring the environmental performance of fish farming.¶ "Scale is critical," said Dr. Volpe, a marine ecologist. "Over time, the industry has made strides in reducing the environmental impact per ton of fish, but this does not give a complete picture. Large scale farming of salmon, for example, even under even the best current practices creates large scale problems."¶ The fish farming industry is an increasingly important source of seafood, especially as many wild fisheries are in decline. Yet farming of many marine fish species has been criticized as causing ecological damage. For instance, the researchers' found that the relatively new marine finfish aquaculture sector in China and other Asian countries lags in environmental performance.¶

Many Harms Spawn from Aquaculture Farms McCutcheon 14 (Jody McCutcheon, Staff Writer Eluxe Magazine. “Something Fishy? Aquaculture and the Environment.” Eluxe Magazine. http://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/theres-something-fishy-aquaculture/. May 24, 2014.)

In addition, although aquaculturalists claim the contamination of their farms is contained within their ponds, the truth is that industrial scale aquaculture destroys coastal habitats when waste, disease, antibiotics and pests are flushed out of farming ponds into local waters, where they infiltrate wild populations. In fact, waste from fish farms can oversaturate coastal waters with nutrients, creating dead zones that suffocate marine life. A poorly run farm of 200,000 salmon can pollute the coastal environment with amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus similar to that in the sewage of a town of 20,000. Even more alarming, the antibiotics being released are creating antibiotic-resistant pathogens that wreak havoc on farmed and wild fishery stocks alike.¶ Another concern is the potential escape into local waters of exotic, possibly genetically modified species that may eventually replace indigenous species. Massachussetts-based company AquaBounty, for example, is bioengineering fish to grow faster, an advantage that would help them outcompete fellow fish. But according to Time magazine, it is very easy and common for farmed fish to escape into the wild, thus just one GMO fish could do irreparable damage to a species. And how many times has “bad seafood” caused food poisoning? More often than you might think. Due to lax physical inspection of seafood imports, fish can contain chemical residue from farming treatments, including potential carcinogens like the fungicide malachite green and the antibiotic nitrofurans, and even human feces. To offer an idea of how lax import inspections can be, understand that Japan physically inspected between 12 and 21% of its seafood imports, based on numbers gathered between 2004 and 2009. The stricter European Union, meanwhile, inspects between

20 and 50% of its seafood imports. The US gets the worst deal, though. While the nation imports over 90% of its seafood, the US Food and Drug Administration’s underfunded inspection program inspects less than 2% of it. That’s a lot of potential “food poisoning.”

Aquacultures Waste Nutritious FishWatch 10 (Food and Water Watch. “Expansion of Factory Fish Farms in the Ocean May Lead to Food Insecurity in Developing Countries” Food and Water Watch. http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/FeedInsecurity.pdf. June 6, 2014.)

The nutritional profile of small prey fish is extensive, and plays a key role in promoting the health of people in developing countries. These fish contain essential vitamins and minerals, co-enzymes, and fatty acids, all beneficial for optimal health. Additionally, because these food fish are often eaten whole, people benefit from the bones, which are a significant source of calcium. These fish are not only a rich source of nutrients, but also a primary source of¶ protein for many people in developing countries. Food fish contribute more than 25 percent of the total animal protein supply for approximately one billion people (one sixth of the world’s population) in 58 countries. While development of offshore aquaculture in the United States may supply more seafood to consumers in Europe and Japan, places where much of the United States’ seafood is already exported, it will likely decrease supply to populations that are much more dependent on fish for nutrition. Although forage fish are sometimes thought of as a low- value commodity, more and more consumers in the United States and abroad are recognizing the value of eating “lower on the food chain” and returning to species like sardines and anchovies, long valued in Italian and other regional cuisines. Marine biologist Dr. Daniel Pauly has pointed out the mistake of labeling these fish as “low” in value: “We should never have followed the fish meal industry on the slippery slope of naming edible fish ‘forage fish’ in the first place. These fish could provide humans with large quantities of protein, but we waste them by using them as raw material for fish meal.”

AT: Aquaculture Solves StarvationAquacultures Can’t Solve for Starvation Emerson 9 (Craig Emerson, Supervising Editor, Aquatic Sciences ASFA, Oceanic. Ph.D. (Oceanography) Dalhousie University, “Aquaculture Impacts on the Environment,” CSA. http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/aquacult/overview.php. December 2009.)

One of the basic tenets of aquaculture is to increase food production. The important question is, for whom? Aquaculture, which has been hailed as THE answer to cheap production food for the millions in the poor Third World countries has instead been utilized to produce luxury delicacies such as fat prawns for the consumption of the already over-fed, affluent and wasteful societies in developed countries such as Japan and US. It has also brought a huge amount of profits to industrialists and investors who deal with high-technology gadgetry in pellet fishfood and vaccine research and production, ice production, processing, transport, etc. ¶ Meanwhile, the small-time fishermen and fish farmers lose out and the diet of local people gets impoverished. In Malaysia, tiger prawn is sold for about 32 ringgit (US$13) per kg, double the cost of a kg of beef, out of reach for the general local population. ¶ It is ironic then, that most of the world's top suppliers and exporters of shrimps and fish are countries where most of its own people are undernourished: Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia and India.

Turn: Aquacultures-> Food InsecurityAquaculture Increases Food Insecurity Watch 10 (Food and Water Watch. “Expansion of Factory Fish Farms in the Ocean May Lead to Food Insecurity in Developing Countries” Food and Water Watch. http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/FeedInsecurity.pdf. June 6, 2014.)

Nearly one sixth of the world’s population is considered food insecure. Meanwhile, the current development of the open-ocean aquaculture industry in the United States could worsen food insecurity in developing countries by placing an increased demand on an already dwindling prey fish population. Furthermore, ocean fish farming in the United States does not equal more food security for most U.S. consumers either. As it is, the United States exports over 70 percent of its seafood to the European Union and Japan, which have higher standards for seafood and are willing to pay more for fish produced with more stringent environmental, health and labor regulations. Unless trade patterns change, which is highly unlikely under current regulatory conditions, most fish farmed offshore in the United States would likely be shipped abroad, leaving the United States with only the ecological problems. Already, Kona Kampachi®, a farmed fish from Hawaii, is sold for $17 per pound — far out of the price range of the average U.S. consumer. Expanding U.S. offshore aquaculture simply means more high-end fish available for those who can afford it.

Turn: Aquacultures->ecosystem collapseOffshore aquacultures compete only because of subsidies—and they destroy ecosystems—Hawaii provesJones 2012 (Mitch; Kampachi Farms LLC Announces First Fish Farm Harvest, But Omits Law Suit and Illegal Operating Permit From Their Message; Mar 5; www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/kampachi-farms-llc-announces-first-fish-farm-harvest-but-omits-law-suit-and-illegal-operating-permit-from-their-message/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foodandwaterwatch%2Fpress+%28FWW+Press+Release%29; kdf)

Washington, D.C.—“Kampachi Farms Founder Neil Simm’s self-congratulatory announcement of the company’s first successful harvest from the first commercial offshore aquaculture facility in federal waters in the United States is an attempt to paper over the company’s problems. The announcement should have mentioned the lawsuit that was filed by Honolulu-based KAHEA: The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance and Food & Water Watch against federal agencies for allowing Kampachi Farms (formerly Kona Blue Water Farms) to operate their aquaculture farm in federal waters with an illegal permit. The suit alleges that under federal law, federal agencies can only issue a fishing permit if authorized to do so under a regional Fishery Management Plan, which they were not. Federal agencies—in this case, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)—lacked the statutory authority to issue a fishing permit for Kona Blue’s aquaculture venture. The suit also addresses the fact that

NMFS should have required a more rigorous environmental analysis than they did. Curiously, despite initial claims that the project would produce 1600 fish at 8,000 pounds total, the company’s release is completely silent on how much fish was produced, leading us to question how much of a success it actually was . The public has a right to know all the facts. After all, the project, which was partly funded with U.S. tax dollars: $500,000 from the National Science Foundation and $242,889

from NMFS. “Factory fish farms use and deplete wild fish stocks to feed farmed fish. Since these fish farms contain their stocks in free-floating cages, the fish live in close quarters—just like factory farm pens on land—

which breeds disease, threatening both the farmed fish and the wild populations. Fish escapes and equipment loss can also reap havoc on the environment immediately surrounding fish farms. In the summer of 2011, Kampachi Farms reported that they lost two of their empty net pens while towing them out to sea. “Even without the aid of an adequate environmental impact study, the National Marine Fisheries Service moved forward by prematurely extending a type of fishing gear

license for Kampachi Farms to operate their farm. While Kampachi Farms is experimenting in federal waters, they could be inflicting major environmental damage to the ecosystem.”

AT: Add-ons

AT: Economy Add-onFishing has no impact on the economy—already on the declineNational Professional Anglers Association 2014 (Federal fisheries agency adjusts misleading economic information; Jun 28; muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/06.28.2014/7099/Federal.Fisheries.Agency.Adjusts.Misleading.Economic.Information/; kdf)

Washington, D.C. - June 26, 2014 - After significant objection from the recreational fishing and boating community, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has taken steps to correct a key fisheries economics report that misleadingly indicated that the domestic commercial fishing industry in the United States was significantly larger than the recreational fishing industry. When imported seafood, which is not regulated or managed by NMFS, is removed from the equation, the corrected data show that the recreational fishing industry is actually $7.9 billion dollars larger than the commercial fishing industry. Furthermore, the corrected data show that the domestic commercial fishing industry actually decreased by $2.3 billion in 2012.

The seafood industry is becoming even more irrelevant than everMurphy et al. 13 Tammy Murphy, Andrew Kitts, David Records, Chad Demarest, Daniel Caless, John Walden, and Sharon Benjamin, all contributers to the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Report May 2012- April 2013, "2012 Final Report on the Performance of the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery," www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1401/, 6/29/14, MRM

As a consequence of quota reductions for a number of groundfish stocks, landings and revenues were lower in 2012 than in 2011. Landings fell by 5.4 percent and revenues by 7.7 percent. For groundfish these figures are at four-year lows with landings off by 24 percent and revenues by 22.9 percent. There were fewer active vessels, fewer and slightly longer trips, and a continued concentration of revenues onto the highest-earning vessels. As was also the case in the prior year reported, 2011, more than half of the available quota was not harvested. While some in the regulatory and environmental communities have blamed a lack of fish for the inability of fishermen to catch their quotas, industry members cite conflicting or badly-designed regulations and “choke stocks," also known as choke species, that cause fishing to cease on other species when the choke stock’s quota is reached. In home port states Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island, all indicators of crew employment were at four year lows in 2012.

To balance the trade balance of seafood, the US would destroy the oceanLeschin-Hoar 2011 (Clare; Ocean of trouble: Report warns of offshore fish farming dangers; Oct 13; grist.org/food/2011-10-12-report-warns-of-the-dangers-of-offshore-fish-farming/; kdf)

“A leading argument used to promote factory fish farming is that we need it to offset the U.S. seafood trade deficit — that is, to import less seafood and produce more seafood,” says the report. But FWW points out that to counter that trade deficit, the U.S. would need to raise almost 200 million fish in ocean cages each year, using “41 percent of the entire global production of fishmeal” as feed. The result, they say, could produce “as much nitrogenous waste as the untreated sewage from a city nearly nine times more populous than Los Angeles and could lead to the escapement of as many as 34.8 million fish.”

The plan hurts the economy- takes away jobs and crushes the tourism industryFood and Water Watch 2008 (Economic ramifications of offshore aquaculture; Mar 4; www.foodandwaterwatch.org/factsheet/economic-ramifications-of-offshore-aquaculture/; kdf)

Proponents of offshore aquaculture favor allowing this practice of raising fish in net pens or cages between three and 200 miles from shore in large part because they claim it will boost the American economy and create new jobs. When the U.S. Offshore Aquaculture bill, developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was sent to Congress, Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez said: “Today’s action will create jobs and revenues for coastal communities and U.S. businesses by allowing for the expansion of an underutilized industry.” 1 Unfortunately,

previous international experience indicates that it is actually more likely that offshore aquaculture will diminish local jobs than create them. By reducing the size of fishing grounds, decreasing the availability of wild stocks, and flooding the market with fish products, offshore aquaculture will threaten the jobs of many commercial fisher men and women. The pollution that fish farms create and the sharks they attract could also threaten the jobs of people in the tourism industry . Compounding the problem, offshore aquaculture operations likely will be highly automated and supported by foreign investment and perhaps staff, so they are unlikely to create many replacement jobs for those lost.

AT: Economy Add-on Tourism extThe plan hurts the economy- tourismFood and Water Watch 2008 (Economic ramifications of offshore aquaculture; Mar 4; www.foodandwaterwatch.org/factsheet/economic-ramifications-of-offshore-aquaculture/; kdf)

In 2000, 1.18 million people were employed in ocean tourism in the United States.29 It is an extremely important industry for many coastal communities. By polluting offshore areas and attracting dangerous sharks to aquaculture net pens full of fish, offshore aquaculture could significantly damage the U.S. coastal tourism industry. Not only could it threaten the beauty and safety of beaches, but open ocean aquaculture could also take control of space used directly for tourism activities. In the Gulf of Mexico alone, recreational fishing brought a total of $5.6 billion into the regional economy.30 Aquaculture farms could be built in areas previously used for sport fishing and recreational boating, eliminating the jobs of people employed in this sector of tourism and preventing this money from entering coastal communities.

AT: Deforestation Add-onDeforestation is decreasing and biotech trees solve.Bailey ‘8

Ronald Bailey is the award-winning science correspondent for Reason magazine and Reason.com, where he writes a weekly science and technology column. “Decrying the "Pursuit of Unnecessary Things"”. Reason Online. February 12, 2008. http://reason.com/archives/2008/02/12/decrying-the-pursuit-of-unnece

Revkin also mentions land. So what's happened with trends in land usage? A 2006 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found   that " among 50 nations with extensive forests reported in the Food and Agriculture Organization's comprehensive Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005, no nation where annual per capita g ross d omestic p roduct exceeded $4,600 had a negative rate of growing stock change." Biotech tree plantations would enable humanity to produce all the timber we need on an area roughly 5 percent   to   10 percent of the total forest today. This would mean that more of the Earth's forests could remain in their natural states.

No Impact to deforestation - Even with all human destruction forests are still greater than 12,000 years ago and there is no evidence for species loss.Howard ‘2k

John Howard. July 2, 2000. Scoop Independent News. “A new kind of green-washing.”

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0007/S00005.htm

Philip Stott of the University of London is the author of the book, Tropical Rainforests: Political and Hegemonic Myth-Making," and, like some NZ scientists, he is also speaking out. "One of the simple, but very important facts, is that the rainforests have only been around for between 12,000 and 16,000 years. That sounds like a very long time, but in terms of history of the earth, it's hardly a pinprick . The simple point is that there are now still - despite what humans have done - more rainforests today than there were 12,000 years ago," Stott said . The indigenous people living in the Amazon forest are also angry that people living tens of thousands of kilometers away from their forests, including some Hollywood and music celebrities, are using them and the livelihood for political and financial gain. Some environmentalists also claim that tens of thouands of species are being driven to extinction every year because of destruction of tropical rainforests like the Amazon. But both Moore and Stott disagree. They say that most of these estimates are rooted in the research of Harvard University's Edward O. Wilson, who has argued passionately to stem the tide of extinctions "now 100 to 1,000 times as great as it was before the coming of humanity" - while neglecting to mention that his estimates of 50,000 extinctions per year are based purely on his own computer models. "There is no scientific basis for saying that 50,000 species are going extinct. I want a list of Latin species," says Moore.

Even significant cuts won’t save the forest.Pascoe 2009

Owen Pascoe. 3/17/2009. “Minds frozen solid as the world warms”. Canaberra Times. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/minds-frozen-solid-as-the-world-warms/1461092.aspx

And scientists at an international scientific congress on climate change in Copenhagen last week warned governments to prepare for temperature rises of four degrees by the end of this century, with catastrophic effects on the planet. A four-degree temperature rise would devastate as much as 85 per cent of the Amazon rainforest the lungs of the planet and leave many low-lying parts of Asia and the Pacific extremely vulnerable to extensive flooding. Dr John Church, a scientist at the The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, told the meeting the ''most plausible'' global scenario was a total sea-level rise of one to two metres by 2100, affecting the livelihoods of more than 600million people. Only two years ago the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was predicting the sea level would rise less than one metre. The Amazon research , conducted by some of Britain's leading climate experts , shows that even severe cuts in deforestation and carbon emissions will fail to save the emblematic South American jungle , the destruction of which has become a powerful symbol of human impact on the planet.

Amazon deforestation is inevitable – economic demands – it will start a cycle of more deforestation.Red Orbit ‘9

Red Orbit. “Economic Demands Threaten Amazon”. Ferbuary 19, 2009. http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1642296/economic_demands_threaten_amazon/

The Amazon continues to lose more forest due to excess strain from accelerating rates of industrialized growth in the region, according to a report issued by the U nited Nations on Wednesday. Supported by the UN Environment Program and the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO), the GEO Amazonia report shows troubling signs of deforestation due to poorly planned human settlements. As of 2005, “857,666 square kilometers of the forest had been transformed, reducing vegetation cover by approximately 17 percent, equal to two-thirds of Peru or 94 percent of Venezuela,” according to the UN. Since then, the rate of deforestation has decreased. However, an additional 11,224 square kilometers (4,333 square miles) of forest disappeared in Brazil in 2007. Deforestation in the region is being driven by foreign markets’ conquests for timber, cash crops and beef, and unprecedented levels of pollution , according to the report, which used data from more than 150 experts in eight nearby countries. “Our Amazonia is changing at an accelerated rate with very profound modifications in its ecosystems,” the eight Amazonian countries declared in the GEO Amazonia report. The region today holds some 35 million people, nearly 65 percent of them in cities, including three with more than one million inhabitants, according to the AFP. The report recommended that Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela should take part in a coordinated effort for sustainable use of the iconic rainforest’s ecosystems. "If the loss of forests exceeds 30 percent of the vegetation cover, then rainfall levels will decrease," the report said. " This will produce a vicious circle that favors forest burning, reduces water vapor release and increases smoke emissions into the atmosphere."

Amazon deforestation is already devastating – its inevitable due to economic demands, infrastructure projects, and demographic pressures.Osava ‘9

Maria Osava. “Amazon Teetering on the Edge”. IPS News. February 26, 2009. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45898

The accumulated sum of deforested area, according to the report, was 857,666 square kilometres in 2005, equivalent to 17 percent of the entire Amazon jungle. The expansion of deforestation reached a 27,218 square kilometre annual average between 2000 and 2005. Deforestation already affects more than 18 percent of all Amazonia, and 15 percent of it takes place in Brazil, estimates Verissimo, who systematically monitors the phenomenon in his country. In his opinion, the outlook on the threats to biodiversity is also "conservative" because it is based on information that is already several years old. There are 26 already extinct species, 644 in critical danger, and 3,827 that are endangered or threatened, according to the report. But GEO Amazonia does play a positive role by pressing all countries to improve their ability to research and monitor the region, guiding the studies and establishing priorities, he said. Constant updating is essential. The report does not include, for example, the reduction of deforestation in Brazil last year, which contradicts a traditional correlation: when agricultural prices go up, more forest is razed for crops, noted Paulo Barreto, also of Imazon. In fact, deforestation in Brazil has been on the decline since before the outbreak of the current global economic crisis, when soybean and beef prices were still very high - factors traditionally behind the expansion of the farming frontier in the Amazon, he explained. The portrait painted in the report does not lead to much optimism. Beef cattle, one of the main causes of deforestation, jumped from 34.7 million head in 1994 to 73.7 million in 2006 in the Brazilian Amazon, and continue to expand quickly as well in the Bolivian and Colombian parts of the basin. Soy, lumber and mining, as well as major hydroelectric projects in Brazil and others carried out under the South American Regional Infrastructure Integration Initiative (IIRSA), which the Brazilian government has made a priority, are other economic pressures on the Amazon forest and biodiversity . And demographic pressure is evident in a population growing faster than the national average. The just over five million residents of the Amazon in 1970 have increased six-fold, reaching 33.5 million in 2007 - that is, 11 percent of the total population of the eight Amazon Basin countries.

Amazon is not the lungs of the earth – it is oxygen neutralHoward ‘2k

John Howard. July 2, 2000. Scoop Independent News. “A new kind of green-washing.”

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0007/S00005.htm

Another familiar claim of environmentalists is that the Amazon constitutes the "lungs of the earth." But according to Antonio Donato Nobre of the Institute for Research in Amazonia in Brazil, and other eco-scientists, the Amazon consumes as much oxygen as it produces and may actually be a net user of oxygen. " In fact, because trees fall down and decay, rainforests actually take in slightly more oxygen than they give out. It's only fast growing young trees that actually take-up carbon

dioxide." they say. The tropical rainforests are also basically irrelevant when it comes to regulating or influencing global weather. The oceans have a much greater impact, the scientists say.

Case Turns

Organochlorine Trun

1NCAquacultures Release OrganochlorinesClements 13 (Jeff Clements, PhD in marine invertebrate ecology. University of New Brunswick (UNB). “A Problematic Solution: The Negative Effects Of Aquaculture” Urban Times. http://urbantimes.co/2011/08/a-problematic-solution-the-negative-effects-of-aquaculture/. May 2013.)

Because of the material composition of the cages, many fish farms accrue high levels of heavy metals and toxins. For example, Hites et al. (2004) found high levels of organochlorine contaminants in salmon farms in Scotland, Norway, and eastern North America. They suggested that farmed fish from these areas should be consumed by humans no more than 3 – 6 times annually to avoid poisoning.

Organochlorines Cause Severe Health DefectsPANNA 12 (Pesticide Action Network North America, “ Case Study: Organochlorine,” Chemical Burden, http://www.chemicalbodyburden.org/cs_organochl.htm#organochlor4, October 28, 2012)

Organochlorines contribute to many acute and chronic illnesses. Symptoms of acute poisoning can include tremors, headache, dermal irritation, respiratory problems, dizziness, nausea, and seizures.¶

Organochlorines are also associated with many chronic diseases. Studies have found a correlation between organochlorine exposure and various types of cancer, neurological damage (several organochlorines are known neurotoxins), Parkinson's disease, birth defects, respiratory illness, and abnormal immune system function.¶ Many organochlorines are known or suspected hormone disruptors, and recent studies show that extremely low levels of exposure in the womb can cause irreversible damage to the reproductive and immune systems of the developing fetus.

Organochlorines badOrganochlorines Affect FetusesWeltman 95 (Eric Weltman, M.A. in Urban & Environmental Policy from Tufts University, “Generations: Reproductive & Developmental Effects of Organochlorines,“ Green Party USA. http://www.greens.org/s-r/078/07-04.html. Summer 1995.)

Organochlorines may also be a factor in decreased sperm count in humans. In 1977, male workers at an Occidental Chemical factory making the organochlorine pesticide dibromochloropropane (DBCP) noticed that none of their wives had had any children since the men had begun working with the chemical. Tests revealed that the majority of the men had zero or severely reduced sperm counts, but no other noticeable health effects. Men with low sperm counts have been found to have significantly higher concentrations of a number of organochlorines in their semen.

Organochlorines Affect FetusesWeltman 95 (Eric Weltman, M.A. in Urban & Environmental Policy from Tufts University, “Generations: Reproductive & Developmental Effects of Organochlorines,“ Green Party USA. http://www.greens.org/s-r/078/07-04.html. Summer 1995.)

Another study links organochlorines with developmental problems in human infants. The study followed women who, for at least six years preceding their pregnancy, ate 2 to 3 fish a month from Lake Michigan (which is heavily contaminated with organochlorines). Their offspring were found to have lower birth weight, smaller skull circumference and cognitive, motor, and behavioral deficits at birth compared with those whose mothers did not eat fish.

Salmon Turn

ShellAquaculture leads to irreversible loss in Salmon

Clements 13 (Jeff Clements, PhD in marine invertebrate ecology. University of New Brunswick (UNB). “A Problematic Solution: The Negative Effects Of Aquaculture” Urban Times. http://urbantimes.co/2011/08/a-problematic-solution-the-negative-effects-of-aquaculture/. May 2013.)

Additionally, most fish species that are bred in captivity are carnivores. For example, the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) is a carnivorous fish, meaning that it will only consume other fish and invertebrates. As such, when bred in captivity, the salmon are often fed ground-up fish or shrimp. Consequently, in order to sustain the 1 million tonnes of salmon that are produced annually via salmon aquaculture, many smaller species of fish and marine invertebrates are overfished. Although some farms have tried using fish and pig feed which is altered to taste like fish, this decreases the nutritional value of the salmon, particularly in Omega 3, and is rarely used in place of fish feed (Kadir-Alsagoff, 1990). This is purely inefficient and absurd; if we overfish the species that feed the farmed fish, we would not only be depleting natural fish stocks, but eventually we would deplete the farmed stocks as well, with no way to recover them.

Salmon are a Keystone Species Wilson 14 (Mary F. Willson Emeritus Professor of Wildlife Ecology Ph.D, “Anadromous fish as a keystone species in vertebrate communities.” Conservation Biology 9(3):489-497. http://www.wildsalmoncenter.org/about/whySalmon.php. May 2014.)

Salmon are the biological foundation, or keystone species, of coastal ecosystems and human economies. Salmon runs function as enormous pumps that push vast amounts of marine nutrients upstream to the headwaters of otherwise low productivity rivers. Salmon carcasses are the primary food for aquatic invertebrates and fish, as well as terrestrial fauna ranging from marine mammals to birds--eagles, ducks and songbirds--to terrestrial mammals, especially bears and humans.

Salmon Turn- UQSalmon are Going extinct now because of AquaculturesGuitierez 8 (David Guitierez, Writer for Natural News, “Wild Salmon to be Extinct in 10 Years,” Natural News. http://www.naturalnews.com/023491_salmon_wild_fish.html. June 28, 2008)

"The impact is so severe that the viability of the wild salmon populations is threatened," said lead researcher Martin Krkosek, from the University of Alberta. ¶ “The probability of extinction is 100 percent," Krkosek said, "and the only question is how long it is going to take." ¶ Researchers compared the population numbers of different groups of salmon between 1970 and the present, depending on whether they had been exposed to aquaculture salmon farms or not. Using a computer model of population change over time, the researchers were able to show that exposure to fish farms was causing population growth of wild salmon to be "severely depressed." ¶

1NC Dead zones Aquaculture waste create dead zones Smith 12

Turner, Law clerk Massachusetts Supreme, Judicial Court, J.D. Harvard Law School. “Greening the Blue Revolution: How History Can Inform a Sustainable Aquaculture Movement,” April 19, http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11938741

Although aquaculture became popular as a means of providing an alternative to environmentally harmful fishing practices, modern aquaculture practice itself causes substantial environmental problems, contributing to tragedies of both pollution and exploitation. This Section focuses primarily on the environmental degradation caused by modern aquaculture, though it is important to note that these environmental issues have significant effects on public health and economic welfare nationwide. As noted by the World Bank, “[t]he challenge of sustainable aquaculture is to contribute to national objectives for economic, development and food security while simultaneously addressing poverty reduction and environmental protection.”231 This Section demonstrates that effluent discharges from marine aquaculture facilities contribute to many environmental harms,232 including “[i]mpacts on water quality, the benthic layer, the native gene pool, other fisheries, and the ecosystem as a whole, as well as ¶ impacts from non- native species, disease, and chemicals.” 233 Moreover, paradoxically, aquaculture operations contribute to the tragedy of the commons by exploitation of wild fish stocks. ¶ First, aquaculture can, and should, be conceptualized as a cause of a tragedy of the commons by pollution. 234 The most salient environmental harm caused by aquaculture in open aquatic and marine environments is impaired water quality in areas surrounding aquaculture facilities. Impairment results from effluent of nutrients from aquaculture facilities, which causes sediment organic enrichment and algae blooms, which in turn result in dissolved oxygen depletion, called eutrophication or “dead zones.”235 This waste can accumulate quickly and cause hazardous conditions, “contaminating surrounding areas and preventing sustainable life.”236

1NC Antibiotic Resistance Antibiotic release cause antibiotic resistanceSmith 12

Turner, Law clerk Massachusetts Supreme, Judicial Court, J.D. Harvard Law School. “Greening the Blue Revolution: How History Can Inform a Sustainable Aquaculture Movement,” April 19, http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11938741

Moreover, aquaculture facilities discharge many potentially harmful hazardous and nonhazardous chemicals into the ocean, including pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, parasiticides, pigments, vitamins, minerals and anesthetics.237 The release of antibiotics into aquatic and marine environments is particularly worrisome. Antibiotics are used by aquaculture facilities to suppress disease and encourage rapid product growth.238 In the United States the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has approved five drugs for treating, but not preventing, fish diseases.239 The main risks of use of antibiotics in open aquaculture facilities is “related to their release in the environment,” which “could induce the contamination of aquatic organisms” and, most notably, contribute to the growing problem of antibiotic resistance .240 The chemical additives often used in fish farms to increase farm output and to keep cages clean, including chlorine, sodium hydroxide, iodophors, and calcium oxide, may also be disruptive to marine ecosystems.241 Of course, the severity of these effects depends on complex factors such as “the technique applied, site location, size of the production, capacity of the receiving body of water, and type of species raised,” but the impacts have been felt throughout U.S. coastal areas. 24

Post-antibiotic era on the brink—billions die Borland 14

Sophie, Doling out too many antibiotics 'will make even scratches deadly': WHO warns that crisis could be worse than Aids, April 30, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2616794/Antibiotic-resistance-needs-taken-seriously-AIDS-Implications-bacteria-evading-drugs-devastating-says-landmark-report.html#ixzz36idH7VEP

Deaths from cuts and grazes, diarrhoea and flu will soon be common as antibiotics lose their power to fight minor infections, experts have warned.¶ The World Health Organisation says the problem has been caused by antibiotics being so widely prescribed that bacteria have begun to evolve and develop resistance. ¶ It claims the crisis is worse than the Aids epidemic – which has caused 25million deaths worldwide – and threatens to turn the clock back on modern medicine. ¶ The WHO warns that the public should ‘anticipate many more deaths’ as it may become routine for children to develop lethal infections from minor grazes, while hospital operations become deadly as patients are at risk of developing infections that were previously treatable.¶ Doctors are increasingly finding that antibiotics no longer work against urinary and skin infections, tuberculosis and gonorrhoea. ¶ The WHO is urging the public to take simple precautions, such as washing hands to prevent bacteria from spreading in the first place.¶ Doctors are also being told to prescribe antibiotics sparingly and ensure patients finish the full course, as if they stop mid-way the bacteria may become resistant. In England last year some 41.7million prescriptions were written out, up from 37.2million in 2006.¶ Dr Keiji Fukuda, the WHO’s assistant director for health

security, said: ‘Without urgent, co-ordinated action, the world is headed for a post-antibiotic era , in which common infections and minor injuries which have been treatable for decades can once again kill. ¶ ‘Effective antibiotics have been one of the pillars allowing us to live longer, live healthier, and benefit from modern medicine.¶ ‘Unless we take significant actions to improve efforts to prevent infections, and also change how we produce, prescribe and use antibiotics, the world will lose more and more of these global public health goods and the implications will be devastating. ¶ ‘We should anticipate to see many more deaths.¶ ‘We are going to see people who have untreatable infections.’¶ Only last month, Britain’s chief medical officer Dame Sally Davies criticised GPs for needlessly ‘dishing out’ antibiotics to patients.¶ In the largest study of its kind, the WHO looked at data from 114 countries on seven major types of bacteria. Experts are particularly concerned about bacteria responsible for pneumonia, urinary tract infections, skin infections, diarrhoea and gonorrhoea.¶ They are also worried that antiviral medicines are becoming increasingly less effective against flu.¶ Dr Danilo Lo Fo Wong, a senior adviser at the WHO, said: ‘A child falling off their bike and developing a fatal infection would be a freak occurrence in the UK, but that is where we are heading.’¶ British experts likened the problem to the Aids epidemic of the 1980s. Professor Laura Piddock, who specialises in microbiology at the University of Birmingham, said: ‘The world needs to respond as it did to the Aids crisis. ¶ ‘We still need a better understanding of all aspects of resistance as well as new discovery, research and development of new antibiotics.’¶ The first antibiotic, penicillin, was developed by Sir Alexander Fleming in 1929. But their use has soared since the 1960s, and in 1998 the Government issued guidelines to doctors urging them to curb prescriptions. Nonetheless, surveys suggest they are still prescribed for 80 per cent of coughs, colds and sore throats.¶ Jennifer Cohn of the international medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières agreed with the WHO's assessment and confirmed the problem had spread to many corners of the world.¶ 'We see horrendous rates of antibiotic resistance wherever we look in our field operations, including children admitted to nutritional centres in Niger, and people in our surgical and trauma units in Syria,' she said.¶ Earlier this month, Government body NICE said that one in 16 patients are developing infections on NHS wards because of poor hygiene among staff.¶ NICE said 800 patients a day, the equivalent of 300,000 a year, are infected by a member of staff or by dirty equipment. It is estimated the infections cause 5,000 deaths annually and contribute to another 15,000.

Disad Links

Politics Links

Plan unpopularCommercial aquaculture unpopular- empirics prove Corbin 10 [John S. Corbin; Guest Editor and President at Aquaculture Planning and Advocacy LLC; “Sustainable U.S. Marine Aquaculture Expansion, a Necessity”; May/June 2010; Marine Technology Society Journal; Volume 44; Number 3; JW]

Leasing federal waters for commercial aquaculture has been a controversial subject in recent years, raising a variety of issues for discussion and consensus building among opponents and proponents . Among the most difficult to address has been the potential for negative environmental impacts of large- scale marine farming in the open ocean setting of the EEZ . The most frequently mentioned concerns by opponents include escapes of farmed species and mixing with wild populations, disease and parasite management and the potential for infection of wild populations , use of fishmeal as a major protein source in fish feeds impacting the source fisheries, and pollution potential and the need for standards for acceptable change in the quality of the water column and substrate in and around farms (Lubchenko, 2003; MATF, 2007). The research community and the industry have made significant efforts to study these recurring concerns and how they can be successfully managed. There have been documented positive reports of negligible environmental impacts from several multiyear offshore research and commercial marine farming projects in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and New Hampshire, with combined operating experience of over 20 years (Aquaculture Planning and Advocacy, 2009; Kona Blue Water Farms, 2009; Alston et al., 2005; Langan, 2007

Politics LinkJohns 2013 (Kristen L. [USC School of Law; B.S. Environmental Systems: Ecology, Behavior and Evolution, University of California San Diego]; Farm fishing holes: Gaps in federal regulation offshore aquaculture; 86 S. Cal. L. Rev. 681; kdf)

Despite being endorsed by many environmental organizations, the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture bill died in the 112th Congress and was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources, having received zero cosponsors. n218 The bill's failure may be due in part to the actions of the usual aquaculture opponents. Indeed, after the bill was first introduced in 2009, an organization of commercial fishermen sent a letter to the House of Representatives voicing its opposition, criticizing the bill for allowing "offshore aquaculture to be permitted in federal waters with limited safeguards and little or no accountability," n219 and urging the House to "develop legislation to stop federal efforts to rush growth of the offshore aquaculture industry." n220 Furthermore, NOAA has yet to publicly endorse [*721] or even issue a position on the bill. Agencies such as NOAA and other environmental organizations must soon come forward in loud support of the bill to see that it is reintroduced and successful in Congress. If they do not, the current lack of any comprehensive regulatory regime may very well sink the entire offshore aquaculture industry.

Congress doesn’t like offshore aquacultures due to lack of researchAssociated Press 07’, “New pitch to allow deep ocean fish farms”

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17581105/ns/us_news-environment/t/new-pitch-allow-deep-ocean-fish-farms/

Some marine experts say fish farming adds to overfishing because most farms involve carnivorous fish that are fed more fish protein than the farms produce. They say the farms release pesticides, antibiotics

and other chemicals, and cause genetic contamination of wild fish. “The growth of aquaculture is questionable, as we are using the wild fish to grind up to feed the farmed fish,” said Charles Clover, author of “The End Of The Line,” a book on overfishing. “It promotes overfishing for forage fish, and it’s putting the farmed fish out with the wild fish — you don’t really want the diseases to get into the wild population,” he said. The National Aquaculture Association says on its Web site that “legitimate concerns about aquaculture’s environmental impact are sometimes raised” but that fish farming has boomed because it is “environmentally compatible” and U.S. consumers like eating farmed seafood. In January, a report from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Pew Charitable Trusts recommended that Congress set up a permitting system for offshore aquaculture that includes environmental safeguards to protect fish species and water quality. An earlier administration plan won little support in Congress last year. Senate Democrats cited potential risks with pollution and genetic mixing of farmed and wild fish. Last month, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, proposed blocking aquaculture in federal waters until Congress can study how it might affect Alaska’s wild salmon, halibut, sablefish and crab.

Plan requires political capitalThe National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act requires political capitalWhite Richardson, 11 , “Fishing for a future, part 2 | Facing mounting costs and restricted access, Maine fishermen find new opportunities in a growing aquaculture industry,” http://www.mainebiz.biz/article/20100208/CURRENTEDITION/302089998/fishing-for-a-future-part-2-|-facing-mounting-costs-and-restricted-access-maine-fishermen-find-new-opportunities-in-a-growing-aquaculture-industry,

Stalled regulations hamper domestic growth Market conditions are ripe for an enhanced American aquaculture industry. The U.S. imports 81% of its seafood, creating a $9.4 billion trade deficit, the third largest behind oil and automobiles. In 2007, the U.S. aquaculture industry produced roughly 530,000 metric tons, placing it 14th in the world. Despite a 1980 National Aquaculture Act to encourage the growth of domestic

aquaculture, a federal regulatory framework to achieve that goal remains elusive. In late December, California Rep. Lois Capps introduced the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2009 to set up a regulatory framework for permitting offshore fish farms in federal waters, which extend from three miles to 200 miles off the coast. States like Maine have a process to permit fish farms in state waters, but as space becomes limited in near-shore areas, the industry is looking to the open

ocean for expansion. The bill, H.R. 4363, follows several failed attempts at a national law. The Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007, for example, never made it out of committee. Michael Rubino, manager of National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's aquaculture program, says it's not vehement opposition to the idea of

offshore aquaculture that keeps tying up the legislation, just a simple lack of time. "The main thing is Congress has a lot on its plate," Rubino

says. "It's tough to get any legislation passed." There's not much hope this current bill will fare any better than its predecessors. Both sides - the environmental lobby and the aquaculture industry - have problems with it, according to advocates for each.

Plan Popular The plan is popular- scientists and environmentalists will push itJohns 2013 (Kristen L. [USC School of Law; B.S. Environmental Systems: Ecology, Behavior and Evolution, University of California San Diego]; Farm fishing holes: Gaps in federal regulation offshore aquaculture; 86 S. Cal. L. Rev. 681; kdf)

Her prediction may not prove far off. Interestingly, the same group of environmentalists and fishing interests that had opposed the National Offshore Aquaculture bill voiced support for the National Sustainable OffshoreAquaculture bill. Arguing that the National Offshore Aquaculture Act was defective for not including statutory criteria or legally binding environmental standards, the opponents nonetheless agreed that "some

of these issues have been addressed in legislation enacted in California in 2006 (the Sustainable Oceans Act)." n203 Although the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act failed to pass in 2009, it was reintroduced in 2011 n204

just a month after NOAA issued the nation's first commercial fishing permit to Kona Blue. After its June 2011 reintroduction, the bill gained support from scientists and environmentalists : the Ocean Conservancy noted

that the Act "is an opportunity to protect the U.S. from the risks of poorly regulated open ocean aquaculture ." n205

K Links

Cap LinkThe aff is rooted in a capitalist epistemology- calling into question the narrative of the “Blue Revolution” and guaranteeing the destruction of oceanClark and Clausen 2008 (Brett [teaches sociology at North Carolina State University] and Rebecca [sociology at Fort Lewis College]; The oceanic crisis: capitalism and the degradation of marine ecosystem; monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-oceanic-crisis-capitalism-and-the-degradation-of-marine-ecosystem; kdf)

The immense problems associated with the overharvest of industrial capture fisheries has led some optimistically to offer aquaculture as an ecological solution. However, capitalist aquaculture fails to reverse the process of ecological degradation. Rather, it continues to sever the social and ecological relations between humans and the ocean. Aquaculture: The Blue Revolution? The massive decline in fish stocks has led capitalist

development to turn to a new way of increasing profits—intensified production of fishes. Capitalist aquaculture represents not only a quantitative change in the intensification and concentration of production; it also places organisms’ life cycles under the complete control of private for-profit ownership .31 This new industry, it is claimed, is “the fastest-growing form of agriculture in the world.” It boasts of having ownership from “egg to plate” and substantially alters the

ecological and human dimensions of a fishery.32 Aquaculture (sometimes also referred to as aquabusiness) involves subjecting nature to the logic of capital. Capital attempts to overcome natural and social barriers through its constant innovations. In this, enterprises attempt to commodify, invest in, and develop new elements of nature that previously existed outside the political-economic competitive sphere: As Edward Carr wrote in the Economist, the sea “is a resource that must be preserved and harvested….To enhance its uses, the water must become ever more like the land, with owners, laws and limits. Fishermen must behave more like ranchers than hunters.”33 As worldwide commercial fish stocks decline due to overharvest and other anthropogenic causes, aquaculture is witnessing a rapid expansion in the global economy. Aquaculture’s contribution to global supplies of fish increased from 3.9 percent of total worldwide production by weight in 1970 to 27.3 percent in 2000. In 2004, aquaculture and capture fisheries produced 106 million tons of fish and “aquaculture accounted for 43 percent.”34 According to Food and Agriculture Organization statistics, aquaculture is growing more rapidly

than all other animal food producing sectors. Hailed as the “Blue Revolution,” aquaculture is frequently compared to agriculture’s Green Revolution as a way to achieve food security and economic growth among the poor and in the third world. The cultivation of farmed salmon as a high-value, carnivorous species destined for market in core nations has emerged as one

of the more lucrative (and controversial) endeavors in aquaculture production.35 Much like the Green Revolution, the Blue Revolution may produce temporary increases in yields, but it does not usher in a solution to food security (or

environmental problems). Food security is tied to issues of distribution. Given that the Blue Revolution is driven by the pursuit of profit, the desire for monetary gain trumps the distribution of food to those in need.36 Industrial aquaculture intensifies fish production by

transforming the natural life histories of wild fish stocks into a combined animal feedlot. Like monoculture agriculture, aquaculture furthers the capitalistic division of nature, only its realm of operation is the marine world. In order to

maximize return on investment, aquaculture must raise thousands of fish in a confined net-pen. Fish are separated from the natural environment and the various relations of exchange found in a food web and ecosystem. The fish’s reproductive life cycle is altered so that it can be propagated and raised until the optimum time for mechanical

harvest. Aquaculture interrupts the most fundamental metabolic process—the ability of an organism to obtain its required nutrient uptake. Because the most profitable farmed fish are carnivorous, such as Atlantic salmon, they depend on a diet that is high in fishmeal and fish oil. For example, raising Atlantic salmon requires four pounds of fishmeal to produce every one pound of salmon. Consequently, aquaculture production depends heavily on fishmeal imported from South America to

feed the farmed carnivorous species.37 The inherent contradiction in extracting fishmeal is that industries must increase their exploitation of marine fish in order to feed the farm-raised fish—thereby increasing the pressure on wild stocks to an even larger extent. Such operations also increase the amount of bycatch. Three of the world’s five largest fisheries are now exclusively harvesting pelagic fish for fishmeal, and these fisheries account for a quarter of the total global catch. Rather than diminishing the demands placed on marine ecosystems, capitalist aquaculture actually increases them, accelerating the fishing down the food chain process. The environmental degradation of populations of marine species, ecosystems, and tropic levels continues.38

Capitalist aquaculture—which is really aquabusiness—represents a parallel example of capital following the patterns of agribusiness. Similar to combined animal feedlots, farmed fish are penned up in high-density cages making them susceptible to disease. Thus, like in the production of beef, pork, and chicken, farmed fish are fed fishmeal that contains antibiotics, increasing concerns about antibiotic exposure in society. In “Silent Spring of the Sea,” Don Staniford explains, “The use of antibiotics in salmon farming has been prevalent right from the beginning, and their use in aquaculture globally has grown to such an extent that resistance is now threatening human health as well as other marine species.” Aquaculturists use a variety of chemicals to kill parasites, such as sea lice, and diseases that spread quickly throughout the pens. The dangers and toxicities of these pesticides in the marine environment

are magnified because of the long food chain.39 Once subsumed into the capitalist process, life cycles of animals are increasingly geared to economic cycles of exchange by decreasing the amount of time required for growth. Aquabusiness conforms to these pressures, as researchers are attempting to shorten the growth time required for fish to reach market size. Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) has been added to some fish feeds to stimulate growth in fishes in aquaculture farms in Hawaii. Experiments with fish transgenics—the transfer of DNA from one species to another—are being done to increase the rate of weight gain, causing altered fish to grow from 60 percent to 600 percent larger than wild stocks.40 These growth mechanisms illustrate capitalist

aquaculture’s drive to transform nature to facilitate the generation of profit. In addition, aquaculture alters waste assimilation.

The introduction of net-pens leads to a break in the natural assimilation of waste in the marine environment. The pens convert coastal ecosystems, such as bays, inlets, and fjords, into aquaculture ponds, destroying nursery areas that support ocean fisheries. For instance, salmon net-pens allow fish feces and uneaten feed to flow directly into coastal waters, resulting in substantial discharges of nutrients. The excess nutrients are toxic to the marine communities that occupy the ocean floor beneath the net-

pens, causing massive die offs of entire benthic populations.41 Other waste products are concentrated around net-pens as well, such as diseases and parasites introduced by the caged salmon to the surrounding marine organisms. The Blue Revolution is not an environmental solution to declining fish stocks. In fact, it is an intensification of the social metabolic order that creates ruptures in marine ecosystems. “The coastal and marine support areas needed for resource inputs and waste

assimilation [is]…50,000 times the cultivation area for intensive salmon cage farming.”42 This form of aquaculture places even more demands upon ecosystems, undermining their resiliency. Although aquabusiness is efficient at turning fish into a commodity for markets given the extensive control that is executed over the productive conditions, it is even more energy inefficient than fisheries, demanding more fuel energy investment than the energy produced.43 Confronted by declines in fish stock, capital is attempting to shift production to aquaculture. However, this intense form of production for profit continues to exhaust the oceans and produce a concentration of waste that causes further problems for ecosystems, undermining their ability to regenerate at all levels.

The aff is driven solely through a profit motiveVolpe 2014 (John [Assistant Professor of Invasion and Fisheries Biology at the University of Alberta]; Offshore Aquaculture; www.pbs.org/emptyoceans/fts/offshore/viewpoints.html; kdf)

The economies of scale that are being talked about in the offshore industry is about generating profit, not about generating food. This is the leading edge of a privatization that has a much broader horizon. With just aquaculture, we're looking at tapping the common resources in the ocean itself. The future plans are very worrying . The individual states along the West Coast particularly have run across very strident oppositions with the coastal aquaculture model. So the motivation now on the part of the federal government is to remove the jurisdiction from the states, off shore and in the economic exclusion zone. We're moving coastal or state input in the decisions. We're taking a very flawed model that is essentially a net loss of protein production

and then amplifying that model hundreds, perhaps thousands of times. This is really a money grab and is the leading edge of the privatization of the offshore environment, the last common, truly common environment left on this earth – the privatization of the ocean. Aquaculture is the way of the future and there's definitely room for aquaculture on this coast. What there is not room for is this simple Wild West, money grubbing, economic bottom-line-only model. We need to produce food, not profit.