West Coast Publishing Ocean 2014 affirmative page

Ocean Renewables MHK Aff Description

In case you didn’t know: climate change is real and humans are causing a lot of it. Emissions from fossil fuel-burning electricity generation are one of the primary drivers of climate change and pollution. Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) technologies produce electrical power by converting the innate energy from ocean waves, tides, flowing rivers, and more. This 1AC argues that federal investment in MHL renewables to displace our dependence on fossil fuels (as well as nuclear) for electricity. This will substantially reduce emissions and associated pollution. The plan follows the recommendations of small businesses and universities represented by Strategic Marketing Innovations, Inc. (see solvency) that $50 million be invested to spur private sector investment.

One of the few ways to make sure your affirmative case is topical is to actually develop ocean resources. MHK renewable energies develop ocean resources to generate electricity. For the purposes of this year’s topic, this plan limits MHK technology to those involving ocean resources. This excludes non-topical actions, like building dams on the Ohio River, which would generally fall under “MHK” technologies.

What are MHK technologies?

Tethys, Information body of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), 2014, “Environmental Effects of Renewable Energy from the Sea,” http://tethys.pnnl.gov/, Accessed 5/3/2014

Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) or marine energy development in U.S. and international waters includes projects using the following devices:

Wave energy converters in open coastal areas with significant waves;

Tidal turbines placed in coastal and estuarine areas;

In-stream turbines in fast-moving rivers;

Ocean current turbines in areas of strong marine currents;

Ocean Thermal Energy Converters in deep tropical waters.
Many of the harms and solvency evidence include inherency claims. The biodiversity advantage could easily go in the 1AC, or saved as an add-on. It has solid internal links and an extinction impact. The solvency evidence is quite good and specific to the DOE Wind and Water Power Program. This should give the 2AC lots of room to argue specificity of solvency, predictable ground on T. The plan could also be limited to just wave and tidal, but it is important to note that MHK does not include offshore wind. Specifically, there is literature that supports using wave energy as desalination devices that could be used for an additional advantage.
For more information:
(OREC) Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition, February 2011, “MHK Facts,” http://www.oceanrenewable.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/mhk-fact-sheet-for-hill-feb-2011-final.pdf
U.S. Dept. of Energy, January 2013, Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Projects Fiscal Years 2008 – 2012, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/water/pdfs/mhk_projects_2013.pdf

Ocean Renewables MHK 1AC

Observation One: Inherency

The budget for MHK technologies was cut by 60% in the FY2014 budget

(OREC) Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition, June 27, 2013, “Press Release: House of Representatives Cuts DOE Water Power Program Funding,” http://www.oceanrenewable.com/2013/06/27/house-representatives-cuts-doe-water-power-program-funding/, Accessed 5/3/2014

The Congressional House of Representatives Appropriations Committee released their Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Energy and Water Development budget proposal yesterday and cut $911 million for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Programs.  The Water Power R&D program received $24 million, a 60 percent reduction from the funding level set by Congress in FY13.  This EERE program is charged with supporting efforts to research, test and develop innovative technologies capable of generating clean and affordable electricity from water resources. “This is disappointing news for the U.S. water power industry and the country as a whole,” said Sean O’Neill, OREC’s president. “Marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) technologies, including wave, current and tidal, have demonstrated substantial progress and offer the promise to deliver clean, affordable and American made energy, jobs and economic development.”

Plan: The United States Congress should approve $50,000,000 for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Wind and Water Power Program to support research and private sector commercialization for Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) renewable energies for the development of ocean resources

Advantage One: Climate Change

A. Climate change is happening now. We must rapidly deploy marine renewables to reduce fossil fuel emissions to avoid extreme climate change

Martin Attrill, Professor and Director of Plymouth Marine Institute, Plymouth University Et al., June 19, 2013, “Marine Renewables,

Biodiversity and Fisheries,” Plymouth Marine Institute at Plymouth University, http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/marine_ renewables_biodiver.pdf, Accessed 4/28/2014

It is necessary to rapidly deploy large quantities of marine renewable energy to reduce the carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning which are leading to ocean acidification, global warming and climatic changes. Done well and sensitively its deployment could be beneficial to marine wildlife compared to the alternative scenario of greater levels of climate change. This overview outlines current evidence and the following papers in this report go into greater detail. According to the Met Office in the UK, global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) need to peak in 2016, with annual declines of 3.5% every year afterwards, in order to provide even a 50:50 chance of avoiding a 2 degree rise in global average temperatures. Yet despite major international meetings and agreements focused on reducing the output of GHGs, global emissions have continued to rise, indeed accelerate, over the last 10 years. Consequently, recent predictions of future global warming are now at the top end of models produced a decade ago or so and suggest that, without rapid action, temperatures may increase by 4 degrees or more above pre-industrial temperatures. Climate change is now a visible reality. Each year of the 21st century has ranked amongst the 14 hottest since record keeping began in 1880. Notable warming of the seas around NW Europe has been recorded over the last 30 years, with extensive spatial changes to plankton and fish assemblages, that have subsequently impacted top predators such as cod and seabirds. 2012 also saw the lowest ever cover of summer Arctic Sea ice. Sea level rise is now measurable, due to both thermal expansion and ice melt, with a global average rise of 3.3 mm/year between 1993-2009. This rate is accelerating: a 1m sea level rise by the end of the century in some areas is an increasing possibility, with major consequences for the integrity of lowlying coastal and wetland ecosystems. Finally, ocean acidification is becoming measurable, heading us on the predicted locked-in path to lower pH seas with severe consequences for organisms using CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) in their biology, such as reefs, molluscs and some key planktonic producers. It is thought that the current rate of acidification is 10-100 times faster than any time in the past 50 million years. Today’s change may be unlike any previous ocean pH change in Earth’s history. It is therefore clear that the marine environment is already being damaged by the increasingly apparent impacts of climate change; however it is not too late to make a difference to avoid more extreme impacts.

B. This is outstripping any benefits to warming. The newest IPCC report proves climate change will slow economic growth, increase poverty, and cause hunger flashpoints

Greg Ansley, Staff Writer, April 1, 2014, “Academics warn human survival on the line,” New Zealand Herald, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11229788, Accessed 5/1/2014

In the most comprehensive study yet into the effects of rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that global warming could undermine economic growth and increase poverty. The IPCC found the negative effects of climate change have already extended beyond any potential benefits of rising temperatures. They will worsen if global-average temperatures continue to rise by the expected lower limit of 2C by 2100 and could become catastrophic if temperatures rise higher than 4C. In a blunt and often pessimistic assessment of climate-change effects, the fifth since 1990, the IPCC scientists give a stark warning about what the world should expect if global temperatures rise as predicted without mitigation or adaptation. "In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans," says the report released after a final meeting in Yokohama, Japan. It says climate-change effects this century are tipped to slow economic growth, make poverty tougher, further erode food security, and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and "emerging hot spots of hunger". "Climate change is happening, there are big risks for everyone and no place in the world is immune from them," said Professor Neil Adger of Exeter University, one of the many lead authors of the report. Nearly 2000 experts from around the world contributed.

C. Warming of 4 degrees is inevitable, so we must reduce emissions now

The Potsdam Institute, November 2012, The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, “Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided,” A report for the World Bank, http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/ files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf, Accessed 5/1/2014

The emission pledges made at the climate conventions in Copenhagen and Cancun, if fully met, place the world on a trajectory for a global mean warming of well over 3°C. Even if these pledges are fully implemented there is still about a 20 percent chance of exceeding 4°C in 2100. If these pledges are not met then there is a much higher likelihood—more than 40 percent—of warming exceeding 4°C by 2100, and a 10 percent possibility of this occurring already by the 2070s, assuming emissions follow the medium business-as-usual reference pathway. On a higher fossil fuel intensive business-as-usual pathway, such as the IPCC SRESA1FI, warming exceeds 4°C earlier in the 21st century. It is important to note, however, that such a level of warming can still be avoided. There are technically and economically feasible emission pathways that could still limit warming to 2°C or below in the 21st century. To illustrate a possible pathway to warming of 4°C or more, Figure 22 uses the highest SRES scenario, SRESA1FI, and compares it to other, lower scenarios. SRESA1FI is a fossil-fuel intensive, high economic growth scenario that would very likely cause mean the global temperature to exceed a 4°C increase above preindustrial temperatures. Most striking in Figure 22 is the large gap between the projections by 2100 of current emissions reduction pledges and the (lower) emissions scenarios needed to limit warming to 1.5–2°C above pre-industrial levels. This large range in the climate change implications of the emission scenarios by 2100 is important in its own right, but it also sets the stage for an even wider divergence in the changes that would follow over the subsequent centuries, given the long response times of the climate system, including the carbon cycle and climate system components that contribute to sea-level rise. The scenarios presented in Figure 22 indicate the likely onset time for warming of 4°C or more. It can be seen that most of the scenarios remain fairly close together for the next few decades of the 21st century. By the 2050s, however, there are substantial differences among the changes in temperature projected for the different scenarios. In the highest scenario shown here (SRES A1FI), the median estimate (50 percent chance) of warming reaches 4°C by the 2080s, with a smaller probability of 10 percent of exceeding this level by the 2060s. Others have reached similar conclusions. Thus, even if the policy pledges from climate convention in Copenhagen and Cancun are fully implemented, there is still a chance of exceeding 4°C in 2100. If the pledges are not met and present carbon intensity trends continue, then the higher emissions scenarios shown in Figure 22 become more likely, raising the probability of reaching 4°C global mean warming by the last quarter of this century.

D. Unmitigated climate change will collapse the food chain causing mass extinction

Nicholas D. Kristof, American journalist, author, op-ed columnist, and a winner of two Pulitzer Prizes, October 31, 2006, “Scandal Below the Surface”, http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/opinion/31kristof.html?_r=1,

If you think of the earth’s surface as a great beaker, then it’s filled mostly with ocean water. It is slightly alkaline, and that’s what creates a hospitable home for fish, coral reefs and plankton — and indirectly, higher up the food chain, for us. But scientists have discovered that the carbon dioxide (CO2) we’re spewing into the air doesn’t just heat up the atmosphere and lead to rising seas. Much of that carbon is absorbed by the oceans, and there it produces carbonic acid — the same stuff found in soda pop. That makes oceans a bit more acidic, impairing the ability of certain shellfish to produce shells, which, like coral reefs, are made of calcium carbonate. A recent article in Scientific American explained the indignity of being a dissolving mollusk in an acidic ocean: “Drop a piece of chalk (calcium carbonate) into a glass of vinegar (a mild acid) if you need a demonstration of the general worry: the chalk will begin dissolving immediately.” The more acidic waters may spell the end, at least in higher latitudes, of some of the tiniest variations of shellfish — certain plankton and tiny snails called pteropods. This would disrupt the food chain, possibly killing off many whales and fish, and rippling up all the way to humans. We stand, so to speak, on the shoulders of plankton. “There have been a couple of very big events in geological history where the carbon cycle changed dramatically,” said Scott Doney, senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. One was an abrupt warming that took place 55 million years ago in conjunction with acidification of the oceans and mass extinctions. Most scientists don’t believe we’re headed toward a man-made variant on that episode — not yet, at any rate. But many worry that we’re hurtling into unknown dangers. “Whether in 20 years or 100 years, I think marine ecosystems are going to be dramatically different by the end of this century, and that’ll lead to extinction events,” Mr. Doney added. “This is the only habitable planet we have,” he said. “The damage we do is going to be felt by all the generations to come.”

E. The status quo is headed for a climate catastrophe but it’s not too late! Every reduction is key

Dana Nuccitelli, environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis, August 2012, “Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?,” http://www.skepticalscience.com/realistically-what-might-future-climate-look-like.html, Accessed 5/1/2014

We're not yet committed to surpassing 2°C global warming, but as Watson noted, we are quickly running out of time to realistically give ourselves a chance to stay below that 'danger limit'. However, 2°C is not a do-or-die threshold. Every bit of CO2 emissions we can reduce means that much avoided future warming, which means that much avoided climate change impacts. As Lonnie Thompson noted, the more global warming we manage to mitigate, the less adaption and suffering we will be forced to cope with in the future. Realistically, based on the current political climate (which we will explore in another post next week), limiting global warming to 2°C is probably the best we can do. However, there is a big difference between 2°C and 3°C, between 3°C and 4°C, and anything greater than 4°C can probably accurately be described as catastrophic, since various tipping points are expected to be triggered at this level. Right now, we are on track for the catastrophic consequences (widespread coral mortality, mass extinctions, hundreds of millions of people adversely impacted by droughts, floods, heat waves, etc.). But we're not stuck on that track just yet, and we need to move ourselves as far off of it as possible by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions as soon and as much as possible. There are of course many people who believe that the planet will not warm as much, or that the impacts of the associated climate change will be as bad as the body of scientific evidence suggests. That is certainly a possiblity, and we very much hope that their optimistic view is correct. However, what we have presented here is the best summary of scientific evidence available, and it paints a very bleak picture if we fail to rapidly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. If we continue forward on our current path, catastrophe is not just a possible outcome, it is the most probable outcome. And an intelligent risk management approach would involve taking steps to prevent a catastrophic scenario if it were a mere possibility, let alone the most probable outcome. This is especially true since the most important component of the solution - carbon pricing - can be implemented at a relatively low cost, and a far lower cost than trying to adapt to the climate change consequences we have discussed here (Figure 4).

F. Fossil fuel emissions are key

Rob Vertessy, Acting Director of Australian Bureau of Meteorology, and Megan Clark, Chief Executive Officer at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, March 13, 2012, “State of the Climate 2012,” http://theconversation.edu.au/state-of-the-climate-2012-5831, Accessed 5/2/2014

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions account for about 60% of the effect from anthropogenic greenhouse gases on the earth’s energy balance over the past 250 years. These global CO2 emissions are mostly from fossil fuels (more than 85%), land use change, mainly associated with tropical deforestation (less than 10%), and cement production and other industrial processes (about 4%). Australia contributes about 1.3% of the global CO2 emissions. Energy generation continues to climb and is dominated by fossil fuels – suggesting emissions will grow for some time yet. CO2 levels are rising in the atmosphere and ocean. About 50% of the amount of CO2 emitted from fossil fuels, industry, and changes in land-use, stays in the atmosphere. The remainder is taken up by the ocean and land vegetation, in roughly equal parts. The extra carbon dioxide absorbed by the oceans is estimated to have caused about a 30% increase in the level of ocean acidity since pre-industrial times. The sources of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere can be identified from studies of the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 and from oxygen (O2) concentration trends in the atmosphere. The observed trends in the isotopic (13C, 14C) composition of CO2 in the atmosphere and the decrease in the concentration of atmospheric O2 confirm that the dominant cause of the observed CO2 increase is the combustion of fossil fuels.

G. Marine renewables can supply power to almost 75% of the public by 2025

Peter J. Schaumberg, counsel and Ami M. Grace-Tardy, associate, both with Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., Winter 2010, “The Dawn of Federal Marine Renewable Energy Development,” Natural Resources & Environment, Vol. 24, No. 3, Accessed 4/28/2014, http://www.bdlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/2010%20The%20Dawn%20of%20Federal%20Marine%20Renewable%20Energy%20Development%20NRE%20P%20Schaumberg%20and%20A.%20Grace-Tardy.pdf

Marine renewable energy could provide more than 10 percent of U.S. energy demand (based on 2004 levels). This estimate is especially encouraging because marine renewable energy would be produced where the United States is experiencing its most rapid population growth—our coasts. Electric Power Research Institute, Primer: Power from Ocean Wave and Tides (2007), available at www.aidea.org/aea/PDF%20files/OceanRiverEnergy/6-22-2007EPRIprimer.pdf. By 2025, it is expected that 75 percent of the U.S. population will live near the coast. Marine energy, therefore, could help power these high population centers without the need for extensive, new transmission systems. Marine renewable energy is also often more aesthetically pleasing than its onshore solar or wind counterparts. The visual impacts of marine energy can be minimal or nonexistent because, after construction, the devices may have a low profile, be completely submerged, or be over the horizon.

H. Marine renewables are fundamental to mitigating climate change. We need the plan to advance non-wind renewables

Oceana, the largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation, 2013, “Feature: Marine Renewable Energy,”

http://oceana.org/en/eu/media-reports/features/marine-renewable-energy, Accessed 4/28/2014

Marine renewable energy plays a fundamental role in reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. In order to mitigate the effects of the climate change, it is essential to promote and develop this energy. Currently, only offshore wind energy has reached an acceptable level of development to be considered competitive. However, there are other less developed technologies that obtain energy from the seas and oceans, including wave and tidal energy, energy from currents, ocean thermal energy and salinity gradient energy.

Contention One: Solvency

A. Congress should approve the DOE’s FY2015 budget request to expand MHK technologies through the DOE’s Wind and Water Program

Strategic Marketing Innovations (SMI), March 24, 2014, “The U.S. MHK Industry Request for the DOE Water Power Program,” Fiscal Year 2015 Energy and Water Development Appropriations, http://www.strategicmi.com/press/FY15_Request_for_MHK_ EW_Approps_FINAL_3.21.14.pdf, Accessed 4/28/2014

The small businesses and universities striving to create a U.S.-based marine hydrokinetic (MHK) renewable energy industry respectfully request that Congress continue its recent investments in this emerging industrial sector. Funding of at least $50 million in the FY 2015 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill to support private sector MHK commercialization efforts through DOE’s Wind and Water Power Program is essential at this stage of the industry’s development. These investments facilitate research, development and deployment of internationally competitive MHK systems that are on the verge of commercial viability. This funding is the key mechanism available to support U.S. companies facing overseas competitors that receive a suite of subsidies, especially since MHK developers are not eligible for the tax benefits enjoyed by more mature conventional and renewable energy technologies. Members of the EU are investing almost $1 billion on MHK development and have made this technology a priority. By establishing a comparable effort in the U.S., we can grow a MHK industry that will provide new economic opportunities, high wage jobs and an abundant source of clean energy. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.

B. Approving the DOE budget request for MHK research and development is essential to support the entire industry. The Water Power Program provides all the necessary logistics and structure

Strategic Marketing Innovations (SMI), March 24, 2014, “The U.S. MHK Industry Request for the DOE Water Power Program,” Fiscal Year 2015 Energy and Water Development Appropriations, http://www.strategicmi.com/press/FY15_Request_for_MHK_ EW_Approps_FINAL_3.21.14.pdf, Accessed 4/28/2014

Approval of the FY15 $50 million request for the DOE Water Power program MHK R&D activities would be a significant step toward building the necessary overall support for the private sector companies developing our national marine renewable energy resources, including: Technology advancement, verification and acceptance through support for research, development, testing and deployment; Establishment of a clear, timely, predictable and workable regulatory framework for siting and permitting of marine renewable projects; Implementation of a stable and predictable incentive regime structure that facilitates rapid advancement of technology deployment; Close federal agency coordination and lessons learned from here and abroad in both wind and hydrokinetic power technology development and deployment; Development of standards and certifications to provide confidence to customers and the financial markets.

C. The Water Power Program is key to coordinate research and agency efforts

U.S. Dept. of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, June 2011, “Water Power for a Clean Energy Future,”

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/water/pdfs/51315.pdf, Accessed 4/28/2014

The United States has abundant water power resources, enough to meet a large portion of the nation’s electricity demand. Conventional hydropower generated 257 million megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity in 2010 and provides 6-7% of all electricity in the United States. According to preliminary estimates from the Electric Power Resource Institute (EPRI), the United States has additional water power resource potential of more than 85,000 megawatts (MW). This resource potential includes making efficiency upgrades to existing hydroelectric facilities, developing new low-impact facilities, and using abundant marine and hydrokinetic energy resources. EPRI research suggests that ocean wave and in-stream tidal energy production potential is equal to about 10% of present U.S. electricity consumption (about 400 terrawatt-hours per year). The greatest of these resources is wave energy, with the most potential in Hawaii, Alaska, and the Pacific Northwest. The Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Water Power Program works with industry, universities, other federal agencies, and DOE’s national laboratories to promote the development and deployment of technologies capable of generating environmentally sustainable and cost-effective electricity from the nation’s water resources.

D. Expanding federal investment in marine renewable energies boosts the economy growth and competitiveness, while increasing energy security and independence. The plan would serve as a catalyst for state and regional coordination and development

Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, June 2013, “Charting the Course: Securing the Future of America’s Oceans. Ocean priorities for the Obama administration and congress,” http://www.virginia.edu/colp/pdf/joint-ocean-commission-initiative-2013.pdf, Accessed 4/9/2014

The Administration’s principles guiding domestic energy development include creating clean energy jobs and technologies, making America more energy independent, and reducing carbon emissions. Renewable energy—particularly offshore wind energy—has great potential for pursuing expansion. Such expansion would create jobs, increase U.S. energy security, and strengthen our nation’s competitiveness. Renewable energy also presents exciting opportunities for pursuing innovative partnerships, streamlining the regulatory process, and using integrated ecosystem management tools to effectively, safely, and efficiently develop these new technologies. Unfortunately, the small size of many current renewable energy projects means they do not benefit from economies of scale, making it difficult for them to compete with more-established energy sources. A national investment in these technologies through adequate and stable financial and tax incentives would help realize their potential and position us as leaders in an emerging global industry. In addition, to make renewable energy accessible to consumers, upgrades to supporting infrastructure (e.g., power lines, grid networks, and transmission stations) are needed.

E. Sustained federal funding and coordination is essential to significantly increasing MHK energy. This reduces fossil fuel use and makes the industry competitive globally

(OREC) Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition, November 2011, U.S. Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Roadmap, A National Strategy to Support U.S. Energy Security and Create Jobs through the Commercialization of Marine Renewable Energy Technologies, http://www.oceanrenewable.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/MHK-Roadmap-Final-November-2011.pdf, Accessed 4/26/2014

Structuring programs and competitive funding solicitations to align and focus resources that support deployments and in situ research will require coordination within and among federal, regional and state organizations. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has begun the process in its work with state and federal agencies, national labs, universities and non-governmental organizations like the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition (OREC). Over the past five years, the U.S. Congress has also demonstrated its support for the industry through increased funding for the DOE Wind and Water Power Program. Sustained federal funding will help create thousands of high paying “green” jobs, hasten deployment of these technologies, give confidence to investors and help attract private capital to drive the industry forward. The Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Roadmap describes the issues, challenges and opportunities facing the U.S. MHK industry and provides a clear, logical path to the commercialization of technologies that contribute to a clean, sustainable and diverse electric generating capability. With the right support, the U.S. MHK renewable energy industry can be competitive internationally. With the right encouragement, MHK renewable energy technologies can help us reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and provide clean energy alternatives to fossil fueled power generating systems. And with the right public awareness, our coastline communities and shipyards can use MHK energy production as a springboard for sustainable economic development.