aquaculture negative - static.squarespace.comstatic.squarespace.com/static... · expand offshore...

GFCA Novice Packet 2014‐2015 Aquaculture Negative

Aquaculture Negative

Aquaculture Negative ............................................................................................................................................................. 1

Explanation ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2

Debating the Aquaculture Affirmative ............................................................................................................................ 2

Food Insecurity Advantage ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

*** 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................................... 5

1NC — Food Insecurity Advantage ................................................................................................................................. 5

*** 2NC/1NR ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Extend: “Alternate Causality” ......................................................................................................................................... 8

Extend: “Status Quo Solves” ......................................................................................................................................... 10

Extend: “Overfishing Turn” ........................................................................................................................................... 11

Economy Advantage ............................................................................................................................................................. 12

*** 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................................. 13

1NC — Economy Advantage ......................................................................................................................................... 13

*** 2NC/1NR ..................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Extend: “Seafood Trade Not Key To Economy” ............................................................................................................ 16

Extend: “Economic Decline doesn’t cause war” ........................................................................................................... 17

Extend: “Economy Resilient” ........................................................................................................................................ 18

Solvency ................................................................................................................................................................................ 19

*** 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................................. 20

1NC — Solvency ............................................................................................................................................................ 20

*** 2NC/1NR ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21

Extend: “Commercialization” ........................................................................................................................................ 21

Extend: “Regulations Not Key” ..................................................................................................................................... 23


Explanation Debating the Aquaculture Affirmative

Affirmative Description: The affirmative creates a national regulatory framework for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to

expand offshore aquaculture development into the United States’ Exclusive economic Zone. The framework would

entail a variety of specific steps including environmental regulations, pollution control, research and other management

strategies.

Affirmative Advantages: The affirmative claims two advantages.

1. Food Insecurity – The affirmative argues that food shortages are happening globally now and current

aquaculture development is limited. Specifically, food shortages happening globally creates two impacts – first,

food wars will end with nuclear weapons being used, and second, climate change is decreased because of more

fish being produced as food.

2. Economy – The affirmative argues that our seafood trade deficit is rising because we are dependent on foreign

sources for seafood. The seafood industry is a vital part of the United States economy and without investing in

it, economic decline is inevitable.

Negative Answers to Food Insecurity Advantage:

The negative can introduce a variety of arguments against the Food Insecurity advantage. First, the negative argues that

other issues like agriculture, natural disasters and other things affect food security besides aquaculture. Second, they

argue that current intiatives are already solving the food insecurity issue. Finally, the negative can argue that

aquaculture actually makes overfishing worse, therefore causing the affirmative impacts.

Negative Answers to Economy Advantage:

The negative can introduce a variety of arguments against the Economy advantage. First, the negative argues that the

seafood industry has already past it’s breaking point, meaning that the impacts should have already occurred. Second,

the trade deficit is not a vital part of the US economy. Finally, the idea of economic decline is flawed and that it does not

in fact lead to war, and that the economy is resilient.

Negative Answers to Solvency:

The negative argues that the plan cannot create a commercialized industry because of too many obstacles. Second, the

negative argues that regulations the affirmative creates are not needed for the affirmative to take place.

Key Terms:

Aquaculture – The FAO has defined aquaculture as “the farming of aquatic organisms, including fish, mollusks,

crustaceans and aquatic plants. Farming implies some form of intervention in the rearing process to enhance production

as well as ownership of the stock being cultivated” (FAO 2000).

GFCA Novice Packet 2014‐2015 Aquaculture Negative EEZ – The U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extends no more than 200 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline

and is adjacent to the 12 nautical mile territorial sea of the U.S., including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam,

American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or

possession over which the United States exercises sovereignty. Within the EEZ, the U.S. has: Sovereign rights for the

purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources, whether living and nonliving, of the seabed

and subsoil and the superjacent waters and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration

of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds; Jurisdiction as provided for in

international and domestic laws with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations, and

structures, marine scientific research, and the protection and preservation of the marine environment; and Other rights

and duties provided for under international and domestic laws

NOAA ‐ a US federal agency that deals with issues surrounding the oceans and atmosphere.

Mariculture ‐ a specialized branch of aquaculture involving the cultivation of marine organisms for food and other

products in the open ocean, an enclosed section of the ocean, or in tanks, ponds or raceways which are filled

with seawater


Food Insecurity Advantage


*** 1NC 1NC — Food Insecurity Advantage

1. Other issues undermine food security — lack of investment in agriculture, natural disasters,

displacement, and food wastage

WFP ’14 [World Food Programme is the world's largest humanitarian agency fighting hunger, as well as the United Nations frontline agency. “Hunger: What

Causes Hunger?”. 2014. http://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes]

The world produces enough to feed the entire global population of 7 billion people. And yet, one person in eight on the planet goes to bed hungry each night. In some

countries, one child in three is underweight. Why does hunger exist? There are many reasons for the presence of hunger in the world and they are often

interconnected. Here are six that we think are important. Poverty trap People living in poverty cannot afford nutritious food for themselves and their families. This

makes them weaker and less able to earn the money that would help them escape poverty and hunger. This is not just a day‐to‐day problem: when children are

chronically malnourished, or ‘stunted’, it can affect their future income, condemning them to a life of poverty and hunger. In developing countries, farmers often

cannot afford seeds, so they cannot plant the crops that would provide for their families. They may have to cultivate crops without the tools and fertilizers they need.

Others have no land or water or education. In short, the poor are hungry and their hunger traps them in poverty. Lack of investment in agriculture.

Too many developing countries lack key agricultural infrastructure, such as enough roads, warehouses and irrigation. The results are

high transport costs, lack of storage facilities and unreliable water supplies. All conspire to limit agricultural yields and

access to food. Investments in improving land management, using water more efficiently and making more resistant seed types available can bring big

improvements. Research by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization shows that investment in agriculture is five

times more effective in reducing poverty and hunger than investment in any other sector. Climate and

weather. Natural disasters such as floods, tropical storms and long periods of drought are on the increase ‐‐ with

calamitous consequences for the hungry poor in developing countries. Drought is one of the most common causes of

food shortages in the world. In 2011, recurrent drought caused crop failures and heavy livestock losses in parts of Ethiopia,

Somalia and Kenya. In 2012 there was a similar situation in the Sahel region of West Africa. In many countries, climate change is exacerbating

already adverse natural conditions. Increasingly, the world's fertile farmland is under threat from erosion, salination

and desertification. Deforestation by human hands accelerates the erosion of land which could be used for growing

food. War and displacement. Across the globe, conflicts consistently disrupt farming and food production. Fighting also

forces millions of people to flee their homes, leading to hunger emergencies as the displaced find themselves without the means to feed

themselves. The conflict in Syria is a recent example. In war, food sometimes becomes a weapon. Soldiers will starve

opponents into submission by seizing or destroying food and livestock and systematically wrecking local markets.

Fields are often mined and water wells contaminated, forcing farmers to abandon their land. Ongoing conflict in Somalia and

the Democratic Republic of Congo has contributed significantly to the level of hunger in the two countries. By comparison, hunger is on the retreat in more peaceful

parts of Africa such as Ghana and Rwanda. Unstable markets. In recent years, the price of food products has been very unstable.

Roller‐coaster food prices make it difficult for the poorest people to access nutritious food consistently. The poor need

access to adequate food all year round. Price spikes may temporarily put food out of reach, which can have lasting consequences

for small children. When prices rise, consumers often shift to cheaper, less‐nutritious foods, heightening the risks of

micronutrient deficiencies and other forms of malnutrition. Food wastage. One third of all food produced (1.3 billion tons)

is never consumed. This food wastage represents a missed opportunity to improve global food security in a world where

one in 8 is hungry. Producing this food also uses up precious natural resources that we need to feed the planet. Each year,

food that is produced but not eaten guzzles up a volume of water equivalent to the annual flow of Russia's Volga River. Producing

this food also adds 3.3 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, with consequences for the climate and,

ultimately, for food production.


2. Status quo solves – other countries like Indonesia have already created sustainable aquaculture

The Fish Site, 6/27/14 ( Indonesia – TheFishSite Business Directory is a growing international database of those companies who support the global fish industry. “Indonesia Plots Master Plan for Aquaculture Development” ‐

http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/23509/indonesia‐plots‐master‐plan‐for‐aquaculture‐development)

INDONESIA ‐ The development of fish farming in Indonesia is increasingly playing an important role in the world's fishing

industry¶ Because aquaculture production supplies about 45 per cent of fishery products consumed worldwide and the rapid global demand for fishery products

continues to grow, while the supply through traditional sources is stagnant, the Indonesian government said it is continuing in its efforts to

promote the sustainability of the supply and demand of fishery products in the future through the development of

environmentally friendly and sustainable cultivation technology.¶ Secretary General of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Sjarief

Widjaja speaking in Jakarta, said that in addition to the technology development, the government is inviting stakeholders to participate

actively in fishing and collaborate to construct a fisheries policy that contribute to build a secure supply of fishery products in a sustainable

manner.¶ "Therefore, the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries has called on WorldFish, an international non‐profit

organization in Asia, to put together a master plan for national aquaculture by 2020, through the Future Indonesian Aquaculture research projects that will be implemented over 18 months", said Sjarief.¶ Sjarief said, Indonesia Aquaculture Futures is a collaborative project between the Ministry

of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and WorldFish that will provide a great opportunity to comprehensively seek to increase the value of consumption and production

of the fishery sector.¶ The project is expected to develop scenarios of supply and demand for fishery products for the future, and to build an

understanding of the opportunities and challenges to foster sustainable aquaculture in Indonesia.¶ "The results of this

project is important to us and will be constructive as additional input and continuous efforts in ensuring sustainable growth of aquaculture

development as well as production and consumption of fishery products in Indonesia", said Sjarief.¶ Sjarief added, according to a report from the

World Bank and FAO, in 2030 it is estimated that almost two‐thirds of the consumption of fishery products in all over the

world will come from aquaculture.¶ The Asian region including South Asia, South East Asia, China and Japan are projected to make up

70 per cent of the global fish demand.

3. Aquaculture causes more overfishing to feed farmed fish

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]

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¶


4. And that turns the advantage – overfishing causes food insecurity

Nellemann‐ UNEP‐ ‘8, C, In Dead Water – Merging of climate change with pollution, over‐harvest, and infestations in

the world’s fishing grounds. United Nations Environment Programme

The World’s oceans provide one of the largest (not domesticated) food reserves on the planet. Overall, seafood provided more than 2.6 billion

people with at least 20 per cent of their average per capita animal protein intake (FAO, 2006). Capture fisheries and aquaculture supplied the world with about 106 million tonnes of food fish

in 2004, providing an apparent per capita supply of 16.6 kg (live weight equivalent), which is the highest on record (FAO, 2006). Capture fishery production has, however, remained static,

and it is only the rise in aquaculture, now accounting for 43% of the total consumption, that enabled this increase (FAO, 2006). Worldwide, aquaculture has grown at an average rate of 8.8

per cent per year since 1970, compared with only 1.2 per cent for capture fisheries in the same period. Despite fishing capacity now exceeding current harvest four‐fold, marine capture has

declined or remained level since 2000, reflecting over‐harvest in many regions (Hilborn et al., 2003; FAO, 2006). A major reason why the decline has not become more evident is likely

because of advances in fishing efficiency, shift to previously discarded or avoided fish, and the fact that the fishing fleet is increasingly fishing in deeper waters. The overall decrease in

landings is mostly related to declines in fishing zones in the Southeast and Northwest Pacific oceans (FAO, 2006). In addition, the living resources in the World’s oceans, including those so

essential to mankind, are not randomly or evenly distributed. They are largely concentrated in small regions/areas and hotspots, of which continental shelves and seamounts – under‐water

mountains – play a crucial role. The safety of the World’s oceans as a food source for future generations is however insecure. Over the

last decades, there has been continuing exploitation and depletion of fisheries stocks. Undeveloped fish reserves have

disappeared altogether since the mid‐1980s. During the last decades, there has been a continued decline in fish

resources in the ‘developing’ phase, and an increase of those in the depleted or over‐exploited phase. This trend is somewhat

offset by the emergence of resources in the ‘recovering’ phase (Mullon et al., 2005; FAO, 2006; Daskalov et al., 2007). There is little evidence of rapid recovery in

heavily harvested fish populations, except, perhaps herring and similar fish that mature early in life. An investigation of over 90 different heavily harvested stocks have

shown little, if any, recovery 15 years after 45–99% reduction in biomass (Hutchings, 2000). This is particularly true as most catch reductions are

introduced far too late (Shertzer et al., 2007). Indeed, marine extinctions may be significantly underrated (Casey and Meyers, 1998; Edgar et al.,

2005). More importantly in this context is not the direct global extinction of species, but the regional or local extinctions as abundance

declines. Local and regional extinctions are far more common than global extinctions, particularly in a dynamic environment like the oceans.


*** 2NC/1NR Extend: “Alternate Causality”

Alt causes ‐ climate change

CFS 2/27/14 (Center for Food Safety is a non‐profit organization working to advocate environmental reform to

advance human health through regulating harmful food production and promoting sustainable organic agriculture,

“New Report Connects Climate Change & Food Insecurity” – February 27, 2014 –

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press‐releases/2948/new‐report‐connects‐climate‐change‐and‐food‐insecurity)

Underscores Organic Agriculture's Climate Resilience Food security requires a stable climate and, according to a new report released today by Center

for Food Safety’s Cool Foods Campaign, this security is being jeopardized by climate change. The report, “Food and Climate: Connecting the Dots,

Choosing the Way Forward,” outlines the climate requirements for successful food production, and examines two competing food production methods – industrial

and organic – to reveal how they contribute to the climate problem, how resilient they are in the face of escalating climate shocks, and how organic agriculture can

actually help to solve the climate crisis. “It isn’t widely discussed, but the industrialization of our food supply is a major driver of global climate change, and, ironically,

this is undermining our future ability to produce an adequate supply of food” said Cool Foods Campaign director Diana Donlon. “In fact, taken in the aggregate, the

global food system is responsible for approximately half of all greenhouse gases.” Droughts and heat waves in 2012 in the U.S. alone affected

approximately 80 percent of agricultural land, causing an estimated $30 billion in damages. Already in 2014, California,

which produces nearly half the nation’s fruits and vegetables, is experiencing the worst drought in its 153 year history. In

the report, Center for Food Safety examines how industrial agriculture – the dominant method of food production in the U.S. –

externalizes many social and environmental costs while relying heavily on fossil fuels. Organic farming, by comparison,

requires half as much energy, contributes far fewer greenhouse gasses, and, perhaps most surprisingly, is more resilient

in the face of climate disruption. “While our current climate trajectory is daunting, a future defined by food insecurity

and climate chaos is not inevitable. We can still alter our course. Regenerative, organic agriculture has tremendous,

untapped potential to strengthen food security while adapting to climate uncertainties and even helping to mitigate

them,” said Donlon.


Many causes of food insecurity – aff can’t solve because there are too many factors such as climate

change, corruption, diseases, and population growth

Harvest Help ’12 (Harvest Help is a website designed to detail food crises, international response, causes of food insecurity, and ways to aid in these problems, specifically in Africa and third‐world countries. “Causes of Food Insecurity

in African and Other Third World Countries” – 2012 – http://www.harvesthelp.org.uk/causes‐of‐food‐insecurity‐in‐

african‐and‐other‐third‐world‐countries.html)

The majority of the severest food crises after the second half of the 20th century were caused by a combination of several

factors. The most common causes of food insecurity in African and other Third World countries were: Drought and other

extreme weather events. The comparison of the severest food crises in the later history reveals that all were preceded by drought or other extreme weather

events. They resulted in poor or failed harvests which in turn resulted food scarcity and high prices of the available food. Pests, livestock diseases and other

agricultural problems. In addition to extreme weather events, many failed harvests in African and other Third World countries were also caused by pests such

as desert locusts. Cattle diseases and other agricultural problems such as erosion, soil infertility, etc. also play a role in food insecurity. Climate change. Some

experts suggest, that drought and extreme weather in regions affected by food crises in the recent decades could be a result of climate change, especially in the West

and East Africa which have problems with recurrent extreme droughts. Military conflicts. Wars and military conflicts worsen food insecurity in African and other

Third World countries. They may not be directly responsible for food crises but they exacerbate scarcity of food and often prevent the aid workers from reaching the

most affected people. Lack of emergency plans. History of the severest food crises shows that many countries were completely unprepared for a crisis and

unable to resolve the situation without international aid. Corruption and political instability. In spite of criticism lately, the international community has

always send help in the form of food supplies and other means which saved millions of lives in the affected regions. However, the international aid often did not

reach the most vulnerable populations due to a high level of corruption and political instability in many Third World countries. Cash crops dependence. Many

African and Third World governments encourage production of the so‐called cash crops, the income from which is used to import food. As a result, countries which

depend on cash crops are at high risk of food crisis because they do not produce enough food to feed the population. AIDS. The disease which is a serious public

health concern in the sub‐Saharan Africa worsens food insecurity in two ways. Firstly, it reduces the available workforce in agriculture and secondly, it puts an

additional burden on poor households. Rapid population growth. Poor African and Third World countries have the highest growth rate in the world which

puts them at increased risk of food crises. For example, the population of Niger increased from 2.5 million to 15 million from 1950 to 2010. According to some

estimations, Africa will produce enough food for only about a quarter population by 2025 if the current growth rate will continue.


Extend: “Status Quo Solves”

Obama already pushing to strengthen food security

Tullo, 14 , Michelle Tullo is a veteran journalist with Inter Press Service (IPS) News Agency. “US turns attention to

ocean conservation, food security” (http://businessmirror.com.ph/index.php/en/features/green/34162‐u‐s‐turns‐

attention‐to‐ocean‐conservation‐food‐security)

A first‐time US‐hosted summit on protecting the oceans has resulted in pledges worth some $800 million to be used for

conservation efforts.¶ During the summit, held here in Washington, the administration of President Barack Obama

pledged to massively expand US‐protected parts of the southern Pacific Ocean.¶ In an effort to strengthen global food

security, the president has also announced a major push against illegal fishing and to create a national strategic plan for

aquaculture.¶ “If we drain our resources, we won’t just be squandering one of humanity’s greatest treasures, we’ll be cutting off one of the world’s leading

sources of food and economic growth, including for the United States,” President Obama said via video on Tuesday morning.¶ The “Our Ocean” conference, held on

Monday and Tuesday at the US State Department, brought together ministers, heads of state, as well as civil society and private sector representatives from almost

90 countries.¶ The summit, hosted by Secretary of State John Kerry, focused on overfishing, pollution and ocean

acidification, all of which threaten global food security.¶ In his opening remarks, Kerry noted that ocean conservation

constitutes a “great necessity” for food security.¶ “More than 3 billion people, 50 percent of the people on this planet, in every corner of the world

depend on fish as a significant source of protein,” he said.¶ Proponents hope that many of the solutions being used by US scientists, policymakers and fishermen

could serve to help international communities.¶ “There is increasing demand for seafood with diminished supply…. We need to find ways to make

seafood sustainable to rich and poor countries alike,” Danielle Nierenberg, the president of FoodTank, a Washington

think tank, told IPS.¶ “For instance, oyster harvesters in the Gambia have really depleted the oyster population, but a US‐sponsored project has been able to

re‐establish the oyster beds—by leaving them alone for a while. The same strategy—to step back a bit—worked with lobster fishers in New England.”¶ Nierenberg

predicted that with diminishing wild fish, the future of seafood would be in aquaculture.¶ “What aquaculture projects need to do now is learn from the mistakes

made from crop and livestock agriculture,” she said. “It doesn’t always work—for instance, maize and soybeans create opportunities for pest and disease.

Overcrowding animals creates manure.”


Extend: “Overfishing Turn”

Aquaculture won’t solve overfishing

Pauly, 9 ‐‐‐ professor at the Fisheries Centre of the University of British Columbia (9/28/2009, Daniel, “Aquacalypse

Now,” http://www.newrepublic.com/article/environment‐energy/aquacalypse‐now,)

Some Pollyannas believe that aquaculture, or fish farming, can ensure the health of stocks without government action‐‐a notion supposedly buttressed by FAO statistics showing such rapid growth in aquaculture that more than 40 percent of all “seafood” consumed now comes from farms. The

problem with this argument is that China reports about 68 percent of the world’s aquaculture production, and the FAO, which has been burned by inflated Chinese

statistics before, expresses doubt about its stated production and growth rates. Outside of China‐‐where most farmed fish are freshwater vegetarians, such as

carp‐‐aquaculture produces predominately carnivorous marine fish, like salmon, which are fed not only vegetal

ingredients, but also fishmeal and fish oil, which are obtained by grinding up herring, mackerel, and sardines caught by “reduction fisheries.”

Carnivore farming, which requires three to four pounds of smaller fish to produce one pound of a larger one, thus robs

Peter to pay Paul. Aquaculture in the West produces a luxury product in global terms. To expect aquaculture to ensure

that fish remain available‐‐or, at least, to expect carnivore farming to solve the problem posed by diminishing catches

from fisheries‐‐would be akin to expecting that Enzo Ferrari’s cars can solve gridlock in Los Angeles.

Aquaculture undermines small scale aquaculture and traditional fishers and increases

unemployment in developing countries

Food and Water Watch, 10 (June 2010, “Expansion of Factory Fish Farms in the Ocean May Lead to Food Insecurity

in Developing Countries,” http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/FeedInsecurity.pdf, )

Factory Fish Farming Threatens Livelihoods

Larger corporations are increasingly automating the operations at their aquaculture sites, reducing labor needs and

boosting profits.12 This trend threatens small‐scale aquaculture, which has traditionally been a successful way for

people in developing countries to improve their standard of living.13 Unfortunately, large factory fish farms are unlikely

to create a significant number of valuable, local jobs. For instance, in Norway, farmed salmon production doubled in a

six‐year period while employment decreased by four percent.14 Furthermore, flooding the market with farmed fish

drives down the price of wild fish, threatening the livelihoods of traditional fishermen.15 Fishermen and women who

are willing to switch to aquaculture face obstacles such as skill transfer issues, lack of employment opportunity and

safety issues.16 In Hawaii, four safety‐related lawsuits are pending against a single aquaculture company.17 It may be

much more difficult for injured employees to seek retribution in developing countries that have fewer regulations in

place to protect laborers.


Economy Advantage


*** 1NC 1NC — Economy Advantage

1. The seafood deficit is exaggerated by government

Food and Water Watch, March 2008, Food & Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer organization that works to

ensure clean water and safe food, Washington, DC,

http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/FishStoryMarch08.pdf (ZD)

The federal government has created a false sense of urgency in its campaign for offshore aquaculture legislation.

Consumers in the United States would be better served through: (1) a program to keep U.S. seafood in the United

States, and¶ (2) seafood safety legislation, including an increase in imported seafood inspections, as well as U.S.

inspection of foreign¶ seafood production and processing facilities.¶ *¶ The statistics used in this report are based on 2006 data, which, at the time of publication of this report, are the most current avail¶ ‐¶ able in synthesized form from the NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology. The most up‐

to‐date statistics on U.S. aquaculture¶ production are taken from the USDA 2005 census.¶ †¶ Except off the coasts of Texas and West Florida, where state waters

extend out to about nine miles from shore.¶ iv¶ Findings¶ Only 19 percent (round weight¶ •¶ ‡¶ ) of the seafood available to U.S. consumers is from this country

because the U.S. ex¶ ‐¶ ports 71 percent (round weight) of U.S.‐produced seafood.¶ If we did not export U.S.‐caught and farmed seafood, 66

percent (round weight) of the seafood available to U.S. consumers would be from the United States.¶ About 17 percent of the seafood available to U.S. consumers is from China and about 12 percent is from Thailand.¶ •¶ We export 20 percent of U.S.‐caught seafood to Europe and 13 percent

to Japan where seafood safety standards are¶ •¶ high.¶ We export 69 percent of U.S.‐caught salmon. Only 20 percent of the salmon

available to U.S. consumers is from the¶ •¶ United States, while about 36 percent is farmed salmon from Chile, where

food safety and labor standards are questionable.¶ We export 12 percent of U.S.‐caught seafood to China, the world’s center of seafood processing

for re‐export back to¶ •¶ the United States.¶ Nearly 15 percent of U.S. wild salmon is shipped to China, where it is processed and shipped back to the United States.¶

•¶ We export about 45,000 metric tons, round weight, of unprocessed wild salmon to China. We then import close to¶ 52,000 metric tons, round weight, of

processed salmon back from China.¶ We ship 12 percent of U.S. cod to China where it is processed and then sent back to the United States.

2. Seafood trade deficit doesn’t undermine the economy

Kite‐Powell, 11 ‐‐‐ aquaculture policy specialist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (9/21/2011, Hauke,

interview by Kate Madin, “Where Will We Get Our Seafood? Unlike the rest of the world, the U.S. has not embraced

aquaculture,” http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/where‐will‐we‐get‐our‐seafood)

What conclusions did you reach about the U.S. seafood trade deficit? Kite‐Powell: Two key facts were highlighted in the colloquium discussions. First, the U.S.

seafood trade deficit is important to the seafood industry, but it's not a big contributor to our national trade picture—it's swamped

by our trade in petroleum and manufactured goods. So eliminating the seafood trade deficit is not going to make a

noticeable dent in our nation’s overall trade situation. And second, trade in seafood is not necessarily a bad thing. If there

are other countries that can produce high‐quality seafood much more efficiently than we can, it makes sense for us to

buy it from them. There are species that we may not want to grow in large quantities in the U.S.—possibly shrimp, which comprises a big chunk of our seafood

trade deficit. Shrimp are farmed most efficiently in coastal ponds, and we don't have a lot of spare coastal real estate for ponds in the U.S. So it may not make sense

to try to become self‐sufficient in shrimp.


3. The status quo solves — fish imports are decreasing and supplies are increasing

Kirkley, J.E., NOAA, 2008, “International Trade in Seaf¶ ood and Related Products:¶ An Assessment of U.S. Trade

Patterns,”

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/PartnershipsCommunications/tradecommercial/documents/usinternationaltradereport

_draft_August_4.pdf

There is an emerging trend, however, of dec¶ lining supplies of fore¶ ign imports. In 2007,¶ the U.S. imported less shrimp than in

2006; shrimp imports dropped from $4.1 billion to¶ $3.8 billion. The total value¶ of imports of all products,¶ however, was

marginally down¶ relative to the value of imports in¶ 2006—from $13.4 billion in¶ 2006 to $13.45 billion¶ (2006 constant dollar value) in 2007. It is¶ anticipated that the weakened

U.S. dollar¶ combined with strengthening currencies of¶ other nations will divert¶ foreign supplies to¶ other nations in 2008. This has already¶ happened in early 2008 with EU nations¶

increasing their imports of shrimp¶ from Southeast Asian nations.¶ In addition to the weakening dollar, the U.S.¶ is experiencing severe economic problems,¶ which can be expected to¶

affect the domestic demand fo¶ r seafood. Although there is¶ conflicting evidence to support th¶ e notion that fish is a luxury commodity compared to a¶ necessity, there is strong

ev¶ idence to suggest that the dom¶ estic consumption of seafood,¶ at least on a per capita basis, will likely decline in 2008. Higher energy prices and a¶ weakened U.S. dollar will cause a downward¶ shift in the away from home demand for¶ seafood in 2008, which is the primary mark¶ et outlet for seafood consumption. The¶

economic stimulus package of the current administration may offset reduced¶ discretionary income in 2008, but¶ it is not expected¶ to substantially affect the demand for¶ seafood.

Countering this potential outcome, however, is¶ a report from H.M. Johnson¶ Associates (2001), which predicted U.S.¶ supplies

would increase by 40.5 % between¶ 1999 and 2025. Similarly, reports by the United States Department of Agriculture and various priv¶ ate firms all forecast

enhanced demand and¶ sales in the future. And then we have the la¶ test dire forecast publis¶ hed in Science by an¶ international group of economists and ecologi¶ sts that the world’s

supply of seafood will¶ run out by 2048.

4. Economic decline doesn’t cause war ‐‐‐ recent statistical evidence proves

Drezner, 12 ‐‐‐ The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University (October 2012, Daniel W., “THE IRONY OF

GLOBAL ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE: THE SYSTEM WORKED,”

www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp‐content/uploads/IR‐Colloquium‐MT12‐Week‐5_The‐Irony‐of‐Global‐

Economic‐Governance.pdf)

The final outcome addresses a dog that hasn’t barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross‐border conflict and violence.

During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of

force as a tool for staying in power.37 Whether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power

conflict, there were genuine concerns that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict. Violence in the

Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fuel impressions of surge in global public disorder. The

aggregate data suggests otherwise, however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has constructed a “Global Peace

Index” annually since 2007. A key conclusion they draw from the 2012 report is that “The average level of peacefulness

in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007.”38 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the

financial crisis – as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not

triggered any increase in violent conflict; the secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.39 Rogers

Brubaker concludes, “the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected.”40 None of these data suggest that the global economy is operating swimmingly. Growth remains unbalanced and fragile, and has clearly

slowed in 2012. Transnational capital flows remain depressed compared to pre‐crisis levels, primarily due to a drying up of cross‐border interbank lending in Europe.

Currency volatility remains an ongoing concern. Compared to the aftermath of other postwar recessions, growth in output, investment, and employment in the

developed world have all lagged behind. But the Great Recession is not like other postwar recessions in either scope or kind; expecting a standard “V”‐shaped

recovery was unreasonable. One financial analyst characterized the post‐2008 global economy as in a state of “contained

depression.”41 The key word is “contained,” however. Given the severity, reach and depth of the 2008 financial crisis, the proper

comparison is with Great Depression. And by that standard, the outcome variables look impressive. As Carmen Reinhart and

Kenneth Rogoff concluded in This Time is Different: “that its macroeconomic outcome has been only the most severe global recession since World War II – and not

even worse – must be regarded as fortunate.”42


5. The U.S. and global economy are resilient – new macroeconomic policies absorb shocks

Behravesh, 6 (Nariman, most accurate economist tracked by USA Today and chief global economist and executive vice

president for Global Insight, Newsweek, “The Great Shock Absorber; Good macroeconomic policies and improved

microeconomic flexibility have strengthened the global economy's 'immune system.'” 10‐15‐2006,

www.newsweek.com/id/47483)

The U.S. and global economies were able to withstand three body blows in 2005‐‐one of the worst tsunamis on record

(which struck at the very end of 2004), one of the worst hurricanes on record and the highest energy prices after Hurricane Katrina‐‐

without missing a beat. This resilience was especially remarkable in the case of the United States, which since 2000 has been

able to shrug off the biggest stock‐market drop since the 1930s, a major terrorist attack, corporate scandals and war.

Does this mean that recessions are a relic of the past? No, but recent events do suggest that the global economy's "immune system" is now strong

enough to absorb shocks that 25 years ago would probably have triggered a downturn. In fact, over the past two decades, recessions have not

disappeared, but have become considerably milder in many parts of the world. What explains this enhanced recession resistance? The answer: a

combination of good macroeconomic policies and improved microeconomic flexibility.

Since the mid‐1980s, central banks worldwide have had great success in taming inflation. This has meant that long‐term interest rates are at levels not seen in more than 40 years. A low‐inflation and low‐interest‐rate

environment is especially conducive to sustained, robust growth. Moreover, central bankers have avoided some of the policy mistakes of the earlier oil shocks (in the mid‐1970s and early 1980s), during which they typically

did too much too late, and exacerbated the ensuing recessions. Even more important, in recent years the Fed has been particularly adept at crisis management,

aggressively cutting interest rates in response to stock‐market crashes, terrorist attacks and weakness in the economy.

The benign inflationary picture has also benefited from increasing competitive pressures, both worldwide (thanks to globalization and the rise of Asia as a manufacturing juggernaut) and domestically (thanks to technology

and deregulation). Since the late 1970s, the United States, the United Kingdom and a handful of other countries have been especially aggressive in deregulating their financial and industrial sectors. This has greatly

increased the flexibility of their economies and reduced their vulnerability to inflationary shocks. Looking ahead, what all this means is that a global or U.S. recession will likely be avoided in 2006, and probably in 2007 as

well. Whether the current expansion will be able to break the record set in the 1990s for longevity will depend on the ability of central banks to keep the inflation dragon at bay and to avoid policy mistakes. The prospects

look good. Inflation is likely to remain a low‐level threat for some time, and Ben Bernanke, the incoming chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, spent much of his academic career

studying the past mistakes of the Fed and has vowed not to repeat them.

At the same time, no single shock will likely be big enough to derail the expansion. What if oil prices rise to $80 or $90 a barrel? Most estimates suggest that growth

would be cut by about 1 percent‐‐not good, but no recession. What if U.S. house prices fall by 5 percent in 2006 (an extreme assumption, given that house prices haven't fallen nationally in any given year during the past

four decades)? Economic growth would slow by about 0.5 percent to 1 percent. What about another terrorist attack? Here the scenarios can be pretty scary, but an attack on the order of 9/11

or the Madrid or London bombings would probably have an even smaller impact on overall GDP growth.

So what would it take to trigger a recession in the U.S. or world economies over the next couple of years? Two or more big shocks occurring more or less simultaneously. Global Insight recently ran a scenario showing that

a world recession could happen if the following combination of events were to take place: oil prices above $100 per barrel, inflation and interest rates running 3 percentage points above current levels and a 10 percent

drop in home prices across many industrial nations (e.g., the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, Sweden). The likely timing of such a recession would be 2007. However, given the extremeness of these

assumptions, the probability of such a scenario is less than 20 percent.

The good news is that the chances of a recession occurring in the next couple of years are low. The not‐so‐good news is that assertions about recessions being relegated to history's trash heap are still premature.


*** 2NC/1NR Extend: “Seafood Trade Not Key To Economy”

No impact to trade deficits

Folsom and Gonzales ‘12 [Nils and Rodolfo, both professors who teach in the Department of Economicsat San Jose

State University, “U.S. Trade Deficits Aren’t a Problem,” 7‐11‐12, http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/us‐trade‐

deficits‐arent‐a‐problem/]

Won’t we have to pay back the foreign investments now being made in the U.S.? No. Foreigners are buying many kinds

of real and financial assets. If they buy real estate, they own it now, so we won’t have to pay anything back. If they buy

equities in businesses, they own those equities now, so again we have nothing to pay back. if they buy private debt, for example

General Motors bonds, General Motors will have to pay neither more nor less than if the bondholders were Americans, if foreigners buy U.S. government debt, the

U.S. government will have to pay neither more nor less than if the debt were owned by Americans. If foreigners hold U.S. bank accounts (denominated

in either dollars or foreign money), the bank’s liabilities are no greater than if these accounts were owned by Americans. All of

these assets pay a return (an implicit return in the case of non‐inter‐ est bearing bank accounts) to whoever owns them, but there is

nothing additional to be paid back, paid off, or paid out. Admittedly, foreign willingness to lend to Americans may induce us to borrow more than we

would otherwise. In this sense, some of our trade deficit is being financed by new borrowing. But new borrowing from foreigners should cause no

more problems than would new domestic borrowing. If some Americans borrow and waste the proceeds, they become

worse off (as do the lenders if the borrowers default), but whether the lenders are domestic or foreign makes no real difference. Of

course, if exchange rates change, speculators who hold portfolios of net assets denominated on balance in moneys that

unexpectedly depreciate, or net liabilities denominated on balance in moneys that unexpectedly appreciate, will lose,

but those losses will be balanced by others’ gains. (Even a growing international debt wouldn’t imply impoverishment

because the proper measure of wealth is assets minus liabilities, not assets or liabilities alone. U.S. wealth continues to

rise, because U.S. domestic saving—even after deducting all government budget deficits—remains positive.) Where will the

output come from to pay the returns on the assets in the U.S. now owned by foreigners? This is an irrelevant question, since, if a foreign‐owned asset is productive,

its return accrues to its foreign owner; if it isn’t productive, that is the foreign owner’s problem, not ours. And the foreign investment was accompanied by enormous

inflows of resources (remember our huge trade deficit) resulting from exchanges to which we would not have agreed unless we expected to benefit, presumably by

increasing our productive capacity or at least our economic welfare. No other society coerced us to import more than we export and to accept huge volumes of

foreign investment. We aren’t a pre‐perestroika Eastern European nation “trading” with the Soviets. Voluntary foreign investments accompanied by resource inflows

can pay their own returns. Foreign purchases of U.S. assets aren’t a zero‐sum activity, since increases in foreign‐owned assets require neither a decline in U.S.‐owned

assets nor a rise in U.S.‐owed liabilities. Descriptions of the U.S. as a “debtor nation” are unwarranted.


Extend: “Economic Decline doesn’t cause war”

Economic crisis won’t cause war

Barnett 9—senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC (Thomas, The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis, 25 August 2009, http://www.aprodex.com/the‐

new‐rules‐‐security‐remains‐stable‐amid‐financial‐crisis‐398‐bl.aspx, AMiles)

When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of scary predictions of, and commentary

regarding, ensuing conflict and wars ‐‐ a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery ‐‐ surprisingly led by

China and emerging markets ‐‐ is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past year and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide recession

has had virtually no impact whatsoever on the international security landscape. None of the more than three‐dozen ongoing conflicts listed

by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the

Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low‐intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia‐Georgia conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the

opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two‐decade long struggle

between Georgia and its two breakaway regions. Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts,

insurgencies, and liberation‐themed terrorist movements. Besides the recent Russia‐Georgia dust‐up, the only two potential state‐on‐state

wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity ‐‐ a process wholly unrelated to global economic trends. And

with the United States effectively tied down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan‐bleeding‐into‐Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the

planet has been quite modest, both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter‐drug efforts in Latin America, the usual

military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn, occasionally pressing the Chinese

‐‐ unsuccessfully ‐‐ to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces. So, to sum up: •No significant uptick in mass

violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban riots last year in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); •The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all the usual places);

•Not a single state‐on‐state war directly caused (and no great‐power‐on‐great‐power crises even triggered); •No great improvement or disruption in great‐power

cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that diplomacy); •A modest scaling back of international policing efforts by the system's acknowledged

Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and •No serious efforts by any rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The

worst things we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan;

but the best include China and India stepping up their aid and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in

the late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented "stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on

such stimulus packaging was the most notable great‐power dynamic caused by the crisis. Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct

shift to political radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's major economies remain governed by center‐left or center‐right political

factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and trade. In the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate economies from immediate

damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the World Trade Organization is functioning as it was

designed to function, and regional efforts toward free‐trade agreements have not slowed. Can we say Islamic radicalism was inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly

overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as al‐Qaida. And looking forward, austere economic times are just

as likely to breed connecting evangelicalism as disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently frightening to provoke major

economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited ‐‐ and much needed, as I argued last week ‐‐ discussion of the continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as

the world's primary reserve currency. Naturally, plenty of experts and pundits have attached great significance to this debate, seeing in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like

between "fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging interests" hardly constitute

signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes undisciplined, so bring it on ‐‐ please! Add it all up and it's fair to say that this global

financial crisis has proven the great resilience of America's post‐World War II international liberal trade order.

Economic decline doesn’t cause war

Ferguson 6 (Niall, Professor of History – Harvard University, Foreign Affairs, 85(5), September / October, Lexis)

Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak

of World War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi Germany started the war in Europe only after its economy had recovered. Not all the countries

affected by the Great Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression. In fact, no general

relationship between economics and conflict is discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars came after periods of

growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises

were not followed by wars.


Extend: “Economy Resilient”

Econ resilient, US isn’t key, and impact empirically denied

Lamy ’11(Pascal Lamy is the Director‐General of the World Trade Organization. Lamy is Honorary President of Paris‐

based think tank Notre Europe. Lamy graduated from the prestigious Sciences Po Paris, from HEC and ÉNA, graduating

second in his year of those specializing in economics. “System Upgrade” BY PASCAL LAMY | APRIL 18, 2011)

The bigger test came with the 2008‐2009 Great Recession, the first truly global recession since World War II. When the

international economy went into free fall, trade went right along with it. Production and supply are today thoroughly global in nature, with most manufactured

products made from parts and materials imported from many other countries. These global value chains have a multiplier effect on trade statistics, which explains

why, as the global economy contracted by 2 percent in 2009, trade volume shrank by more than 12 percent. This multiplier effect works the other way around as

well: Growth returned to 4.6 percent and trade volume grew by a record 14.5 percent over the course of 2010. Projections for trade in 2011

are also strong, with WTO economists predicting that trade volume will rise 6.5 percent during the current year. This

sharp rebound in trade has proved two essential things: Markets stayed open despite ever‐stronger pressures to close

them, and trade is an indispensible tool for economic recovery, particularly for developing countries, which are more

dependent on trade. Shortly after the crisis broke out, we in the WTO began to closely monitor the trade policy response

of our member governments. Many were fearful that pressures to impose trade restrictions would prove too powerful

for governments to resist. But this is not what happened. Instead, the system of rules and disciplines, agreed to over 60

years of negotiations, held firm. In a series of reports prepared for WTO members and the G‐20, we found that

governments acted with great restraint. At no time did the trade‐restrictive measures imposed cover more than 2 percent of world imports.

Moreover, the measures used ‐‐ anti‐dumping duties, safeguards, and countervailing duties to offset export or production subsidies ‐‐ were those

which, in the right circumstances, are permissible under WTO rules. I am not suggesting that every safeguard measure or countervailing duty

imposed during those difficult days was in compliance with WTO rules, but responses to trade pressures were generally undertaken within an internationally agreed‐

upon framework. Countries by and large resisted overtly noncompliant measures, such as breaking legally binding tariff ceilings or imposing import

bans or quotas. As markets stayed open, trade flows began to shift, and countries that shrugged off the impact of the crisis and

continued to grow ‐‐ notably China, India, and Brazil ‐‐ became ever‐more attractive markets for countries that were

struggling, including those in Europe and North America. Trade has been a powerful engine for growth in the developing world, a fact reflected in the far greater trade‐to‐GDP ratios we see there. In 2010, developing countries' share of world trade expanded to a record 45 percent, and this trend looks set to

continue. Decisions made in Brasilia, Beijing, and New Delhi to open their respective economies to trade have been instrumental in enabling these countries to lift

hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.


Solvency


*** 1NC 1NC — Solvency

1. Plan doesn’t cause commercialization – not economical

James Kirkley – July 2008, Professor of Marine Science in the Department of Fisheries Science at the College of

William and Mary, “The Potential Economic Ramifications of Offshore Aquaculture,” Offshore Aquaculture in the United

States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities,

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

Despite apparent evidence that offshore aquaculture is not only economically feasible but also capable of generating

substantial contributions to the U.S. economy, there remain many obstacles which may hinder its development and

adoption. In this study, it was demonstrated that production of five species popular with U.S. consumers is economically

feasible, provided certain conditions prevailed. Foremost among these conditions is that prices received will hold at

certain levels. Given the increasing level of imports, it is quite possible that prices received for the primary products will

decrease. Also, if resource conditions do improve in the future, the landings of wild‐caught cod and winter flounder

would likely expand. The sea scallop resource is already at a high level of biomass. In addition, all of the species can be

produced near‐shore as opposed to offshore, and there are likely to be cost savings for inshore or near‐shore

operations. There remain many other concerns which may limit the development of offshore aquaculture outlined in

other chapters in this report. There are potential uncertainties about obtaining loans, which will be necessary for

satisfying up front investment costs. In all instances, these investment costs are quite high and will likely deter

individuals or firms from investing in offshore aquaculture. There is considerable uncertainty about what constitutes

best management practices (BMPs) for various operations. Present analysis does, however, support the development of

offshore aquaculture in waters within 25 nautical miles of shore. Finally, it is concluded that operations farther offshore

will require larger projects, or farms, and higher levels of investment.

2. Regulations not key – scientific hurdles offshore aquaculture development – Gulf proves

Kristen M. Fletcher – 2004, Marine Affairs Institute @ Roger Williams University School of Law, Law & Offshore

Aquaculture: A True Hurdle or a Speed Bump?, Efforts to Develop a Responsible Offshore Aquaculture Industry in the

Gulf of Mexico: A Compendium of Offshore Aquaculture Consortium Research, Bridger, C.J., editor,

http://www.oceanrenewable.com/wp‐content/uploads/2007/03/law‐and‐offshore‐aquaculture.pdf

The legal and regulatory environment surrounding offshore aquaculture is cited consistently as one of the major hurdles

to its development in the United States. Despite the adoption of the National Aquaculture Act in 1980, the lack of a

sound legal and regulatory structure is still cited as the culprit for lack of a U.S. industry. In reality, the present regulatory

regime is inadequate because it is based upon laws that were adopted to address issues or industries other than

aquaculture. Because aquaculture facilities affect traditionally governed areas such as water supply, the use of navigable

waters, food production, and environmental protection, multiple federal and state agencies have jurisdiction over the

industry. While these agencies have excelled at regulating and permitting land‐based aquaculture regimes with refined

and stream‐lined licensing procedures and regulations, the offshore aquaculture regulatory structure looks significantly

different with no single lead agency and differences in regulations between states and regions. Many claim that these

issues must be resolved before a sustainable industry can emerge. Law and policy research conducted in tandem with

the environmental and technological research of the Gulf of Mexico Offshore Aquaculture Consortium revealed some

specific legal mechanisms that need to be addressed but highlighted the reality that offshore aquaculture can develop

within the present structure. This chapter describes some of these immediate legal hurdles but concludes that political

and scientific issues serve as much greater hurdles than the legal and regulatory regime.


*** 2NC/1NR Extend: “Commercialization”

Too many barriers to offshore aquaculture – no technology, investment risk, price competition, and

foreign subsidization

Upton and Buck – 10, Harold F. Upton and Eugene H. Buck, Analyst/Specialist in Natural Resources Policy @ CRS,

August 9, 2010, Open Ocean Aquaculture, http://cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/10Sep/RL32694.pdf

A broad array of questions is associated with the viability and impacts of open ocean aquaculture initiation and

expansion. These concerns are further complicated by factors such as evolving production technology, uncertain economic costs and benefits, and environmental

and social impacts. Generalizations are also difficult to make because of the variety of candidate species, associated technologies, and potential scales of operation.

Major categories of concerns related to open ocean aquaculture development include (1) biological, operational, and business concerns related to development of a

new industry; (2) potential social and economic impacts; (3) potential environmental impacts; and (4) the legal and regulatory environment.6 Biological, Operational,

and Business Concerns Species and Technology Current species and culture techniques—including species selection, egg/larval

production, and nutritional/dietary requirements—are somewhat limited. Development of open ocean aquaculture

probably will need further research, and new culture techniques may be required for rearing species not presently

grown. Many economically important species are currently being studied at various universities and research institutes for possible culture, including amberjack,

black sea bass, blue mussels, cobia, cod, corvina, flounder, haddock, halibut, mahimahi, mutton snapper, red drum, striped bass, tuna, and yellowtail snapper. Other

research topics being investigated include hatchery culture technologies; automated feeder design; culture of new species; disease identification and control; cages

and husbandry technology for rough water environments; identification of alternative food sources; nutrition requirements; definition of carrying capacity of offshore

waters; appropriate mooring systems; drifting and self‐powered cages; federal regulatory structure; and environmental monitoring technology. Since open

water aquaculture is a relatively new industry, many potential operators are inexperienced with the technical

requirements for open ocean facilities. Historically, development has been limited by technology that requires water

depths of 100‐150 feet; this narrow band of acceptable depth exists from ¼ mile to about 50 miles offshore, depending on

location. Open ocean aquaculture facilities, moored or floating miles off the coast in a high‐energy environment,

experience numerous environmental conditions that differ from nearshore aquaculture operations, including exposure

to wind and wave action from all directions, short and steep wave patterns, strong currents, seasonal anoxic (oxygen‐lacking)

conditions, and other severe ocean conditions that can prevent operators from being able to access their cages for days

to weeks.7 Systems have been developed to overcome these obstacles, including cage designs that do not deform under strong current and wave loads,

submersible cages, and single‐point moorings. Cage‐mounted autonomous feeding systems have been developed that can operate both at the surface and

submerged. Others have developed closed containment systems for open ocean use to address environmental concerns. Universities and private‐sector research

interests are developing automated buoys that can monitor the condition of stock and feed fish on a regular basis for weeks at a time. Other research groups are

working on automated, floating cages that would travel with the currents and be tracked by satellite.8 These ship‐like structures could float on favorable oceanic

currents or be held in the same location with low‐energy thrusters. Financing Estimating profitability and securing financing is difficult for new open

ocean aquaculture companies because of an uncertain regulatory environment, the risk associated with operating in exposed open

ocean locations, the risk of catastrophic events (e.g., severe storms), limited operational experience, and high capital start‐up

costs. Proponents of open ocean aquaculture development assert that, without some form of long‐term (at least 25 years) permitting or leasing of the water

surface, water column, and seabed, open ocean aquaculture will have significant problems in securing capital from traditional funding sources and in obtaining

suitable insurance on the capital investment and stock.9 Such leasing may be problematic unless property rights beyond the territorial sea are clarified. The

availability of insurance on stock and equipment is relevant to, and can facilitate obtaining, front‐end capital for open ocean aquaculture. The insurance sector has

more than 30 years of experience in managing and insuring risks to conventional aquaculture stock and equipment for a variety of situations and conditions. Although

the insurance industry is unlikely to view pilot projects favorably, many say that the earlier the insurance industry is brought into developing open ocean aquaculture,

the earlier insurers are likely to be comfortable with the risks that must be insured. Proponents of open ocean aquaculture suggest that, if profits are to be made,

sufficient investment capital must be available as soon as property rights, permitting, and environmental concerns are resolved. More pessimistic critics

suggest that open ocean aquaculture is unlikely ever to have an adequate economic return on investment, and that

investment should rather be focused on improving nearshore or shore‐based aquaculture. Eventually, the level of capital

investment in open ocean aquaculture will likely depend on whether its rate of return is competitive with investment alternatives. Economic Potential The

economic potential of U.S. aquaculture will likely depend on both operational costs and product prices. Costs will largely depend on several factors, including U.S. regulation, the technology adopted, and national and international economic conditions. Economic conditions will

determine labor, energy, capital, and other input costs. Prices of U.S. aquaculture products will likely depend on world demand and the prices of competing products.

Competing products include similar imported cultured products, similar wild species, and other agricultural product substitutes such as chicken, pork, and beef. The

GFCA Novice Packet 2014‐2015 Aquaculture Negative level of government support in other countries is often greater than that provided in the United States. Some say that

government assistance could promote the initial development of a U.S. open ocean aquaculture industry, but global

market forces would likely determine whether it matures or withers. The United States has been, for the most part, a technological

innovator, and the use of marine resources to farm new species with high market value could give the United States a competitive edge. On the other hand,

operating costs and environmental standards in other countries are often lower. In addition to capital costs, the location

of aquaculture facilities further from shore will necessitate higher costs for fuel, security, and/or surveillance. Land‐

based aquaculture products are also likely to compete with offshore aquaculture. Most aquaculture production in the United States

originates in freshwater ponds and raceways, such as catfish in the southern United States and trout farms in Idaho and North Carolina. Advances in more intensive

culture techniques such as closed systems10 are another means to increase production with minimal environmental impacts. Cobia, a candidate species for offshore

aquaculture, is currently being cultured in land‐based tanks 300 miles from the ocean in freshwater by regulating its physiology.11 Initial reports documenting

production are optimistic, but the commercial viability of this particular type of aquaculture is unknown. Shoreside Infrastructure Supportive shoreside infrastructure,

including hatcheries and nurseries, does not exist and would need to be developed. Support industries have the potential to provide employment and other

economic benefits to coastal communities. If open ocean aquaculture becomes viable, these businesses should also grow. However, the relatively high value of

shoreline property could be an impediment to finding appropriate sites, especially waterfront sites in coastal areas. Development and Partnerships Fostering

industry/academic partnerships may benefit open ocean aquaculture development.12 Some suggest that, for development to occur, open ocean aquaculture should

be considered “big science” along the lines of atomic/nuclear physics research and the Human Genome Project. In this light, the developing open ocean aquaculture

industry may benefit by seeking and promoting partnerships with multinational industrial, agricultural, and pharmaceutical corporations.13 Proponents argue that

this is the most likely way for open ocean aquaculture to obtain the ocean engineering, marine technology, and floating platform infrastructure at the necessary scale

of production. The developing industry will also need to refine biological methods related to commercial‐scale hatchery and grow‐out facilities. They also state that,

without domestic financial support, aquaculture innovation will likely come from other countries already providing

greater investment in technology development.

Multiple obstacles to commercialization – at best, the aff overcomes them by producing high‐end

fish that don’t solve food security

Clare Leschin‐Hoar – 3/23/12, covers fishing and sustainable seafood for The Wall Street Journal, The Christian

Science Monitor, and Scientific American, The big blue: Can deepwater fish farming be sustainable?, Grist,

http://grist.org/food/the‐big‐blue‐can‐deep‐water‐fish‐farming‐be‐sustainable/

“If we’re going to feed the world protein, aquaculture is the best way to do it, and someplace we ought to be looking is offshore,” says Michael

Rubino, director of NOAA Fisheries’ Aquaculture Program. That may be easier said than done. In addition to challenges like nearly

constant battering by ocean waves, high fuel costs for ships that maintain the pens (in the case of the Velella Project, a manned boat

remained tethered to the pod at all times, to ensure it doesn’t float too far off course, and to house the staff monitoring the project), and an array of other

technical obstacles, there’s the fact that no regulations have been put in place. Rubino would also like to see a set of laws that are specific to open water aquaculture. “Under current fisheries laws, aquaculture has been interpreted as fishing. We need new legislation,” he says. NOAA is interested in the progress being

made by the Velella Project, but stresses the importance of gradual, step‐by‐step development of this technology. “If we can solve these regulatory

issues, we’ll issue a certain number of permits, and if those work, then in the second 10 years, we’ll issue more. [NOAA] has a stewardship mission. This has to be done in the context of healthy oceans,” says Rubino. The other way that offshore aquaculture might expand, says Rubino, is if

each regional fisheries management council (there are eight around the country) devises its own management plan for aquaculture. That’s something the Gulf of

Mexico Council [PDF] has already done, putting the area first in line for commercial offshore aquaculture. Chris Mann, director of Pew Environment

Group’s Aquaculture Standards Project, says that while the Velella Project does seem to have good results so far, the conversation really

needs to be about scale. “We appreciate someone like Neil thinking about aquaculture in a different way. What we’re not crazy about is taking the CAFO

model of livestock and putting it in the ocean. Fish poop in the water; if you have a massive industry, you get a lot of pollution and problems. If you have small scale,

[like the Velella Project] with a lot of water flowing through it, you have fewer problems,” says Mann. Sims says he recognizes the need for scale, and the fact that

offshore aquaculture means making use of a common resource. He’s recently applied for permits for the next step, Velella Gamma, which will involve mooring the

pod to a single point on the ocean floor and may require less staff monitoring. This stage will also involve placing the pod closer, into water depths of 6,000 feet. And

the goal will be to move toward more automation. “Machines can work better in rough sea than people,” he adds. In the end, economics will likely

dictate whether or not offshore aquaculture truly takes off in the next decade. “The great promise of aquaculture – the ‘Blue

Revolution’ – is that it can produce a healthy and abundant supply of protein for a world that’s going to need a lot more of it, but you can only do that if you make the

right choices of species,” says Mann. He worries that producers of larger fish are more motivated by the marketplace, than by a

drive to feed the world sustainably. “You feed the world with shellfish and tilapia,” he says. “Not salmon or shrimp for

$15 a pound.” Either way, Sims will continue to push the envelope. As he sees it, there’s been a lot of fear‐mongering about aquaculture. And, like all food

production, he stresses the how in the equation. “There’s a ground swell of recognition that this is a direction we have to go,” he says. “Let’s just do it right.”


Extend: “Regulations Not Key”

Aquaculture regulation impossible Smith ’12 [Turner, Assistant Attorney General at Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, Harvard Law graduate,

“Greening the Blue Revolution: How History Can Inform a Sustainable Aquaculture Movement,”

http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/11938741/Smith_2012.pdf?sequence=1]

While the United States has made strides in regulating aquaculture over the last several decades,285 the current regulatory framework is too

complex and, ultimately, too lenient, to realize aquaculture’s full potential and mitigate aquaculture’s environmental problems

in light of the challenges the industry will face in the coming century. Without cooperation and coordination among federal agencies,286 perhaps

achievable a single piece of federal legislation devoted to aquaculture development, aquaculture’s role as the creator of polluting and exploitative

tragedies of the commons will continue. Many federal agencies with very different missions and jurisdictional reaches govern

aquaculture in disparate, often overlapping, and often inconsistent ways, including the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the FDA, NMFS/NOAA

Fisheries, the FWS, the Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”), and the United States Coast Guard. This Section briefly discusses each agency’s role in aquaculture regulation. However, this

section is not intended to provide a complete list of regulatory jurisdiction over aquaculture operations; rather, it serves to demonstrate the complexity, uncertainty,

and inadequacy characterizing the regulatory field in a select few areas of aquacultural impacts. A plethora of state laws and regulations

pursuant to and independent of the federal laws delineated below also complicate the sphere of aquaculture regulation,287 but are beyond the scope of this paper.288

aquaculture negative - static.squarespace.comstatic.squarespace.com/static... · expand offshore...

Documents