West Coast Publishing Ocean 2014 affirmative page

Environment-Policy Intervention Possible

Current fishery practice leads to devastating species loss-But successful policy intervention is possible

Matthew G. Burgess, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, Stephen Polansky, Department of Applied Economics, University of Minneosta, and David Tilman, Bren School of the Environment, University of California-Santa Barbara, “Predicting overfisheries and extinction threats in multispecies fisheries,”2013, PNAS, [accessed 5/5/2014]

Threats to species from commercial fishing are rarely identified¶ until species have suffered large population declines, by which¶ time remedial actions can have severe economic consequences,¶ such as closure of fisheries. Many of the species most threatened¶ by fishing are caught in multispecies fisheries, which can remain¶ profitable even as populations of some species collapse. Here we¶ show for multispecies fisheries that the biological and socioeconomic¶ conditions that would eventually cause species to be severely¶ depleted or even driven extinct can be identified decades¶ before those species experience high harvest rates or marked¶ population declines. Because fishing effort imposes a common¶ source of mortality on all species in a fishery, the long-term impact¶ of a fishery on a species is predicted by measuring its loss rate¶ relative to that of species that influence the fishery’s maximal¶ effort. We tested our approach on eight Pacific tuna and billfish¶ populations, four of which have been identified recently as in decline¶ and threatened with overfishing. The severe depletion of all¶ four populations could have been predicted in the 1950s, using our¶ approach. Our results demonstrate that species threatened by human¶ harvesting can be identified much earlier, providing time for¶ adjustments in harvesting practices before consequences become¶ severe and fishery closures or other socioeconomically disruptive¶ interventions are required to protect species.¶

Environment-Overfishing Extension

Aquaculture is key to solving overfishing-Fisheries only exacerbate the problem

John S. Corbin, J.D. and President of Aquaculture Planning and Advocacy LLC which offers expertise in aquaculture policy formulation and planning, species and site selection, resource and environmental assessments, permit acquisition, etc., 2010, “Marine Stock Enhancement, A Valuable Extension of Expanded U.S. Marine Aquaculture,” Marine Technology Society Journal, Vol. 44 no. 3 [accessed: 5/3/2014]

Of greater concern, despite diligent¶ management efforts by the NMFS that¶ are making steady progress, overfishing¶ remains a threat to the sustainability of¶ seafood supply from domestic capture¶ fisheries. Aquaculture for stock enhancement¶ can be an effective way to¶ address this ongoing threat. A 2008 report¶ on the status of 531 individual¶ U.S. fish and shellfish stocks and¶ stock complexes noted that there are¶ two broad categories defined: stocks¶ “subject to overfishing” and those¶ stocks “subject to being overfished.”¶ According to NMFS, a stock that is subject to overfishing has a fishing¶ mortality (harvest) rate above the level¶ that provides for maximum sustainable¶ yield, and a stock that is subject to¶ being overfished has a biomass level¶ below a biological threshold specified¶ in its fishery management plan.¶ Of the 251 stocks or stock complexes¶ with previous overfishing determinations,¶ 41 (16%) were subject to¶ overfishing in 2008. Similarly, of 199¶ stocks with previous overfished determinations,¶ 46 (23%) were overfished¶ (NMFS, 2009). Given the increasing challenges in¶ sustainably managing U.S. marine¶ fisheries, renewed interest in marine¶ stock enhancement has been growing¶ steadily. One reason is the documented¶ successes demonstrating that releases¶ of hatchery-produced marine¶ fish and shellfish can augment and rebuild¶ wild populations that are subject¶ to yearly fishing pressure and occasional¶ man-made and natural disasters.¶ Perhaps the most recognizable U.S.¶ success involves the multimillion dollar¶ commercial salmon industry in¶ Alaska. Hatchery techniques for¶ salmon have been around for nearly¶ 100 years and were widely applied¶ when fisheries experienced record low¶ wild stock runs in the 1960s and¶ 1970s. Currently, Alaskans have invested¶ in 36 hatcheries, 31 of which¶ are owned and/or operated by private¶ nonprofit corporations that released¶ 1.4 billion juvenile fish in 2009,¶ while in that year, 45 million adult¶ salmon from releases in previous¶ years returned to streams statewide.¶ Of the 148 million fish harvested by¶ the fishery, an estimated 28 million¶ or 19% originated from the Alaska enhancement¶ program (White, 2010).

A2 Can’t Come Back Past Tipping Point

Even if some ecosystems are past the tipping point-There is still time for policy intervention to solve the larger system

Joseph Travis, Department of Biological Science, Florida State University, et. Al, 2013, “Integrating the invisible fabric of nature into fisheries management,” PNAS, [accessed 5/7/2014]

Of course, it may be impossible to recover¶ some ecosystems that have moved past their¶ tipping points, which is why it is crucial to¶ cultivate a greater appreciation for the fact¶ that ecosystems have tipping points. In the¶ management arena, it may be possible to¶ estimate what a phase shift might look like by¶ using models of instantaneous biomass fluxes¶ through an ecosystem (33) in expanded sensitivity¶ analyses that explore what a large perturbation¶ might do to a system (34). It may¶ also be possible to use time series data to¶ discern when a system is approaching a tipping¶ point (35, 36). However, because phase¶ shifts and tipping points are functions of indirect¶ interactions and feedback loops, there¶ will be no substitute for a clearer understanding¶ of the direct and indirect interactions¶ among human and nonhuman species. Understanding¶ these linkages and their consequences¶ is not only crucial for making¶ policy decisions (which areas, stocks, or¶ species to protect; when to fish and when to¶ conserve), but also for anticipating, diagnosing,¶ and reacting to the trends and¶ surprises that will continue to emerge as¶ these systems confront global change.

Solvency Extensions-Federal Regulations Key

Federal legislation is key-Only a strong regulatory framework prevents environmental problems

Ocean Conservancy, 2011 “Right From the Start: Open-Ocean Aquaculture in the United States,” http://www.aces.edu/dept/fisheries/education/documents/Open_Ocean_Aquculture_Right_from_the_Start_bytheOceanConservancyorganization.pdf (accessed 5/1/2014)
Policy recommendations¶ Aquaculture has the potential to play a ¶ responsible role in meeting our burgeoning ¶ demand for seafood. However, it is ¶ imperative that the US establish policies ¶ to ensure that this nascent industry ¶ grows sensibly and safely. The US has ¶ the opportunity to be the leader of ¶ environmental protection while deciding¶ whether, where and under what conditions to¶ permit aquaculture in federal waters.¶ Principle 2 – A Precautionary Approach¶ Precaution must be the core operating¶ principle for this new use of US ocean¶ waters. Given the inherent risks and¶ uncertainties, and the natural tension¶ between economic development and¶ preservation of public trust resources, the¶ national framework must ensure vibrant¶ marine ecosystems are protected to the¶ maximum extent possible. The governing¶ structure should permit open-ocean¶ aquaculture only when independent, peerreviewed¶ science provides reasonable¶ assurances that it will avoid negative¶ impacts, including cumulative effects, on¶ marine ecosystems.¶

Strong federal leadership is key-That’s the only way to address environmental concerns

Ocean Conservancy, 2011 “Right From the Start: Open-Ocean Aquaculture in the United States,” http://www.aces.edu/dept/fisheries/education/documents/Open_Ocean_Aquculture_Right_from_the_Start_bytheOceanConservancyorganization.pdf (accessed 5/1/2014)
Principle 3 – Rigorous Environmental¶ Standards¶ The national framework must establish¶ rigorous environmental standards to¶ guide federal rulemaking and industry¶ performance. These standards must address¶ fish escapes, disease, pollution, chemicals,¶ impacts on wildlife and predators, and¶ reliance on wild fish for aquaculture feed.¶ Standards should be performance-based¶ and should regulate facility siting, permitting,¶ monitoring, and enforcement. For maximum¶ effectiveness, the standards should provide¶ incentives to facilities for performance¶ beyond permit requirements and significantly¶ penalize facilities that fall short.¶ Principle 4 – Protect the Commons¶ The marine environment is a public trust¶ resource held by the government for¶ the benefit of all its citizens. In every¶ respect, the development of open-ocean¶ aquaculture should be subject to a full,¶ meaningful public process. Expansion of¶ fish farming into this environment should¶ not proceed unless public resources are¶ adequately protected, the public is fairly compensated for the use of its resources,¶ and facility owners are held liable for¶ damages to the marine environment.¶ THE RIGHT START¶ It’s time for strong federal leadership on¶ the future of open-ocean aquaculture in the¶ United States. In a world in need of viable¶ food sources, marine aquaculture may have¶ a valuable role to play, but it must develop in¶ the right way. The US must articulate a vision¶ that protects the ocean, existing ocean users¶ including recreational and wild fisheries,¶ and the aquaculture industry itself from the¶ threats of poorly regulated fish farms.¶ Now is the time: our one chance to get¶ open-ocean aquaculture right from the start.

Solvency Extensions-Federal Regulations Key

Only a federal framework prevents legal challenges to offshore aquaculturists-Key to industry stability

Johns, J.D., University of Southern California Law School, 2013, “Farm Fishing Holes: Gaps in Federal Regulation of Offshore Aquaculture,” 86 S. Cal. L. Rev. 681
A comprehensive federal framework for regulating the offshore industry is needed to address another significant obstacle inhibiting the industry's growth. As long as the government fails to put in place a framework that both guides offshore aquaculturists and protects their exclusive right to farm fish in federal waters, any offshore project is vulnerable to legal challenge. Kona Blue, the first company to receive a one-year federal permit from the National Marine Fishery Service ("NMFS") to farm fish in the EEZ, dealt with this very challenge in federal court. In 2011, NMFS was sued by a native Hawaiian nonprofit, KAHEA, and a consumer-rights organization, Food & Water Watch, for issuing a fishing permit to Kona Blue allowing it to operate its offshore facility in federal waters. Without clear federal oversight of the industry, offshore operators like Kona Blue are left to defend their projects on a case-by-case basis. For example, Food & Water Watch, a group opposed to all aquaculture activities, has challenged individual aquaculture operations in court numerous times under various laws. Other opponents of aquaculture, such as commercial and recreational fishing interests hoping not to have to compete with aquaculture, have also challenged aquaculture projects under the existing legal scheme. For instance, opponents have lobbied their respective Regional Fishery Councils, which were created by the Magnuson-Stevens Act to regulate all fisheries matters in their respective regions, to keep them from implementing aquaculture programs. In 2009, aquaculture opponents sued the Gulf of Mexico Regional Fishery Council for implementing an aquaculture program into its management plan. Opponents have even lobbied their congressional representatives to introduce legislation that would halt all aquaculture activities in the United States.

Solvency Extensions-Federal Regulations Key

Only a clear federal regulatory scheme builds the U.S. aquaculture industry and prevents the industry from moving abroad
Johns, J.D., University of Southern California Law School, 2013, “Farm Fishing Holes: Gaps in Federal Regulation of Offshore Aquaculture,” 86 S. Cal. L. Rev. 681

Without a comprehensive regulatory framework in place to guide the offshore industry, the attacks on aquaculture projects in federal waters such as those proposed in the Gulf of Mexico or launched by Kona Blue will not stop. Aqua-culturists must be given the incentives and legal assurances needed to expand offshore, or else they will move their op-erations abroad. Indeed, frustrated by the lack of any clear or predictable regulatory or permitting framework, companies such as Kona Blue are already starting to take their offshore operations overseas. Although most express their wish to stay in U.S. waters, they admit it makes more sense to move to an area that has clear and predictable management. Indeed, would-be investors and lenders interested in offshore operations are suspicious of investing in activities in the United States given the industry's uncertain future, and would rather finance foreign operations: U.S. investors have already contributed to offshore operations in areas off the Caribbean and Latin America. Kona Blue recently chose to expand its operations from waters [*694] off Hawaii to Mexico; another offshore aquaculturist recently moved his business from U.S. waters off the coast of Puerto Rico to Panama. As Kona Blue's CEO explained,¶ ¶ The concern going forward is the permit pathway ... . If you make it available, [entrepreneurs] will come and make in-vestments. American entrepreneurs realize an opportunity when they see one. The biggest constraint we hear from them is, "Will we be allowed to scale this [up]? How can we be sure that we can build an industry here?" ¶ Thus, if the U.S. government wishes to keep its domestic offshore aquaculture industry afloat, it must focus on revising its current regulatory regime.

Fish/Aquaculture K2 Food Security Ext’s

Multiple ways fish increase food security

Edward H. Allison, Principal Scientist, Policy, Economics, and Social Sciences, The WorldFish Center, 2011, “Agriculture, Fisheries, Poverty, and Food Security,” http://www.worldfishcenter.org/resource_centre/WF_2971.pdf, [accessed 5/7/2014]

The harvest, sale and processing of fish contribute indirectly to food security by increasing purchasing power ¶ at individual or household level and also regionally, and nationally. Demand for fish is expected to increase ¶ substantially, at least in line with other animal-based foods, particularly in South and South-east Asia. Current ¶ global per-capita supply of fish is 17 kg per year; nearly half comes from aquaculture. The availability of fish is ¶ unevenly distributed, with supply constraints faced by some undernourished populations in developing countries ¶ with high dependence on fish, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, the least developed countries of South and ¶ South East Asia, and small island states in the Pacific Ocean.¶ Developed and developing country perspectives on the links between fish and health differ considerably. In ¶ developed countries the major focus has been on fish safety and the health benefits of poly-unsaturated fatty ¶ acids from fish and fish oil, which are thought to lower blood pressure and reduce risk of heart disease. In ¶ developing countries, the focus has been on the role of fish in tacking undernutrition, maternal and child health.

Fish isn’t just another food-It helps resolve MAJOR NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCIES in the developing world

Edward H. Allison, Principal Scientist, Policy, Economics, and Social Sciences, The WorldFish Center, 2011, “Agriculture, Fisheries, Poverty, and Food Security,” http://www.worldfishcenter.org/resource_centre/WF_2971.pdf, [accessed 5/7/2014]
Although fish is usually linked to food security concerns through analysis of its contributions to protein supply, ¶ it is much more important as a source of micronutrients and lipids. More than two billion people in the world ¶ are undernourished through deficiency in essential vitamins and minerals, especially in vitamin A, iron and zinc. ¶ These deficiencies are especially important at key stages of human life (pregnancy, breastfeeding, childhood) ¶ and can have severe and often irreversible impacts for health and physical and mental development. This is the ¶ so-called ‘hidden hunger’. Fish can potentially contribute to reducing micronutrient deficiencies and reducing ¶ this health burden.¶ Some fish species – in particular the small fish important in the diets of the poor – have high nutrient content, ¶ including some of polyunsaturated fatty acids (such as ‘Omega-3’), vitamin A, iron, zinc and calcium. These fish ¶ can therefore be used as a key component in strategies aimed at reducing essential fatty acid and micronutrient ¶ deficiencies in developing countries. Although fish availability per capita is increasing globally, it is decreasing ¶ in much of sub-Saharan Africa. Moreover, there are concerns that the farmed fish most affordable to the poor ¶ are of less nutritional value. A combination of diet, food preparation and intra-household distribution can result ¶ in reduced and less equitable benefits from farmed fish than from the previously-consumed wild-caught small ¶ fish that are most nutritious eaten whole.

Fish/Aquaculture K2 Food Security Ext’s

Fish are especially key to diets in the developing world

Sara Hughes, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, and Joan B. Rose, Michigan State University, 2014 “Governing Aquaculture for Human Security,” http://www.fisheriessociety.org/proofs/sf/hughes.pdf [accessed May 3rd, 2014]

Fish are a highly nutritious food source and already constitute a significant source of protein for¶ more than one billion people worldwide (FAO 2003). According to the World Fish Center, “fresh¶ fish is 18–20% protein by weight and contains all eight essential amino acids. It is a rich source of¶ vitamin A for good vision and robust immunity, B vitamins for metabolizing energy, vitamin C to¶ aid the absorption of iron and fend off anemia, and vitamin D for bone growth” (World Fish Center¶ 2007). These nutrients are lacking in the diets of many people in the developing world where staple¶ grains and tubers are often more accessible and affordable. Studies have found that improved nutrition¶ through fish and fish oil consumption can even reduce the frequency of hospitalization and¶ maintain body weight of HIV patients (Stack et al. 1996). Aquaculture development increases the¶ availability of fish, and the food security benefits of a thriving and sustainable aquaculture industry¶ could be extraordinary for many parts of the world.

Aquaculture is key to food security

John S. Corbin, J.D. and President of Aquaculture Planning and Advocacy LLC which offers expertise in aquaculture policy formulation and planning, species and site selection, resource and environmental assessments, permit acquisition, etc., 2010, “Sustainable U.S. Marine Aquaculture Expansion, a Necessity,” Marine Technology Society Journal, Vol. 44, no. 3 [accessed May 4^th, 2014]

Introduction I n recent years, the scientific literature¶ has contained numerous dire and¶ controversial descriptions of the increasing¶ decline of the oceans’ welldocumented,¶ finite yield of seafood¶ and its essential contribution to human¶ nutritional well-being. Important marine¶ ecosystems and fish populations¶ may in fact be exhaustible, or at the¶ least damaged beyond recovery by¶ human activity (Myers and Worm,¶ 2003; Pauly and Palomares, 2005;¶ Pauly, 2009). Evidence indicates that¶ many of the world’s major fisheries are¶ being pushed beyond sustainable yields¶ by excessive fishing pressure and overstressed¶ by loss of critical habitat through¶ pollution, natural and man-made (SIC) disasters,¶ and the emerging specter of the impacts¶ of global climate change (Mora¶ et al., 2009; Food and AgricultureOrganization¶ [FAO], 2009a; FAO, 2009b).¶ Expansion of capture fishery supplies¶ for a fish-hungry world is deemed unlikely¶ by most scientists, and aquaculture is widely viewed as one solution (albeit¶ a partial solution) to increase global¶ seafood availability to meet the inevitable¶ growth in demand from an expanding¶ population (FAO, 2009b).

Fish/Aquaculture K2 Food Security Ext’s

Aquaculture is key to food security-Regular fisheries are operating beyond sustainable limits

Barney Smith, ACIAR’s Fisheries Program Manager and Biologist, 2004, “Research Solutions for a Win-Win-Win,” Fish, Aquaculture, and Food Security: Sustaining Fish as a Food Supply, Record of a conference conducted by the ATSE Crawford Fund, Parliament House, Canberra [accessed 5/5/2014]

Fish supply¶ The world’s seas now appear to have reached their¶ production limits, with most of the major capture¶ fisheries assessed as fully exploited or operating¶ beyond sustainable limits. This applies to both developed¶ and developing countries, with the situation¶ particularly acute in Asia. World total capture¶ fisheries production has stalled at or around 80–90¶ million metric tonnes (MMT) with the 2001 harvest¶ approaching 85 MMT, of which more than¶ one-third was used for annual feeds or applied to¶ non-food purposes (Bartley et al. 2003). Fishery¶ managers around the world now face the very significant¶ challenge of stabilising catches at present¶ levels or, more often, at lower, more sustainable¶ levels, and drastically reducing effort in overcapitalised¶ fisheries. The simplistic fisheries development¶ mantra of the sixties and seventies —¶ ‘Give a man (SIC) a fish and he eats for a day — teach¶ him to fish and he eats for a lifetime’ has come¶ back to haunt many of us.¶ In the short-to-medium term, any net gain to human¶ food supplies from wild harvest fisheries must¶ come predominantly from better utilisation of existing¶ catches, and the diversion of more product¶ to direct human use.¶ With future prospects for any sustained growth in¶ landings from wild fisheries at best limited in the¶ short-to-medium term, aquaculture is being targeted¶ as the engine for growth in global fish supplies¶ to meet the growing gap between supply and demand. The recent performance of the aquaculture¶ sector has been outstanding, and expectations¶ for future performance remain very high. Aquaculture¶ has been the fastest-growing food production¶ sector in the world for the last two decades, with¶ an overall growth rate of 11% per year (Delgado et¶ al. 2003). The dominance by China of global¶ mariculture (74%) and freshwater aquaculture¶ (73%) production tends to mask the less spectacular¶ growth elsewhere in the developing world,¶ while production from the developed world has¶ plateaued. The potential for aquaculture to meet¶ future global food fish needs is real but significant¶ constraints do remain, the solution to which will¶ require ongoing and substantial private and public¶ investment underpinned by innovative science.

Aquaculture is key to food security in the face of exploding population

The World Bank, 2013, “Fish to 2030: Prospects for Fisheries and Aquaculture,” Agriculture and Environmental Services Discussion Paper 03 [accessed 5/7/14]

Feeding an expected global population of 9 billion by 2050 is a daunting challenge that is engaging researchers, technical experts, and¶ leaders the world over. A relatively unappreciated, yet promising, fact is that fish can play a major role in satisfying the palates of the world’s growing middle income group while also meeting the food security needs of the poorest. Already, fish represents 16 percent of all animal¶ protein consumed globally, and this proportion of the world’s food basket is likely to increase as consumers with rising incomes seek higher value¶ seafood and as aquaculture steps up to meet increasing demand.¶ Aquaculture has grown at an impressive rate over the past decades. It has helped to produce more food fi sh, kept the overall price of fi sh¶ down, and made fi sh and seafood more accessible to consumers around the world. That’s why greater investment is needed in the industry—¶ for new and safer technologies, their adaptation to local conditions, and their adoption in appropriate settings.

Fish/Aquaculture K2 Food Security Ext’s

Aquaculture is key to food security-Especially in the developing world

The World Bank, 2013, “Fish to 2030: Prospects for Fisheries and Aquaculture,” Agriculture and Environmental Services Discussion Paper 03 [accessed 5/7/14]¶

Global Food Fish Consumption¶ The Fish to 2020 study projected that developing countries would¶ consume a much greater share of the world’s fish in the future¶ and that trade in fish commodities would also increase. The report¶ projected that fish consumption in developing countries would¶ increase by 57 percent, from 62.7 million tons in 1997 to 98.6 million¶ tons in 2020. Rapid population growth, increasing affl uence, and urbanization were considered to drive the demand for fi sh as well¶ as for livestock products in developing countries. By contrast, fi sh¶ consumption in developed countries was projected to increase by¶ about only 4 percent, from 28.1 million tons in 1997 to 29.2 million¶ tons in 2020.¶ The Fish to 2020 study concluded that the projected fi sh consumption¶ trajectories to 2020 could not be met by capture fi sheries alone¶ and would only be feasible if aquaculture continued to grow aggressively.¶ Rapid expansion of aquaculture was also discussed in¶ the context of its implications for dietary diversifi cation and food¶ security among the poor in developing countries. It was expected¶ that aquaculture could augment fish supply and reduce prices, as¶ observed for low-value freshwater fish in Asia, and could benefi t¶ poor households in food insecure parts of the world.¶ The report projected stagnant fish consumption in Sub-Saharan¶ Africa and, as discussed earlier, the FAO (2012) reports declining per¶ capita fish consumption in some Sub-Saharan African nations during¶ the 2000s. The reported food fish consumption in Africa in 2009¶ was 9.1 kilograms per capita per year (FAO 2012). Whether this will¶ grow in the future with affordable, aquaculture-sourced fi sh supply¶ is an important policy research question we will keep coming back¶ to throughout this study.

Oceans Impact Extension

Failure to protect oceans risks extinction

Gerald B. Leape (Marine Conservation Program Director) April 16 2002 National Environmental Trust, http://earthhopenetwork.net/alerts_4-02_3.htm

Our oceans are at risk, and with them our food supplies, our coastal economies, and even ourselves. This Earth Day, we have a rare opportunity to learn more about the decline in one of the earth's most important resources the oceans. On or near Monday, April 22, 2002, PBS stations around the country will be airing Empty Oceans, Empty Nets, a powerful new documentary on the rapidly declining fish harvests of the world. This documentary's gripping images confirm what fishermen and scientists are reporting the world over: our oceans are rapidly being depleted of fish. In fact, entire populations of fish are becoming commercially extinct. This film, shot in several countries around the world, shows fish populations on the verge of collapse, a fact confirmed through interviews with fishermen and scientists in many of these same countries. Oceans provide 95 percent of the living space for the earth's animals and plants, and are the largest source of protein in the world, feeding billions of people around the globe. Healthy oceans are essential to the survival of our planet. If you are interested, you can preview a 30-second video and find out when the film is airing near you at Habitat Media www.habitatmedia.org/pbs.html. We must act now to preserve the earth's web of life for future generations. Consult your local TV listing and tune in to learn more about our oceans, and what you can do to help save them.

Must Shift from China Extension

Current system won’t meet future food demand-Reform is necessary

John S. Corbin, J.D. and President of Aquaculture Planning and Advocacy LLC which offers expertise in aquaculture policy formulation and planning, species and site selection, resource and environmental assessments, permit acquisition, etc., 2010, [accessed 5/2/2014]
Uncertainties in¶ Meeting Future U.S.¶ Seafood Demand¶ It is important to examine some critical issues, other than basic global seafood supply, that are related to the¶ potential long-term sustainability and¶ stability of the U.S. option of importing¶ substantial amounts of seafood over the next two decades. Anderson¶ and Shamshak (2008) provide valuable¶ insight into the complexity, instability,¶ and far-reaching impacts of the¶ global seafood industry. They characterize¶ the industry as follows:¶ The global seafood industry is the¶ most complex and diverse animal¶ protein sector, with over 800 species¶ traded, ranging from urchins¶ to oysters to swordfish. The industry¶ uses harvesting technologies¶ that date back thousands of years¶ as well as capture and culture technologies¶ that are among the most¶ advanced in the world. ■ International trade in seafood is valued¶ at more than twice the trade in¶ all other meats and poultry combined.¶ ■ The industry is fragmented with¶ tens of thousands of companies¶ spread around the world.¶ ■ The industry faces the most bureaucratic¶ and inefficient regulatory¶ environment, relative to any other¶ food sector.¶ ■ Capture fisheries are known to¶ waste significant resources through¶ by-catch and inefficient processing.¶ Moreover, the industry throughout¶ its history has often been plagued¶ with excess capacity, overcapitalization,¶ and/or regulated inefficiency.¶ ■ Seafood is traded in a global marketplace¶ that lacks transparency.¶ Accurate and timely information¶ about prices and market conditions¶ is difficult to obtain or nonexistent.

China=Leader Now Extension

China currently maintains 70% of the world’s aquaculture output

Chris Andrikos, 2013, “CHINA: The Seafood Empire, Fishery News, May 1^st, http://usfishlaw.com/like-in-many-other-industries-china-leads-the-way-in-aquaculture-producing-70-of-all-the-worlds-farmed-fish/, [accessed May 6^th, 2014]

Much of the nation’s aquatic production is exported around the world, yet food-shortages and a growing Chinese population are slowing down trade and exports of seafood origin. As it stands, the Chinese seafood trade system accounts for 30% of the global fish market, and 70% of the world’s aquaculture output. The United States gives China $25 billion a year for farmed raised product, just in dollar terms, not to mention other goods traded. This current out-sourcing of seafood produces a tremendous failure and gap in local US markets, down-shifting local economies.¶ Yet, to this day there remains no clear-cut path to aquaculture regulatory shifts; the bridge in management between federal and state authorities convolutes the industry, resulting in the home-grown aquaculture business being only a percentage of what it should be. In China, these management issues do not exist; instead, adaptive government has empowered the public sector to recognize aquaculture advancement.

States CP Perm

The perm solves best-a joint jurisdiction model makes legal sense

Kenneth Parker, J.D., Northwestern, 13 “Fishing for the Public Trust Doctrine: The Search for a Legal Framework to Govern Open Ocean Aquaculture in America’s Federal Waters,” Northeastern University Law Jounral, Vol. 4, No. 1, pg. Google Scholar [accessed: 4/27/14]

Given the overlapping federal and state interests in the three-mile¶ strip abutting state coastlines, it would not be unreasonable to characterize¶ this area of ocean as being subject to joint state and federal jurisdiction.¶ While Congress and the Supreme Court have divided the rights to¶ the land under coastal waters between the state and federal governments,¶ it is far less clear whether differing rules of law apply to the water columns¶ above those lands. Simply referring to the entire 200-mile EEZ as being¶ held in joint state and federal jurisdiction might focus discussion on the¶ bundles of rights and responsibilities over which each level of government¶ has jurisdiction, rather than the current nomenclature, which applies¶ rules and exceptions. Under a joint jurisdiction model, it would be possible to develop¶ a regulatory regime for open ocean aquaculture that is applicable in both¶ state and federal waters and which simplifies the application process¶ allowing for appropriate state and federal authorizations, while protecting¶ ecosystems that cross artificial jurisdictional boundaries.

The perm solves best

Kenneth Parker, J.D., Northwestern, 13 “Fishing for the Public Trust Doctrine: The Search for a Legal Framework to Govern Open Ocean Aquaculture in America’s Federal Waters,” Northeastern University Law Jounral, Vol. 4, No. 1, pg. Google Scholar [accessed: 4/27/14]

D. The Possibility of Joint Federal and State Jurisdiction or¶ Ownership Over Federal Waters¶ It is also worth inquiring whether it is possible, based on the array¶ of precedents relating to applicability of state and federal laws to U.S. coastal waters, including EEZ waters, that jurisdiction over those waters¶ is jointly held by the state and federal governments, depending upon the¶ resource or use in question. In other words, just as it is possible for one¶ person to own the mineral rights to a piece of land and another to own¶ the surface rights, might it not also be possible for the federal government¶ to have jurisdiction over the lands underneath EEZ waters and over “all¶ [c]ases of admiralty and maritime [j]urisdiction,” but for states to have¶ jurisdiction over ecosystems and fish within the water column?¶

States CP Solvency Deficit

States don’t solve and the plan is key

Johns, J.D., University of Southern California Law School, 2013, “Farm Fishing Holes: Gaps in Federal Regulation of Offshore Aquaculture,” 86 S. Cal. L. Rev. 681

Prompt regulation of offshore aquaculture is needed for several reasons. As demand for seafood continues to increase, it is imperative that aquaculture supplements the U.S. domestic seafood supply. However, traditional U.S. aquaculture farms are no longer adequate: farms located inland or in coastal waters must compete more and more for space not only with commercial fishermen, but also with those wishing to use these waters for recreational purposes. Thus, aquaculture will inevitably move offshore from state-controlled to federally controlled waters. However, without a clear and com-prehensive regulatory framework giving aquaculturists the incentives or legal assurances to operate in federal waters, developers are discouraged from taking their operations offshore. At the same time, the lack of any comprehensive regulatory framework has allowed some of the environmental risks of offshore aquaculture to go unchecked. Regulations are needed, then, to ensure not only that the industry is developed, but that it does so in a sustainable and precautionary way.

A2 Amend the NAA Counterplan

Amending the National Aquaculture Act fails-It doesn’t influence aquaculture regulation and hasn’t since its inception

Johns, J.D., University of Southern California Law School, 2013, “Farm Fishing Holes: Gaps in Federal Regulation of Offshore Aquaculture,” 86 S. Cal. L. Rev. 681
Other academics argue that the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 could be used to establish an effective regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture. This Act may be an ideal basis for regulatory authority because it is the only exist-ing federal law specifically designed to address aquaculture. However, since its inception in 1980, the Act has failed to influence aquaculture regulation in any meaningful way. Although it created the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture ("JSA"), a coordinating body of several federal agencies, and charged that committee with developing a "national aqua-culture plan," the JSA has yet to promulgate any comprehensive regulations or even request the funds it needs to implement the plan. Furthermore, the Act places the Department of Agriculture ("DA") in charge of the JSA, an agency with little experience or expertise when it comes to marine aquaculture. It is possible that Congress could amend the Act to redesignate NOAA as the lead agency of the JSA. However, the domestic aquaculture industry is currently dominated by onshore operations - only 20 percent of U.S. farms are located in the ocean. This arguably makes the DA, given its jurisdiction over agricultural activities on land, the appropriate agency to oversee the U.S. aquaculture industry in its present form. n178 Indeed, the DA's budget for aquaculture research is much larger than NOAA's - not surprising given that onshore aquaculture operations make up a larger portion of the domestic aquaculture industry than do marine farms. n179 This makes it unlikely that the Act will be revised to identify NOAA as lead federal agency with respect to domestic aquaculture regulation.¶ Because of the concerns expressed above, existing statutes are not adequate bases of authority for implementing a federal regulatory [*715] framework for offshore aquaculture. Instead, Congress should enact new legislation that ex-plicitly creates a national regulatory framework. Below, I will discuss what a proper framework should include and de-scribe previous attempts to implement a marine aquaculture policy. I will conclude by endorsing the National Sustaina-ble Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2011 as the ideal piece of legislation to create such a framework.¶

A2 Courts CP

Only the Congress can act

Kenneth Parker, J.D., Northwestern, 13 “Fishing for the Public Trust Doctrine: The Search for a Legal Framework to Govern Open Ocean Aquaculture in America’s Federal Waters,” Northeastern University Law Jounral, Vol. 4, No. 1, pg. Google Scholar [accessed: 4/27/14]
That the public trust doctrine is well suited for governing open¶ ocean aquaculture is not a new idea. Legal scholars have observed the¶ important role the public trust doctrine has played in the management of¶ state waters and asked whether there exists a federal public trust doctrine¶ that might be applied to federal waters. This quest has largely been in¶ vain, since the federal public trust doctrine, as defined by the Supreme¶ Court, is subsumed into the duties of Congress. If Congress fails to act in¶ a given area, the Court does not seem inclined to apply substantive federal common law based on the public trust doctrine.¶ This inquiry raises the possibility that asking whether there is¶ a federal public trust doctrine applicable to open ocean aquaculture in¶ federal waters may be the wrong question. For such a federal public trust¶ doctrine to be necessary, it must be assumed that the public trust duties¶ and powers of coastal states are extinguished at an arbitrary line based on¶ the limits of state jurisdiction over submerged lands. But an exploration¶ of this assumption has shown that there exist several strong arguments¶ why state public trust doctrines might be applicable in federal waters.¶ The strongest of these arguments are the extraterritorial application of¶ state law in federal waters and the lack of delegation of state public trust¶ powers to the federal government.

A2 Urban/Land Aquaculture CP

Urban aquaculture CP links to its own net benefits

Garrett Wheeler, J.D., Golden Gate University School of Law, 2013 “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, Volume 6, Issue 2, [accessed 5/7/2014]

Despite these benefits, land-based facilities are not without their¶ own environmental concerns. Potential impacts of conventional landbased¶ aquaculture facilities include the introduction of freshwater fish¶ into natural ecosystems, which can occur through either purposeful¶ release or accidental escape. These introductions adversely impact¶ local resources through hybridization, loss of native stocks, predation,¶ disease transmission, and changes in habitat. Additionally, interactions¶ between aquaculture farms can result in self-pollution and disease¶ transmission in areas where high-density farms may use water contaminated by neighboring installations.

Land-based/urban aquaculture links to the disease net benefit AND causes water usage problems

Garrett Wheeler, J.D., Golden Gate University School of Law, 2013 “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, Volume 6, Issue 2, [accessed 5/7/2014]

Effluent discharge can also be a problem for land-based facilities.¶ For example, raceway systems used to cultivate salmonids typically¶ produce high total daily loads of effluent discharge, which are extremely¶ difficult to treat.Large concentrated aquatic animal production¶ (CAAP) facilities also produce a variety of waste products. These¶ byproducts add nutrients and solid loadings to receiving waters such as¶ rivers or streams that can, in the absence of proper treatment, result in the¶ discharge of thousands of pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus per year¶ and up to several million pounds of total suspended solids per year.56¶ Several chemicals and therapeutic drugs are also used by the CAAP¶ industry and may be released into receiving waters. Finally, traditional¶ land-based facilities are associated with the introduction of pathogens¶ into receiving waters, with potential negative impacts on native¶ ecosystems.¶ In addition to problems stemming from the discharge of hazardous¶ material, the growth of conventional land-based aquaculture may also be¶ limited by dwindling water supplies. For example, the productivity of the¶ domestic catfish industry is currently threatened by decreasing¶ groundwater resources in the Mississippi Delta.

Not commercially viable and causes disease spread

CBC News, 2014 “Land-based aquaculture isn’t commercially viable, says Cooke,” http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/land-based-aquaculture-isn-t-commercially-viable-says-cooke-1.2628219, [accessed 5/5/2014]

The Namgis closed-containment facility on Vancouver Island is the first salmon farm in North America to grow Atlantic salmon on a commercial scale in a completely land-based aquaculture system.¶ Cranmer said the salmon from his facility are fetching a 30-per-cent premium on the price because it is raised in a way that is environmentally sustainable.¶ Scientists, researchers and industry experts at the conference hope the same practice can be used to produce fish on a large scale commercial basis.¶ Mitchell Dickie, project manager for freshwater systems with Cooke Aquaculture, said that's a huge leap.¶ Dickie said the fresh water required to recirculate in a tank system amounts to approximately 8,000 litres per minute for a single, commercial-scale farm.¶ And any disease that enters the system would spread immediately, he says.¶ "You can't guarantee there's no disease in a recirculated land based system so it's good to prepare for that," said Dickie.

A2 I-Law/UNCLOS DA

The plan is legal under international law-Helps the U.S. meet UNCLOS expectations

Kenneth Parker, J.D., Northwestern, 13 “Fishing for the Public Trust Doctrine: The Search for a Legal Framework to Govern Open Ocean Aquaculture in America’s Federal Waters,” Northeastern University Law Jounral, Vol. 4, No. 1, pg. Google Scholar [accessed: 4/27/14]

Up to this point, this discussion has focused on the mechanisms¶ within U.S. law that might allow the public trust doctrine, as developed¶ and articulated by state courts, to apply to federal waters, but it is worth¶ noting that artificial jurisdictional boundaries are not only internal to the¶ United States, but also apply on an international scale. There is at least¶ one legal theory under which international law might be found to support the application of state public trust doctrines to open ocean aquaculture¶ in federal waters.¶ In World Ocean Public Trust: High Seas Fisheries After Grotius—¶ Towards a New Ocean Ethos?, Montserrat Gorina-Ysern discusses fishery¶ management and aquaculture under international law.The article¶ examines the obligations placed on member countries under the United¶ Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”), which¶ authorizes the creation of national EEZs. While not an official party¶ to UNCLOS, the United States has asserted rights under the agreement,¶ and it is U.S. policy to comply with its requirements. World Ocean¶ Public Trust describes the obligations of UNCLOS parties: “[T]he 1982¶ UNCLOS requires States to ensure that EEZ living resources are not¶ endangered by overexploitation. States must cooperate with other States¶ engaged in the capture of straddling stocks, highly migratory stocks,¶ anadromous species, and marine mammals.”123¶ These responsibilities are very similar to those imposed on states¶ by the public trust doctrine. It could therefore be argued that application¶ of state public trust doctrines to federal waters might help the United¶ States to meet its international obligations under UNCLOS.¶ The implementation of one or more of these theories for applying¶ state public trust doctrines to federal waters would raise a number of¶ practical considerations, as examined in the next section.¶

A2 Antibiotic Resistance Turn

They can’t outweigh alternate causes—doctors misprescribe and patients don’t take them properly.

Alice Park, @ Time Magazine, 2-17-09 [http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1880140,00.html]

The rise of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria like MRSA can be attributed largely to our increasing use and misuse of antibacterial drugs. Many patients mistakenly believe these drugs can quell colds and flu, illnesses that are caused by viruses, not bacteria, and are therefore unresponsive to antibiotics. Further, doctors commonly prescribe antibiotics improperly, while many patients who do need them fail to complete their full prescribed course. The former condition pushes bacteria to mutate and develop resistance, while the latter creates ideal conditions for resistant strains to flourish. One way to reduce drug resistance, then, is to reduce the reckless use of drugs.
And, screening, hygiene, and isolation solve the impact even if they win uniqueness to this advantage somehow.

Alice Park, @ Time Magazine, 2-17-09 [http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1880140,00.html]

The current study does not detail why bacterial infections are occurring less frequently than before, but Burton speculates that it may be a result of greater vigilance on the part of both hospitals and state health departments in detecting and controlling the spread of MRSA. During the 10-year study period, improved methods of inserting catheters, shorter leave-in times for catheters, as well as improved hygiene and isolation practices have all become more routine. The goal now is to further reduce the risk of MRSA in vulnerable populations by identifying them early on: according to the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, 10 states currently require screening of high-risk patients, including those in the ICU and with weaker immune systems, for MRSA, and other states may soon adopt similar screening laws.

A2 Disease Impact

Disease spread doesn’t cause extinction

Posner 5 (Richard, Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ,“Catastrophe: the dozen most significant catastrophic risks and what we can do about them.” http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4150331/Catastrophe-the-dozen-most-significant.html#abstract)

Yet the fact that Homo sapiens has managed to survive every disease to assail it in the 200,000 years or so of its existence is a source of genuine comfort, at least if the focus is on extinction events. There have been enormously destructive plagues, such as the Black Death, smallpox, and now AIDS, but none has come close to destroying the entire human race. There is a biological reason. Natural selection favors germs of limited lethality; they are fitter in an evolutionary sense because their genes are more likely to be spread if the germs do not kill their hosts too quickly. The AIDS virus is an example of a lethal virus, wholly natural, that by lying dormant yet infectious in its host for years maximizes its spread. Yet there is no danger that AIDS will destroy the entire human race. The likelihood of a natural pandemic that would cause the extinction of the human race is probably even less today than in the past (except in prehistoric times, when people lived in small, scattered bands, which would have limited the spread of disease), despite wider human contacts that make it more difficult to localize an infectious disease. The reason is improvements in medical science. But the comfort is a small one. Pandemics can still impose enormous losses and resist prevention and cure: the lesson of the AIDS pandemic. And there is always a lust time.

Evolution also solves

Clover 8 (Charles, Daily Telegraph Environment Editor 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/02/05/scievol105.xml)

A major genetic survey shows how we are changing, reports Roger Highfield Evidence that humans will evolve to shrug off diseases such as type 2 diabetes and obesity has emerged. - Humans 'evolving to have children later' - Dmanisi fossil sheds new light on human evolution - Language development mirrors species evolution A survey of the human genetic code has shown that our resistance to malaria, diabetes and other diseases is changing in response to our environment. Dr Lluís Quintana-Murci of the Institut Pasteur, Paris, and colleagues analysed more than 2.8 million single letter spelling mistakes in the human genetic code to distinguish the usual random changes over the last 60,000 years from those that seem to be occurring in response to the environment, when a genetic mutation gives people an advantage over their peers. People are surprisingly similar at the DNA level and the work "abolishes the idea of race" he says. But when it comes to the few differences, those showing the strongest signature of this effect, called positive selection, are involved in skin pigmentation and hair development, as is already obvious from how white people live in darker climates. "You do not need genetics to know this, but it shows our method works." In the journal Nature Genetics the team reports that several traits are sometimes linked to the same gene, so that when people in the Far East evolved a different version of a gene called EDAR to sweat differently, the same gene gave them much denser hair and changed their teeth too, an effect he calls "hitchhiking." Genes that protect against disease are also evolving. For example, one called CR1 helps to cut the severity of malaria attacks and is now present in eight Africans in every ten, yet is absent elsewhere, a novel finding. Several genes, such as ENPP1, are involved in the regulation of the hormone insulin and in metabolic syndrome - a combination of adult diabetes and obesity. These are present in 90 per cent of non-Africans and their relative absence could explain why African Americans are particularly at risk of obesity and high blood pressure. The work suggests they are adapted to an African environment and have not adapted to an American lifestyle. "They have not had the time to readapt," says Dr Quintana-Murci. Prof Steve Jones of University College London comments: "They have shown that man was once more like other animals than we might like to imagine, for Nature imposed her rules on us in the same way as she did on rats or flies. "There are three great eras of history; the age of disaster, when we were killed by cold or sabre-toothed tigers, the age of disease - the epidemics which began with farming - and the age of decay, in which most of the developed world now lives, and dies of old age. "DNA now shows how much we were moulded by the force of natural selection during first two; but my guess is that in future, now that we nearly all survive for long enough to pass on our genes, much less will happen. Perhaps you can ask me again in ten thousand years." An earlier study by a team led by University of Wisconsin-Madison anthropologist Prof John Hawks suggested that humankind has evolved more rapidly in the past 5,000 years, at a rate roughly 100 times higher than any other period of human evolution. This work counters a common theory that human evolution has slowed to a crawl or even stopped in modern humans, since in modern society the survivors no longer have to be the fittest.

A2 Disease Impact

Prefer our evidence—their claims are exaggerated

Guskin and Wilson 7 Co-Editors, Weekly News Update on the Americas [Jane Guskin & David Wilson, THE POLITICS OF IMMIGRATION, 2007, 73.]

The myth that immigrants endanger public health is mostly based on the idea that dangerous infectious diseases are brought here by immigrants from impoverished "third world" countries. In fact, the main threats to life and health in the United States--heart disease, cancer, injuries, and diabetes, to name a few -- aren't communicable diseases, and their root causes are right here at home. As for the kind of diseases that we may associate with poorer countries, immigrants aren't any more likely to bring them here than are U.S. citizens who travel abroad and return. (U.S. authorities don't routinely screen people for diseases as they arrive in this country; medical exams are only required for immigrants when they seek resident status here.) Insects, birds, and other animals can also carry diseases across borders.