*****Aquaculture Aff GDS 2014

***1AC
1AC Food Security
Massive expansion of aquaculture key to stave off global food security crisis
current industry growth rates wont meet demand
Muir 13 Emeritus Professor in the Department of Aquaculture @ University of Sterling, UK
Jonathan, Fish, feeds, and food security Animal Frontiers Vol. 3 No. 1
[http://www.animalfrontiers.org/content/3/1/28.full] January//
It is clear that expansion of fish supplies will be essential to meet future food needs. However,
given that 80% of 523 world fish stocks for which assessment data are available are reported as
fully or over-exploited, with continued problems of IUU (illegal, unregulated, and unreported)
fishing (Agnew et al., 2009), major disruptions associated with climate change (Cheung et al.,
2010), and abounding challenges of governance and management (sterblom et al., 2010,
OLeary et al., 2011), prospects for expanding or even retaining current output from capture
fisheries are at best uncertain (see e.g., Garcia and Rosenberg, 2010). Though there are likely to
be substantial levels of unrecorded output in inland fisheries, the prospects for further
expansion are unlikely, with increasing demands for water for food supplies (Jgerskog and
Jnch Clausen, 2012), urban and industrial use, and increasing functional disruption of aquatic
habitats (Welcomme et al., 2010). The questionable issues of stock recovery apart (see Worm et
al., 2009), or the limited enhancement of specific fisheries through restocking and habitat
improvement (Lorenzen, 2008), the primary expectation is therefore that aquaculture (Figure 3)
will contribute the bulk of future needs (STAQ, 2009, Muir et al., 2010, Bostock et al., 2010, Hall
et al., 2011). Aquiculture research being done at Ohio State University's Agriculture Research
and Development Center (source: OARDC). Based on current human use levels of some 128
million tonnes, and dependent on income and food preference projections, total consumption
levels of some 200 to 250 million tonnes could be foreseeable by 2050. Given that capture
fisheries might not supply more than 70 million tonnes of food fish, aquaculture production
would need to rise to some 130180 million tonnes annually, two to three times the present
output. In 2010, the top ten producing countries accounted for 87.6% by volume and 81.9% by
value of global aquaculture output. Asia accounted for 89% of this (Table 1), led by China, with
more than 60% of global output. Other major Asian producers are India, Viet Nam, Indonesia,
Bangladesh (Figure 4), Thailand, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Japan. Much of the production is
based on relatively simple pond-based production of carp and tilapia, together with coastal
mollusc culture, neither system requiring substantial feeding input. Growth in output and value
over the last decade has been relatively strong, and with the exception of Africa, value per unit
output has also increased (FAO 2012a, 2012b). Outside Asia, key producer countries are Norway
and Chile (Atlantic salmon), and Egypt (tilapia).

Expansion into EEZs key coastal waters are crowded out
Lovatelli et al 10 researchers @ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department
Allessandro, Jose Aguilar-Manjarrez, and Doris Soto, Expanding mariculture farther offshore:
Technical, environmental, spatial and governance challenges
[http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3092e/i3092e.pdf] March 22-25 //
Aquaculture is a fast-growing food-producing industry that currently supplies almost 50 percent
of the worlds food fish and probably has the greatest potential to meet the growing demand for
aquatic food. Given the projected global population growth over the next couple of decades, it is
estimated that at least an additional 40 million tonnes of aquatic food will be required by 2030
to maintain the current per capita consumption. From an activity that was primarily Asian,
aquaculture has now spread to all continents. Furthermore, from an activity that focused on
freshwater fish, particularly cyprinids, it now encompasses all aquatic environments and many
aquatic species. The present situation, in terms of availability and competition for natural
resources, environment protection and population growth, along with advances in
biotechnologies, marine engineering, etc., brings with it great potential but also complex
challenges in the development of aquaculture. The rapid expansion of the aquaculture industry
has resulted in the demand for more resources (e.g. freshwater, feed) and space to
accommodate it. The search for additional areas to expand aquaculture and the identification of
new farming species of commercial value to satisfy the growing local and export markets are
pushing the sector to expand the mariculture subsector and, in some countries, to expand its
activities farther off the coast and offshore where more space is available, where competition is
currently less intense, and where environmental impacts from and on aquaculture can be
minimized and food safety optimized. As mariculture is offering an ever-increasing opportunity
for the sector to expand and become a major supplier of animal protein, a number of issues
covering biosecurity, economic, environmental and social aspects will need to be addressed
within an ecosystem perspective in order to ensure sustainable growth in the long term. Despite
the global interest in developing mariculture including offshore aquaculture, comprehensive
estimates of spatially quantified potential for growth of the industry are scarce. Exclusive
economic zones (EEZs), claimed by nearly all countries, are the main areas in which mariculture
can expand to the open ocean from present-day operations in sheltered inshore or nearshore
areas. Although globally mariculture contributes importantly to overall aquaculture production
and value, out of the 145 sovereign nations with EEZs, only 17 of them account for 98 percent of
mariculture production. The future contribution of mariculture both for sustainable livelihoods
and to provide fish to world markets will be determined, among other factors, by how much
area will actually be available for mariculture development among other competing uses and
whether farming practices will be truly environmentally friendly, socially sound and
economically relevant.
Offshore fish production is the only viable and environmentally sustainable way
to solve the food security crisis
Lovatelli et al 10 researchers @ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department
Allessandro, Jose Aguilar-Manjarrez, and Doris Soto, Expanding mariculture farther offshore:
Technical, environmental, spatial and governance challenges
[http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3092e/i3092e.pdf] March 22-25 //
With the global human population expected to reach 9 billion by 2050, demand for food and
feed will substantially increase. The manner in which food and feed production is increased to
meet the demand of the worlds growing population is a major challenge. Increasing production
from the sea through expanded aquaculture may be a better alternative to further land
development, which could involve clearing more rain forests, draining more aquifers or using
more fertilizers and pesticides as agriculture spreads to marginal lands. Current overexploitation
in wild fisheries means that fisheries cannot provide a solution. Expansion of land-based
aquaculture and coastal aquaculture faces constraints because of an increasing lack of suitable
land and water sites, a dependence on reliable supply of good quality water and, particularly in
the coastal zone, the potential for conflicts with other users. For these reasons, it is believed
that the expansion of aquaculture into deeper and farther offshore marine waters is a high
priority and should be facilitated through research, development and appropriate regulatory
management. Offshore mariculture offers significant potential for increasing world food
production in an environmentally sustainable way. Its expansion is important to achieving the
goal of world food security, providing alternatives to wild stock fisheries, and fostering economic
development, particularly in coastal regions of the world.

Fish protein key to the populations most at risk its inexpensive and nutrient
dense
Lehane 13 research analysts @ Future Directions (independent research institute in
Australia)
Sinead, Fish for the Future: Aquaculture and Food Security
[http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publications/food-and-water-crises/1269-fish-for-the-
future-aquaculture-and-food-security.html] August 27 //
According to the FAO, over one billion people worldwide rely on fish as their primary source
of animal protein. Around the world, average annual fish consumption is 16.1 kg per capita.
In South-East Asia most major species of fish produced are primarily for local consumption,
with Thailand and Vietnam deriving over a third of their fish production from aquaculture. In
the last 30 years, animal protein consumption per capita in developing countries has more
than doubled, as a direct result of technology advancement in aquaculture. Those living in
poverty and in lower socio-economic households are unable to access sufficient nutritional
food to ensure their health and wellbeing. Often the food produced or purchased consists of
cereals or low-cost staple ingredients; budgets are unable to stretch to include meat or fruit
and vegetables. Fish, particularly produced through aquaculture, is commonly cheaper than
other animal meat. It also contains much higher protein levels, as well as other important
minerals and vitamins. As a means of providing greater nutrition for many poorer
households, increased availability of fish can mean better health and a more diverse diet.
Indirectly, commercial aquaculture leads to increased food security by providing
opportunities for employment and income generation for local communities. More than 500
million people in developing states reportedly depend on fisheries and aquaculture for their
livelihood. As a majority of aquaculture production occurs in developing states, a rise in
income leads to an increase in food purchasing power and, more importantly, diversification.
The consumption of non-staple foods, including fish and vegetables, has a positive
correlation with income growth, supporting food security and greater nutritional content in
diets.

Expansion of U.S. aquaculture uniquely key solves food security, reducing
climate change, and stopping deforestation
Annie-Rose Strasser 4/21/14, The New, Innovative And More Efficient Way Of Feeding
People, Senior Editor of ThinkProgress, ClimateProgress,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/21/3422486/big-ag-takes-to-the-ocean/
Spend just a few minutes reading news about agriculture and climate change these days, and
youll understand whats driving people to consider scaling up aquaculture: The latest report
from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us were headed
toward a breakdown of food systems linked to warming, drought, flooding, and precipitation
variability and extremes. Studies come out every week, practically, that say drought threatens
our supply of key grains like wheat, corn, and rice. The warming globe is even slowing down
cows production of milk. And not only is our food on the fritz, but its causing a lot of the
problems that seem to be leading to its own demise. Cows, a growing source of protein here in
the United States, are major emitters of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Meat production is
also a serious drain on other resources: A quarter pound of hamburger meat uses up 6.7 pounds
of grains and 52.8 gallons of water. Were paying a high price to get our protein, and all the
while our population is growing at a breakneck speed. There are a lot of hungry mouths to feed.
The United Nations has urged a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal
products altogether. But aquaculture might be a good stepping stone. Overall, if were going
to continue to consume the amount of seafood we consume or put more apocalyptically, if
were going to adequately nourish the increasing number of billions of people on this planet,
Michael Conathan, Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress, told
ThinkProgress, more and more protein is going to have to come from aquaculture. Experts say
there are myriad reasons why the world can and should shift toward getting more of its
sustenance from aquaculture. For one thing, it can be much more efficient than the status quo.
The thing about aquaculture is that from a resource efficiency perspective its one of the most
resource-efficient ways to produce protein in terms of the amount of food and the amount of
space it takes, says NOAAs Rubino. Far more than land animals. Youre not using fresh water
[to grow crops to feed land animals], and the feed conversion of fish is roughly one to one
one pound of food for one pound of flesh as opposed to pork or beef where its seven or ten
to one So from an environmental footprint perspective, its very efficient. You can also grow a
lot of fish in a very small space. They dont need a lot of space whether its a pond or a tank, as
opposed to grazing land or all the corn or soybeans that it takes to feed animals. As it stands
now, 40 percent of the non-water surface of earth is used for agriculture. A whopping 30
percent of land thats not covered in ice is being used not to feed us directly, but to feed the
things that feed us, namely chickens, cows, and pigs. One of the effects of this is that agriculture
is driving massive deforestation. Conditions in the ocean, on the other hand, wouldnt really
need to be changed to increase the amount of farming we can get from the sea. (Of course,
conditions in the ocean are changing rapidly as a result of climate change. Ocean acidification,
the process by which ocean waters grow more acidic from absorbing too much carbon,
threatens all species in the long-run and shell species who need certain conditions to grow shells
in the immediate term. Its still a pretty large unknown, says Rubino, but he wouldnt say its
in the top five or ten things for most species right now). Sebastian Belle is the Executive
Director of the Maine Aquaculture Association, and he has seen how the industry is growing into
its own. Maine was the first state, and is one of the only states, to come up with a
comprehensive permitting plan for aquaculture projects. And because of limits on the permits
for traditional fishing, Belle says that aquaculture is drawing a younger crowd who will be the
future of fish production. The average age of a commercial fishing permit-holder in the state of
Maine is 58 years old, the average age of one of my folks is 34 years old, Belle said. That age is
probably somewhat artificially higher because we have the guys who got into the business 35
years ago. Many of them are in their 60s at least, so thats artificially bringing that average age
up. But if you actually exclude those first pioneers from an age point of view, our average age is
lower than that, probably 31, 32. We are becoming the face of the working waterfront in the
state. But that hasnt eliminated challenges that farmers face when dealing with contentious
coastline territory. One of our biggest challenges is what we call the social license to farm. We
are asking for a permit to farm in public waters. And many times, the people who own property
on the coast and particularly in the state of Maine the only people who can afford to own
nice coastal property are wealthy people. And they typically dont want to see something
commercial in their viewscape, Belle said. They paid a lot of money for this house and they
dont want to look at something commercial, they want to look at a sunset. Its almost a
cultural or a class clash between working waterfronts and folks who are interested in
recreational use, and that slows the whole permitting process down. It makes it difficult to get
permits, it makes it very contentious and sometimes litigious. And for a small farmer say an
18-year-old kid whos the son of a commercial fisherman, who cant get a license for commercial
fish because the fisheries closed but he wants to start an oyster farm if he gets sued by
someone whos retired to Maine but was a New York lawyer, hes kind of out-gunned.
Permitting challenges is just one of the reasons Belle would like to take more aquaculture
offshore. Going further out, he explained, also helps to stabilize temperatures. And experts say
that the open ocean can have other environmental benefits, too; one of the big criticisms of the
industry is that plopping a bunch of fish out in the ocean means increasing the amount of waste
being put into the seas. Open ocean environments can help deal with this concern by creating
free-flowing water to distribute that waste evenly. If I go five miles out to sea, Im in 300 feet of
water that has a quarter to a half-knot current thats consistently moving clean water across it,
explains Hubbs-Sea Worlds Don Kent. So, the water itself doesnt accumulate the materials
that the fish are producing the metabolites, the nitrogen, the phosphorous, that theyre
putting out. And it disperses the carbon waste that theyve got coming out of them in such a
manner that it feeds bottom fauna on the bottom, but it doesnt accumulate so densely that it
overpowers them. This has all been demonstrated in models, computer simulations that allow
us to say, if I want to grow this many fish in this location with this current, what impact do we
think we can predict on the bottom? Models are all that researchers have to go off when
assessing the potential impact of increased fish farming, though. Thats because the United
States is far from a leader in the industry were way behind. Commercial fishing has remained
stagnant while aquaculture is on the rise worldwide, but here in the U.S. were still importing
farm-raised fish from other countries places including China and Chile instead of growing it
ourselves. About 91 percent of our seafood originates abroad, and half of it comes from
aquaculture. Kent says that system wont last too long. Whats happening on a global level is
that the cost of seafood, because we keep seeing a need for more and more of it populations
are growing, people are eating more and more of it because its healthier for them whats
happening is the economies in the world that are growing right now, like China, Brazil, where
economies are starting to grow, their middle class is growing and their ability to buy seafood is
increasing, he explained. And so the very countries like China thats producing the majority of
the seafood is keeping it now. So its becoming more and more expensive now for us to source
the product here. Kent also argues that we should actually want to produce our own seafood
here. From a regulatory standpoint, Americans can have more faith in the quality of fish
produced under regulations from our own government. We are importing all of this seafood
but its impossible for us to check it all for all of these chemicals, he said, so who knows how it
was really grown? But if its grown here, unless the farmer is being illegal in his operation, itd be
illegal to do it. Theres plenty of opportunity for growing more protein from the sea here in the
United States. Exclusive Economic Zones, EEZs, are the area of ocean over which a country has
exclusive access to natural resources. The U.S. has the largest EEZ of any country on Earth. But
were outsourcing our fish production instead of doing it ourselves. In 2010, the tiny country of
Bangladesh with an EEZ of a little over 78,000 square kilometers produced 1,308,515 tons
of aquaculture. The United States whose EEZ is nearly twelve times the size produced
495,499 tons. The parts of the world where they have to feed their people or theyre going to
starve, like Bangladesh, they get it. Theyre doing it, said Kent. The people in our country,
where well just go buy it somewhere else, are now having to learn the lesson the hard way.
Because the sources are drying up.

Food insecurity causes conflict consensus of studies
Simmons 13 independent consultant for the Wilson Center
Emmy, Harvesting Peace: Food Security, Conflict, and Cooperation Environmental Change &
Security Program Report Vol. 14, Issue 3 [http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2013/09/harvesting-
peace-food-security-conflict-cooperation/#.Uth9YaCLDy8%29//JuneC//]
Deaths directly attributable to war appear to be declining, but war and other kinds of conflict
continue to take a toll on human health, often through food insecurity. Conflict induces the
affected populations to adopt coping strategies that invariably reduce their food
consumption and nutrition. Poor nutritional status in individuals of any age makes them
more susceptible to illness and death. But the acute food insecurity caused by conflict has
especially potent and long-lasting effects on children. Children whose nutrition is
compromised by food insecurity before they are two years old suffer irreversible harm to
their cognitive and physical capacities. Analysis of the causes of conflict and war has been an
area of growing academic interest. Both theoretical work and empirical analyses substantiate
the many ways in which food insecurity can trigger, fuel, or sustain conflict. Unanticipated
food price rises frequently provide a spark for unrest. Conflict among groups competing to
control the natural resources needed for food production can catalyze conflict. Social,
political, or economic inequities that affect peoples food security can exacerbate grievances
and build momentum toward conflict. Incentives to join or support conflicts and rebellions
stem from a number of causes, of which the protection of food security is just one. Food
insecurity may also help to sustain conflict. If post-conflict recovery proves difficult and food
insecurity remains high, incentives for reigniting conflict may be strengthened. Given the
complexity of factors underlying food security, however, we do not yet understand what
levels or aspects of food insecurity are most likely, in what circumstances, to directly
contribute to or cause conflict. More explicit integration of food security variables into
theories of conflict could help inform external interventions aimed at mitigating food
insecurity and preventing conflict. The high human and economic costs of conflict and food
insecurity already provide substantial incentives for international humanitarian and
development organizations to intervene in order to alleviate food insecurity in fragile states
and conflict-affected societies. Experience suggests, however, that effective efforts to
address food insecurity in these situations may require external actors to reconsider the ways
in which they intervene.


Food shortages lead to World War III
Calvin 98
William Calvin, theoretical neurophysiologist at the University of Washington, Atlantic Monthly,
January, The Great Climate Flip-Flop, Vol 281, No. 1, 1998, p. 47-64)
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields would
cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only
because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and
across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their armies, before
they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving
out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end:
eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This would be a worldwide problem -- and
could lead to a Third World War -- but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze.
The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as
Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and
largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the
North Atlantic.

Deforestation leads to extinction
Watson 6
Captain Paul Watson, Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. 9/17/06,
The Politics of Extinction. http://www.eco-action.org/dt/beerswil.html
The destruction of forests and the proliferation of human activity will remove more than 20
percent of all terrestrial plant species over the next fifty years. Because plants form the
foundation for entire biotic communities, their demise will carry with it the extinction of an
exponentially greater number of animal species -- perhaps ten times as many faunal species
for each type of plant eliminated. Sixty-five million years ago, a natural cataclysmic event
resulted in extinction of the dinosaurs. Even with a plant foundation intact, it took more than
100,000 years for faunal biological diversity to re-establish itself. More importantly, the
resurrection of biological diversity assumes an intact zone of tropical forests to provide for
new speciation after extinction. Today, the tropical rain forests are disappearing more rapidly
than any other bio-region, ensuring that after the age of humans, the Earth will remain a
biological, if not a literal desert for eons to come. The present course of civilization points to
ecocide -- the death of nature. Like a run-a-way train, civilization is speeding along tracks of
our own manufacture towards the stone wall of extinction. The human passengers sitting
comfortably in their seats, laughing, partying, and choosing to not look out the window.
Environmentalists are those perceptive few who have their faces pressed against the glass,
watching the hurling bodies of plants and animals go screaming by. Environmental activists
are those even fewer people who are trying desperately to break into the fortified engine of
greed that propels this destructive specicidal juggernaut. Others are desperately throwing
out anchors in an attempt to slow the monster down while all the while, the authorities,
blind to their own impending destruction, are clubbing, shooting and jailing those who would
save us all. SHORT MEMORIES Civilized humans have for ten thousand years been marching
across the face of the Earth leaving deserts in their footprints. Because we have such short
memories, we forgot the wonder and splendor of a virgin nature. We revise history and make
it fit into our present perceptions. For instance, are you aware that only two thousand years
ago, the coast of North Africa was a mighty forest? The Phoenicians and the Carthaginians
built powerful ships from the strong timbers of the region. Rome was a major exporter of
timber to Europe. The temple of Jerusalem was built with titanic cedar logs, one image of
which adorns the flag of Lebanon today. Jesus Christ did not live in a desert, he was a man of
the forest. The Sumerians were renowned for clearing the forests of Mesopotamia for
agriculture. But the destruction of the coastal swath of the North African forest stopped the
rain from advancing into the interior. Without the rain, the trees died and thus was born the
mighty Sahara, sired by man and continued to grow southward at a rate of ten miles per
year, advancing down the length of the continent of Africa. And so will go Brazil. The
precipitation off the Atlantic strikes the coastal rain forest and is absorbed and sent skyward
again by the trees, falling further into the interior. Twelve times the moisture falls and twelve
times it is returned to the sky -- all the way to the Andes mountains. Destroy the coastal
swath and desertify Amazonia -- it is as simple as that. Create a swath anywhere between the
coast and the mountains and the rains will be stopped. We did it before while relatively
primitive. We learned nothing. We forgot. So too, have we forgotten that walrus once mated
and bred along the coast of Nova Scotia, that sixty million bison once roamed the North
American plains. One hundred years ago, the white bear once roamed the forests of New
England and the Canadian Maritime provinces. Now it is called the polar bear because that is
where it now makes its last stand. EXTINCTION IS DIFFICULT TO APPRECIATE Gone forever
are the European elephant, lion and tiger. The Labrador duck, giant auk, Carolina parakeet
will never again grace this planet of ours. Lost for all time are the Atlantic grey whales, the
Biscayan right whales and the Stellar sea cow. Our children will never look upon the
California condor in the wild or watch the Palos Verde blue butterfly dart from flower to
flower. Extinction is a difficult concept to fully appreciate. What has been is no more and
never shall be again. It would take another creation and billions of years to recreate the
passenger pigeon. It is the loss of billions of years of evolutionary programming. It is the
destruction of beauty, the obliteration of truth, the removal of uniqueness, the scarring of
the sacred web of life To be responsible for an extinction is to commit blasphemy against
the divine. It is the greatest of all possible crimes, more evil than murder, more appalling
than genocide, more monstrous than even the apparent unlimited perversities of the human
mind. To be responsible for the complete and utter destruction of a unique and sacred life
form is arrogance that seethes with evil, for the very opposite of evil is live. It is no accident
that these two words spell out each other in reverse. And yet, a reporter in California
recently told me that "all the redwoods in California are not worth the life on one human
being." What incredible arrogance. The rights a species, any species, must take precedence
over the life of an individual or another species. This is a basic ecological law. It is not to be
tampered with by primates who have molded themselves into divine legends in their own
mind. For each and every one of the thirty million plus species that grace this beautiful
planet are essential for the continued well-being of which we are all a part, the planet Earth -
- the divine entity which brought us forth from the fertility of her sacred womb. As a sea-
captain I like to compare the structural integrity of the biosphere to that of a ship's hull. Each
species is a rivet that keeps the hull intact. If I were to go into my engine room and find my
engineers busily popping rivets from the hull, I would be upset and naturally I would ask
them what they were doing. If they told me that they discovered that they could make a
dollar each from the rivets, I could do one of three things. I could ignore them. I could ask
them to cut me in for a share of the profits, or I could kick their asses out of the engine room
and off my ship. If I was a responsible captain, I would do the latter. If I did not, I would soon
find the ocean pouring through the holes left by the stolen rivets and very shortly after, my
ship, my crew and myself would disappear beneath the waves. And that is the state of the
world today. The political leaders, i.e., the captains at the helms of their nation states, are
ignoring the rivet poppers or they are cutting themselves in for the profits. There are very
few asses being kicked out of the engine room of spaceship Earth. With the rivet poppers in
command, it will not be long until the biospheric integrity of the Earth collapses under the
weight of ecological strain and tides of death come pouring in. And that will be the price of
progress -- ecological collapse, the death of nature, and with it the horrendous and mind
numbing specter of massive human destruction.

Warming causes extinction 4 degree projections trigger a laundry list of
scenarios
Roberts 13citing the World Bank Reviews compilation of climate studies
David, If you arent alarmed about climate, you arent paying attention
[http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-alarmism-the-idea-is-surreal/] January 10
We know weve raised global average temperatures around 0.8 degrees C so far. We know
that 2 degrees C is where most scientists predict catastrophic and irreversible impacts. And
we know that we are currently on a trajectory that will push temperatures up 4 degrees or
more by the end of the century. What would 4 degrees look like? A recent World Bank review
of the science reminds us. First, itll get hot: Projections for a 4C world show a dramatic
increase in the intensity and frequency of high-temperature extremes. Recent extreme heat
waves such as in Russia in 2010 are likely to become the new normal summer in a 4C world.
Tropical South America, central Africa, and all tropical islands in the Pacific are likely to
regularly experience heat waves of unprecedented magnitude and duration. In this new high-
temperature climate regime, the coolest months are likely to be substantially warmer than
the warmest months at the end of the 20th century. In regions such as the Mediterranean,
North Africa, the Middle East, and the Tibetan plateau, almost all summer months are likely
to be warmer than the most extreme heat waves presently experienced. For example, the
warmest July in the Mediterranean region could be 9C warmer than todays warmest July.
Extreme heat waves in recent years have had severe impacts, causing heat-related deaths,
forest fires, and harvest losses. The impacts of the extreme heat waves projected for a 4C
world have not been evaluated, but they could be expected to vastly exceed the
consequences experienced to date and potentially exceed the adaptive capacities of many
societies and natural systems. [my emphasis] Warming to 4 degrees would also lead to an
increase of about 150 percent in acidity of the ocean, leading to levels of acidity
unparalleled in Earths history. Thats bad news for, say, coral reefs: The combination of
thermally induced bleaching events, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise threatens large
fractions of coral reefs even at 1.5C global warming. The regional extinction of entire coral
reef ecosystems, which could occur well before 4C is reached, would have profound
consequences for their dependent species and for the people who depend on them for food,
income, tourism, and shoreline protection. It will also likely lead to a sea-level rise of 0.5 to 1
meter, and possibly more, by 2100, with several meters more to be realized in the coming
centuries. That rise wont be spread evenly, even within regions and countries regions
close to the equator will see even higher seas. There are also indications that it would
significantly exacerbate existing water scarcity in many regions, particularly northern and
eastern Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, while additional countries in Africa would be
newly confronted with water scarcity on a national scale due to population growth. Also,
more extreme weather events: Ecosystems will be affected by more frequent extreme
weather events, such as forest loss due to droughts and wildfire exacerbated by land use and
agricultural expansion. In Amazonia, forest fires could as much as double by 2050 with
warming of approximately 1.5C to 2C above preindustrial levels. Changes would be
expected to be even more severe in a 4C world. Also loss of biodiversity and ecosystem
services: In a 4C world, climate change seems likely to become the dominant driver of
ecosystem shifts, surpassing habitat destruction as the greatest threat to biodiversity. Recent
research suggests that large-scale loss of biodiversity is likely to occur in a 4C world, with
climate change and high CO2 concentration driving a transition of the Earths ecosystems
into a state unknown in human experience. Ecosystem damage would be expected to
dramatically reduce the provision of ecosystem services on which society depends (for
example, fisheries and protection of coastline afforded by coral reefs and mangroves.) New
research also indicates a rapidly rising risk of crop yield reductions as the world warms. So
food will be tough. All this will add up to large-scale displacement of populations and have
adverse consequences for human security and economic and trade systems. Given the
uncertainties and long-tail risks involved, there is no certainty that adaptation to a 4C
world is possible. Theres a small but non-trivial chance of advanced civilization breaking
down entirely. Now ponder the fact that some scenarios show us going up to 6 degrees by
the end of the century, a level of devastation we have not studied and barely know how to
conceive. Ponder the fact that somewhere along the line, though we dont know exactly
where, enough self-reinforcing feedback loops will be running to make climate change
unstoppable and irreversible for centuries to come. That would mean handing our
grandchildren and their grandchildren not only a burned, chaotic, denuded world, but a
world that is inexorably more inhospitable with every passing decade.

1AC Seafood Economy

Undersupply is forcing the US to import seafood from abroad that causes a
huge seafood trade deficit, undermines the US economy, and supports
unsustainable foreign aquaculture
Conathan and Kroh June 27, 2012 (Michael Conathan, Director of Ocean Policy at American
Progress, staffed the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportations
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, has a masters degree in
marine affairs from the University of Rhode Island, worked primarily for Subcommittee Ranking
Member Sen. Olympia Snowe, Ranking Members of the full committee, Sen. Ted Stevens and
Kay Bailey Hutchison, he oversaw enactment of multiple key pieces of ocean
legislation and Kiley Kroh, Co-Editor of ClimateProgress. worked on the Energy Policy team at
American Progress as the Associate Director for Ocean Communications, The Foundations of a
Blue Economy, CAP Launches New Project Promoting Sustainable Ocean Industries June 27,
2012 http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/06/27/11794/the-foundations-of-
a-blue-economy/ 6/28/14)
Sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries Fishing is perhaps the first vocation that
comes to mind when considering ocean and coastal economic activity. Fish brought the earliest
European settlers to the Americasbefore gold or trade routes or colonization became the
targets of future exploration. Today, most Americans still connect to the ocean through fish,
whether they are among the nations 12 million recreational anglers or simply enjoy an
occasional Filet-O-Fish sandwich. We also have better data for the fishing industry than many
other ocean industries. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or
NOAA, which manages our nations commercial and recreational fisheries in the oceans and
Great Lakes, fish processing, restaurants, grocery stores, sales of tackle and gas, icehouses, and
a multitude of other businesses are involved with the seafood and fishing supply chain,
generating $183 billion per year to the U.S. economy and more than 1.5 million full- and part-
time jobs. While much of todays fishing news is doom and gloompreponderance of
overfishing, reports that oceans will be nothing but jellyfish by midcentury, and scary
predictions of species collapse for everything from the majestic bluefin tuna to the lowly
menhadenthere is actually ample reason for optimism. Sustainability is taking hold with
consumers, regulators, and industry members alike. We have ended deliberate overfishing in
the United States, and the NOAAs most recent Status of Stocks report to Congress showed a
record number of domestic fish populations rebuilt to sustainable levels. In addition, consumer-
driven initiatives have led many major retailers to change their buying habits and exclude
unsustainably-caught seafood from their shelves. Establishing long-term, sustainable fisheries
will be tremendously beneficial to both our environment and our economy. In testimony before
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in 2011, NOAA Administrator
Jane Lubchenco estimated that rebuilding all U.S. fish populations to sustainable levels could
generate an additional $31 billion in sales impacts, support an additional 500,000 jobs and
increase the revenue fishermen receive at the dock by $2.2 billion more than a 50 percent
increase from the current annual dockside revenues (emphasis in original). Meanwhile, U.S.
seafood consumption has dipped slightly, down from 16 pounds per person in 2008 to 15.8
pounds in 2009, while global seafood consumption has doubled in the last 40 years. At the same
time, the percentage of fish we import has skyrocketed. Today, roughly 85 percent of the fish
we eat is caught, grown, or processed in other countries. The U.S. trade deficit in seafood
products is a staggering $9 billion, ranking second among natural resources only to crude oil.
This is bad news not just for our economy but for the environment as well. The United States is
home to some of the most sustainably managed fisheries on the planet. Each fish we buy from a
country with less stringent standards not only takes a bite out of American fishermens bottom
lines, but also contributes to the decline of global fisheries. Aquaculture, or fish farming, is
increasingly playing a greater role in putting fish on our plates. Fully half the fish imported in
2010 was a farmed product. Given the escalating dietary needs of a booming world population,
aquaculture will have to be a part of the future of fish. Yet aquaculture, which can be carried
out either in the ocean or at land-based fresh or salt water facilities, comes with its own set of
environmental concerns, including high concentrations of waste, the need to catch wild fish to
feed farmed fish, and potential for corruption of wild populations gene pools. But in this sector,
too, the United States has far more stringent environmental and human health regulations than
virtually any of our trade partners. Given the clear differences between domestic and imported
seafood in terms of sustainability, product quality, and local sourcing, consumer education and
market forces can provide a springboard for increasing the value of U.S.-caught fish. This will
return more dollars to our fishermen and allow them to make a living without increasing their
harvest and compromising the future availability of a finite yet renewable natural resource.
Rebuilt fisheries will pay dividends for recreational fishermen and local economies as well.
Anglers spent $18 billion on equipment and for-hire vessels in 2006 alone, according to the
NOAAs most recent figures. These contributions rippled through coastal economies, ultimately
contributing $49 billion and creating nearly 400,000 jobs. Further, these figures dont account
for revenues earned by support industries that provide hotel rooms, meals, travel, and other
services of which recreational fishermen avail themselves in their quest to land the big one.
Domestic regulatorswith help from a legal mandate enacted by Congress requiring every
domestic fishery to operate under a science-based, annual catch limithave put our fishing
industry on track to rebuild fish stocks and increase the employment and profitability of the
recreational and commercial U.S. fishing and aquaculture industries. But to make this a reality,
all fishery stakeholdersfishermen, regulators, consumers, environmental groups, and
politiciansmust understand that while it may not be perfect, sound science must be the
foundation of fisheries management. Counting fish is astoundingly difficult. Theyre largely
invisible, theyre constantly moving, and they eat each other. Even our best scientific estimates
are inherently inaccurate. Yet both common sense and the law dictate that we must use the
best data available to set catch limits that will have the highest probability of achieving the goal
of rebuilt, sustainable fisheries as quickly as possible. This will always be a balancing act, but if
we can agree on the underlying concept, well be well on the road to finding a solution that
works for the fishermen of today and the future. The following are products we plan to develop
to help make the economic case for sustainable fishery management: A report detailing the
complexities of the fish stock assessment process, which will provide fishermen and other
stakeholders with some perspective on how stock assessments are carried out and why these
stakeholders anecdotal perceptions of fish populations may not reflect the actual health of the
species An analysis of the seafood supply chain, tracing fish from ocean to plate to determine
where efficiencies may be gained An analysis of the effectiveness and criteria used in creation of
various seafood sustainability programs

US maritime aquaculture is far behind the rest of the world and its the only
way to close the seafood import gap
Bryan Walsh 7/8/11, senior editor at TIME, Can the U.S. Close Its Seafood Trade Deficit?,
TIME, http://science.time.com/2011/07/08/can-the-u-s-close-its-seafood-trade-deficit/print/
American consumption of farmed seafood is right in line with global norms. Half our fish comes
from farms as wellbut not from American farms. 84% of the seafood consumed by Americans
is imported, and just 5% of the farmed seafood we eat is domestic. Heres an amazing stat: our
seafood trade deficit is $9 billion, which as trade deficits in natural resources go is second only
to crude oil. More than just about anything else on our plate, our seafood has likely traveled a
long way before it arrives at our table. Its true that we live in a global market place, but we are
concerned about the U.S. and U.S. aquaculture, says Michael Rubino, manager of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAA) aquaculture program. Why are Americans so
dependent on foreigners for their fish? Once-productive waters in regions like New England
have been hit hard by over-fishing, often followed by lengthy and controversial moratoriums to
allow commercial species to recover. In 2009 American fisherman hauled in 3.5 million tons
worth of seafood. Thats the lightest catch since 1988, but U.S. seafood consumption keeps
rising, as the taste for sushi and shrimp cocktail spreads and more of us follow medical advice to
eat at least 8 oz of seafood a week for cardiovascular health. (Right now Americans eat less than
half as much seafood as the government recommendsif we all ate what were supposed to,
wed need at least twice as much seafood have now.) American fishermen are hard pressed to
keep up with domestic demandand it wouldnt be ecologically sustainable for long if they
tried. That leaves aquaculture, but the reality is, the U.S. doesnt have much of a domestic fish
farming industry. The bulk of U.S. aquaculture comes from freshwater farms, involving relatively
low-value species like catfish and carp. Marine aquaculturethink salmon, shrimp, oysters
provides just 1.5% of U.S. seafood consumption. On a global levelwhere countries like China,
Norway and Chile dominatethe U.S. barely registers. You just dont see much development
in the U.S., says Richard Langan, director of the Atlantic Marine Aquaculture Center at the
University of New Hampshire.

U.S. seafood imports will inevitably collapse a domestic source of fish is key to
sustaining the seafood industry thats key to the overall U.S. economy
John S. Corbin May/June 2010, President, Aquaculture Planning & Advocacy LLC and Guest
Editor, Marine Technology Society Journal, Sustainable U.S. Marine Aquaculture Expansion in
the 21
st
Century, Marine Technology Society Journal Vol 44 Number 3, Sustainable U.S. Marine
Aquaculture Expansion, A Necessity,
http://www.ljhs.sandi.net/faculty/DJames/NOSB/Study%20Guides/Aquaculture%20MTS%2044.
3.pdf
Americans have a growing preference for including seafood of all types in their diets (Johnson, 2009).
The U.S. population increased from 225 million in 1980 to 302 million in 2008. During that time period, per capita seafood
consumption3 increased 28% overall and 49% for the fresh and frozen product forms (Table 1) (National Marine Fisheries Service
[NMFS], 2009a). A recent seafood survey showed that 65% of U.S. households purchased seafood for at-home consumption at least once in the
previous year, whereas 83% of households purchased seafood in a restaurant (NMFS, 2009b). Fully 60% of all seafood products sold were in the fresh
and frozen forms (National Fisheries Institute, 2009). Studies show that Americans are seeking the fresh product form,
with 43% of households purchasing fresh seafood products each year (Frey, 2008). The top 10 freshwater and marine species eaten in 2008 on a per
capita basis were shrimp, canned tuna, salmon, pollack, tilapia, catfish, crab, cod, flatfish, and clams (National Fisheries Institute, 2009). Notably, three
of these species have substantial global marine aquaculture production bases, that is, shrimp, salmon, and clams (NMFS, 2009a). Moreover, growth
in per capita consumption in recent years occurred almost exclusively among the aquacultured
species (Anderson and Shamshak, 2008). A significant number of consumers eat seafood at the high-end, white table cloth restaurant segment of
the food service industry. Although not all serve seafood, the National Restaurant Association (2009) numbers commercial establishments at 945,000
nationwide, with 2009 sales at $566 billion. U.S. consumers spent an estimated $46.8 billion in 2008 for fishery
products in food service establishments (restaurants, carryouts, caterers, etc.). A substantial number of consumers also purchase
products from traditional supermarket seafood counters, with the 2008 figure being $22.7 billion (NMFS, 2009a). In addition, data indicate that
approximately 88% of all fresh seafood sales occur in traditional supermarkets. Fresh seafood consists of shellfish (59% of dollar value) and finfish (41%
of dollar value). Both categories grew in 2007 sales, 4.6% and 3.7%, respectively, over 2006 values. More demonstrative, baseline sales for seafood
suppliers grew 8% in the same period and represented 90% of seafood department dollars, indicating that consumers are buying seafood as an
everyday purchase (Frey, 2008). Seafood consumers in general represent a cross section of the population. However, recent studies have shown that
older adults, that is, the 70 million maturing baby boomers, eat significantly more seafood than other age groups. Adults 5064 years of age eat 35%
more seafood than the national average, and adults over 65 eat 53% more. Moreover, certain ethnic groups favor seafood; Hispanics consume 24%
more than non-Hispanics and represent the largest ethnic group in the United States at 38 million members (Johnson, 2009), and Asian Americans,
which represent 5% of the population, have strong preferences for fresh seafood products (NMFS, 2009b). Farmed seafood provides
the food service industry and consumers in general several much sought after characteristics,
including predictable and consistent supply, greater portion control, and enhanced freshness,
quality, and traceability. Among the major reasons Americans are seeking out seafood today is the associated health benefits of
consuming the high-quality aquatic proteins and long chain omega-3 fatty acids (eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) present
in the products. Studies indicate that these chemicals can improve cellular function, brain, and nervous system function, and cardiovascular health
(Nesheim and Yaktine, 2007). Other reasons for the increasing popularity of seafood relate to the food service industrys development of a wide variety
of value-added, easy-to-prepare seafood products and the recent supermarket trend toward self-service seafood departments supplied with
prepackaged, case-ready products (Johnson, 2009). The October 2009 survey of chefs by the American Culinary Federation further supports the trend
for greater seafood consumption. The feedback on the hottest menu trends in 2010 indicated that the top restaurant theme was purchase of locally
sourced produce, meat, and seafood. Next was sustainability of production techniques to address the greening of the American consciousness. Also
mentioned as highly popular were the seafood-related themes of using organically grown products and nontraditional fish (National Restaurant
Association, 2009). These strong indicators among food and food service providers and their customers underscore the U.S. consumers growing desire
for sustainably and locally produced seafood. Additional evidence of seafoods importance is the increasing use of ecolabeling by environmental and
industry groups (e.g., World Wildlife Fund, the Global Aquaculture Alliance, the Marine Stewardship Council) to influence consumer behavior and to
promote selection of sustainably produced seafood products (World Wildlife Fund, 2009; Global Aquaculture Alliance, 2009; Marine Stewardship
Council, 2009; Anderson and Shamshak, 2008; FAO, 2009b). Further, there is a growing number of seafood choice cards (e.g., the Monterey Bay
Aquarium and the Georgia Aquarium) to help consumers identify best and worst seafood choices based on the sustainability of the source (Monterey
Bay Aquarium, 2009; Georgia Aquarium, 2009). SEAFOOD SUPPLY IN AMERICA TODAY Annual U.S. seafood consumption (capture and cul ture sources)
of edible fishery products (domestic commercial landings + imports exports = total consumption) has varied from 4.3 mmt (9,532 million pounds) to
5.7 mmt (12,492 million pounds) round weight4 between 1999 and 2008 (Table 2). The tendency was toward increasing values with 5.4 mmt (11,836
million pounds) consumed in 2008. For visual reference, a metric ton is approximately equivalent in size to a rectangle 4 feet (1.2 meters) wide, 4 feet
(1.2 m) long, and 5 feet (1.5 m) high, and a million metric tons is estimated to be equivalent to 251 American football fields covered one layer deep with
standard 40 feet (12.2 m) shipping containers filled to maximum load.5 Domestic commercial fishery landings also varied over the same time frame
from a low of 3.0 mmt (6,633 million pounds) in 2008 to a high of 3.6 mmt (7,997 million pounds) in 2005. Notably, the United States exports significant
amounts of edible seafood: values between 1999 and 2008 varied between a low of 1.9 mmt (4,129 million pounds) in 1999 to 2.9 mmt (6,462 million
pounds) in 2004, with the major recipients being China, Japan, and Canada. Edible seafood imports, however, have increased every year from a low of
3.5 mmt (7,630 million pounds) in 1999 to a high of 4.9 mmt (10,763 million pounds) in 2007, until a slight decline in 2008 when the value was 4.8 mmt
(10,456 million pounds) (NMFS, 2009a) Recent reports indicate that 84% of U.S. seafood consumption is imported (NMFS,
2009b). In 2008, imports of edible fishery products were valued at a record $14.2 billion. This included 4.4
billion pounds in the fresh and frozen product forms, valued at $12.1 billion. These imports included shrimp products valued at $4.1 billion, salmon
valued at $1.6 billion, and tuna valued at $601 million. Nonedible fishery products imported by the industry for fish meal, oils, etc., in the same year
were valued at an additional $14.3 billion. Thus, the contribution of imports to U.S. fisheries product needs in 2008 was $28.5 billion (NMFS, 2009a). In
2007, the United States replaced Japan, the long-time leader, as the worlds leading importer of
fishery products. Notably, Japan has the highest per capita seafood consumption of any developed country at 59.3 kg (131 lb) per person or
eight times that of the United States (NMFS, 2009a). Moreover, the seafood balance of trade deficit was over $10
billion in 2007, an increase of almost 60% from $6.8 billion in 1998 (ERS, 2009). Major 2008 source countries for seafood imports by volume
included China 22%, Thailand 15%, Canada 13%, Indonesia 6%, Chile 5%, Viet Nam 5%, and Ecuador 4% (NMFS, 2009a). Domestic aquacultures total
(freshwater and marine) contribution to U.S. seafood supplies has risen, more or less steadily, in production volume from 135,747 mt (300 million
pounds) in 1983 to 417,647 mt (923 million pounds), valued at $1.2 billion in 2003 (NMFS,2009a). In recent years (2004 to 2007), growth has been
erratic due in large part to rising competition with lower priced foreign imports (Forster and Nash, 2008). Values ranged between a low of 362 mmt
(800 million pounds) in 2006 and a high of 408 mmt (906 million pounds) in 2004, although product value has tended to increase (Table 3). By contrast,
global aquaculture production between 2004 and 2007 increased 20%, from 41.9 mmt (92.6 billion pounds) to 50.3 mmt (111 billi on pounds), valued at
$70 billion (NMFS, 2009a). Global aquaculture now provides 50% of edible seafood for the world population (FAO, 2009b) on the basis of the culture of
more than 300 aquatic species (Leung et al., 2007). Comparatively, America was the third largest consumer of seafood in
the world by volume, behind China and Japan, but has steadily dropped to 13th in volume production
from aquaculture, as countries such as China, India, Thailand, Viet Nam, and Indonesia invest in expansion of their industries (FAO, 2009c).
U.S. aquatic farming provided just 7.2% of domestic demand in 2007, mostly freshwater catfish and trout
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2008). Focusing on the marine aquaculture component of U.S. producti onmostly made
up of salmon, oysters, clams, mussels, and shrimpthe annual wholesale value is around $200 million or less than 20% of the total industry value.
Marine aquaculture today provides only 1.5% of U.S. seafood supply (NOAA, 2008). Seafood imports clearly dominate U.S.
supplies, and estimates indicate that 50% of imports are farmed, mostly in developing countries,
for example, China, Thailand, and Indonesia (NOAA, 2008; NMFS, 2009a). Overall, this discussion indicates that the U.S. seafood
economy (capture and culture products and raw materials) in total makes a significant direct economic impact on
American commerce each year, even without taking into account the economic impacts of
secondary industries (e.g., seafood wholesalers and retailers, transportation and storage
providers, harbor support facilities providers, etc.). The total value of exported (edible and nonedible)
fishery products plus the total value of imported products was $51.9 billion in 2008. From another
perspective, domestic fishery landings and aquaculture production (freshwater and marine sources) had an estimated value of $5.4 billion in 2008
(NMFS, 2009a). The contribution of marine recreational fishing to providing fish for the American diet should not be overlooked in a discussion of
seafood supply. In 2008, almost 12 million anglers spent $30 billion on nearly 85 million marine recreational fishing trips on the Atlantic, Gulf, and
Pacific Coasts. The total marine catch was conservatively estimated at nearly 464 million fish, of which almost 58% were released. Total harvest weight
was estimated at 112,217 mt (248 million pounds), which would have had a disproportionately higher impact on the diets of residents of coastal states
where the fishing activity occurred (NMFS, 2009a) and where 50% of the U.S. population lives within 80 km (50 miles) of the coast (U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy [USCOP], 2004). It is relevant to note that of the top 10 recreational species in 2008, seven (striped bass, spotted sea trout, yellow fin
tuna, red drum, dolphin fish, summer flounder, and black drum) are among the targets of public sector, private sector, and university aquaculture
research or fledgling marine stock enhancement efforts (NMFS, 2009a; NOAA, 2009a). Marine stock enhancement of recreational and commercial
fisheries is in the process of being recognized as a valuable tool for fisheries managers. More robust domestic coastal and ocean fisheries could add
significantly to seafood supplies and expand the economy while helping preserve Americas long and cherished cultural heritage in fishing (USCOP,
2004). PROJECTED U.S. SEAFOOD DEMAND Global Context Filling Americas future seafood requirements by a greater reliance on imports should be
considered in the context of global seafood supply and demand projections as well as potential market forces. Aquaculture has been the fastest
growing segment of world food production, expanding an average of 9% per year since 1950, although the rate has been slowing in recent years.
Marine capture fisheries suppliesroughly 90% of the total supplies from fisheries, with the balance from inland fisheries
began to level off in the late 1980s at around 90 mmt (198 billion pounds) per year. Since then, virtually all
increases in seafood supplies have been through expansion of freshwater and marine
aquaculture, with marine farming contributing roughly 38% or 19 mmt (41 billion pounds) in 2006 (FAO, 2009b). As the global
human population grows, demand for aquatic protein will most certainly increase because of
the critical contribution of seafood to the diets of the developed and developing countries around
the world (FAO, 2009b). Demand projections vary with time frame and amounts, but all conclude that much more supply will be needed and future
increases must come from aquaculture in all its forms. One study indicates that just to maintain current levels of worldwide
per capita consumption, aquaculture will need to reach 80 mmt (176.8 billion pounds) by 2050 or 60%
more than its present amount (FAO, 2003). Other estimates forecast a potential increase in world per capita consumption from 16 kg
(35.4 lb) to 21 kg (46.4 lb) and 2.3 billion additional people, requiring an additional 40 mmt (88.4 billion pounds) to 60 mmt (132.6 billion pounds) from
aquaculture production by 2030 (Silva, 2001). A more urgent world seafood demand projection is provided by Delgado et al. (2003), who forecast the
need for between 68.6 mmt (151 billion pounds) and 83.6 mmt (184 billion pounds) from aquaculture production by 2020, which translates to between
18.3 mmt (40 billion pounds) and 33 mmt (72.8 billion pounds) more than 2007 supplies in just 13 years (NMFS, 2009a). Importantly, these authors also
question if meeting increases in supplies through greater aquaculture production is possible, with the existing trends in development, resource use, and
technology intensification in the global industry (Delgado et al., 2003; FAO, 2009b). Their skepticism seems warranted upon further consideration; for
example, an aquaculture production increase between 18.3 and 33 mmt in 13 years would mean an expansion of almost 1 to 1.5 times the size of the
salmon industry in 2006 (volume at 1.65 mmt or 3.64 million pounds) in each of the next 13 years. A daunting task at best! Notably, the global salmon
aquaculture industry took over 20 years to grow from 80 thousand metric tons (tmt) (17.6 million pounds) to 1.65 mmt in 2006 (Asche and Tveteras,
2009). U.S. Projections Future U.S. seafood demand has several important drivers going forward,
namely, projected population growth and the continued and growing popularity of seafood as a
protein choice by consumers, due in large part to trends in buying locally, seeking variety, and eating for better health. The U.S.
population is expected to grow from 302 million people in 2008 to 341 million people in 2020 and 374 million in 2030 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). Using
the 2008 consumption value of 7.2 kg (16 lb) per person and a current national consumption figure of approximately 2.17 mmt ( 4,896 million pounds of
edible weight2) per year as a benchmark, the necessary seafood supply just to maintain the 2008 per capita value would be 2.46 mmt (5,437 mil lion
pounds) in 2020 and 2.69 mmt (5,945 million pounds) in 2030. Taking into account the increasing popularity of seafood, particularly among certain
demographics, projected demand could be even higher. For example, the American Heart Association has advocated that Americans should eat seafood
twice a week rather than the current average of once a week, and this would increase current demand by 0.68 mmt (1.5 billion pounds) (USCOP, 2004).
Recent estimates indicate that by 2020, per capita consumption values could increase from 7.2 kg (16 lb) to 8.6 kg (19 lb) (Anderson and Shamshak,
2008). The increases in population and per capita consumption could push the amount of seafood needed to 2.93 mmt (6,475 million pounds) in 2020
and 3.33 mmt (7,359 million pounds) in 2030 or 1 mmt more than today. The American seafood production, processing, and distri bution industry and
its political supporters and retail customers are facing a critical choice to meet projected demand. Either expand sustainable domestic sources of
seafood through greater aquaculture production and greater fisheries management, restoration, and enhancement activities or rely further on imports,
largely from developing countries. 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. The authors conclude that, All these factors result in a seafood sector which is
highly volatile compared with other animal protein sectors. The factors above undermine efficiency, market planning, and market development. In
addition to the potentially disruptive factors mentioned above, which are likely to continue for the foreseeable future, there are other important
reasons why maintaining U.S. accessibility to adequate seafood imports may be viewed as a risky proposition over the long term. Strategically, the
important supply question is: Could the adequacy of seafood supplies from imports, in what already is a volatile global marketplace, be jeopardized by
the anticipated increases in regional competition for product, the growth of mega cities in seafood source regions, Chinas dominance in the seafood
trade, and the increasing likelihood of unforeseen geopolitical events and disputes? Fishery products are essential
commodities for both developing and developed countries, and regional competition for
seafood sources can be expected to increase in the decades to come. Per capita aquatic protein consumption
globally has been rising the last few decades, with estimates for 2006 at 16.7 kg (35.9 lb). Importantly, fish today provide more than 3 billion people
with 15% or more of their annual animal protein consumption (FAO, 2009b). Developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region accounted for
approximately 79% of global fishery production in 2006 (capture and culture sources), and this value is expected to increase with time (FAO, 2009b).
Japan, the United States, and the European Union are the major markets for their exports, with a significant total market share of 72% of the total 2006
value. With respect to aquaculture production alone, the Asia-Pacific region today produces 90% of the farmed food and 80% of the world value. The
regions dominance as a critical supplier of cultured products is expected to continue well into this century (FAO, 2009b). Several emerging
trends in Asia could direct seafood supplies away from the export channels to the United States,
that is, create a more competitive regional environment for products. The majority of the
worlds population increase in the next 20 years will occur in the Asia-Pacific region, and it is
anticipated that the regional cultures at all levels of the economic spectrum will maintain their
preferences for seafood; for example, per capita consumption amounts in higher income countries are expected to continue to grow.
Rising standards of living, increasing incomes, and diversification of diets in selected parts of the
region are expected to maintain and/or expand demand for seafood (FAO, 2009b). To illustrate, Asian countries,
other than China, experienced an increase of 5.9 kg (13.0 lb) in per capita consumption between 2003 and 2007 (Johnson, 2008). Another
notable trend that will modify dietary patterns and influence the global distribution of seafood
is the urbanization of the world population, that is, the movement of people into megacities located in Europe, Asia, Africa,
and North and South America. In 2008, a milestone was reached when more of the worlds population lived in cities than in rural environments. By
2050, the urban population will double from 3.3 billion in 2007 to 6.4 billion or two thirds of the total projected world population
of 9.2 billion. The majority of the growth will be absorbed by cities in lesser developing countries (FAO, 2009b). City dwellers are
projected to have greater wealth, increased dietary choices, and improved ability to pay for
what they want. Further, as noted by FAO, efficiently providing quality fresh products to these urban markets usually requires production
capacity being relatively nearby (FAO, 2009b). A scenario can be envisioned where regional aquaculture
producers and fishers will want to preferentially serve markets in the megacities rather than
serve distant export customers with lower value frozen products. This presumption is supported by recent U.S.
import statistics that indicate over 75% of fish products entered the country frozen and from as far away as Asia, while fresh fish came from nearby
countries in the Western Hemisphere (ERS, 2009). The Peoples Republic of Chinas rapid transition to a market-based economy has been extraordinary.
The countrys focus on modernization and increasing world trade has made it the most influential nation in Asia and an important trading partner for
American industry. China also has become a holder of significant amounts of U.S. currency (foreign exchange reserves) and national debt, both highly
sensitive political issues (Naisbett and Naisbett, 2010). With respect to fishery products and seafood, China has become a dominant player in world
markets, and the country will have a major, long-term influence on the production and distribution of seafood around the world (Johnson, 2009).
Consider these statistics about China and the global seafood industry: China was the largest producer of fisheries products in the world in 2006 with a
total of 46 mmt: 14.7 mmt (32.5 million pounds) from capture and 31.4 mmt (69.4 million pounds) from aquaculture. Total fishery products production
is over six times the next leading country, India (NMFS, 2009a). China is the global leader in aquaculture production, supplying 67% of the world supply
of fish and shellfish in 2006 and 49% of the value. From 1970 to 2006, Chinas aquaculture production increased at an annual average of 11.2%.
However, recently the growth rate has declined to 5.8% from 17.3% in the 1980s to 14.3% in the 1990s. Since 2002, China has been the worlds largest
exporter of fish and fishery products, valued at $9.3 billion in 2007 (FAO, 2009b). With respect to Chinas growing direct influence on the U.S. seafood
industry, consider these reported data (NMFS, 2009a): Over the period 1998 to 2007, U.S. imports of fish and seafood from Chi na increased from
$289.5 million to $1.5 billion. In 2008, China accounted for 22% of edible and nonedible fishery imports, valued at $4.1 billion. In terms of edible fishery
products imported in 2008, China accounted for over 523,000 mt, valued at $2.2 billion. China received 19% of all U.S. fisheries product exports (edible
and nonedible) valued at $2.5 billion. With Chinas fundamental importance to global seafood supply and demand, not only to feed itself but also to
supply major importing countries like the United States, it is disturbing that the United Nations FAOthe keeper of world fishery and aquaculture
statisticslacks confidence in Chinas fishery statistics, particularly for aquaculture production. FAO stated in 2009, There are conti nued indications
that capture fisheries and aquaculture production statistics for China may be too high and the problem has existed since the early 90s. Chinese
officials have recently indicated they are working to revise downward fishery and aquaculture statistics; for example, in 2008 China reported reduced
total fishery and aquaculture production for 2006 of more than 10% (FAO, 2009b). These glaring uncertainties have serious implications for the
predictability and stability of future seafood imports to the United States. Finally, the worlds seafood importers are largely supplied by developing
countries that are inherently more vulnerable to the geopolitical events and bilateral and multilateral disputes common today. To underscore the
inherent fragility of supplies, it is estimated that up to 75% of global aquaculture production comes from millions of small-scale farms, with the majority
located in Asia (FAO, 2009a). Further, concerns currently exist that although Asian production has rapidly expanded, regulatory standards that ensure a
basic level of compliance with feed additive usage are lagging behind; that is, small farmers are often not aware of common food safety issues (Tan,
2009). For example, in 2007 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced broader import controls on all farm raised aquati c products from China
due to residues from drugs not U.S. approved (OCA, 2009). The FAO lists just some major recurring issues that can impact international trade in fishery
products as follows (FAO, 2009a): (1) introduction by buyers and international retailers of private standards for food safety and quality, animal health,
environmental sustainability, and social purposes; (2) trade disputes, for example, shrimp, salmon, and catfish.; (3) use of ecolabels and certification
requirements by retailers; (4) expansion of regional trade areas and regional and bilateral trade agreements; and (5) rising energy prices and their
impact on fisheries and aquaculture. In summary, the inevitable geopolitical tensions over national self-interest
and global financial markets, trade, energy, human rights, and national security issues, et al.,
could frequently and substantially disrupt the flow of future seafood imports into the United
States, with rapid and lasting negative consequences to the multibillion dollar, nationwide
seafood economy. Futurists, such as Lester Brown, point to global food security as the weak link in successfully feeding the worlds growing
population. He states, Food security will deteriorate further unless leading countries collectively mobilize to stabilize population, stabilize climate,
stabilize aquifers, conserve soils, and protect cropland (Brown, 2009). The inescapable conclusion is that future U.S.
imports are vulnerable to major disruption as the world negotiates the challenges of achieving a
sustainable 21st century society, given the importance of international trade in seafood; the
questionable ability for Asian countries, particularly China, to meet production projections; the
growing pressures on the flow of products in global supply networks; and the dependency of
developing countries on seafood for basic aquatic protein. Increased seafood security, defined as
self-sufficiency to maintain adequate supplies for domestic use, should be targeted as a critical
policy issue for helping maintain a vibrant and diverse national economy, a healthy and productive ocean
environment, and a robust quality of life for Americans. CONSIDERING U.S. OCEAN RESOURCES FOR DOMESTIC SEAFOOD PRODUCTION The U.S. Ocean
Resource On March 10, 1983, President Reagan established by proclamation an EEZ for America.6 In effect, the EEZ designation puts all living and
nonliving resources between 3 and 200 nautical miles from shore under the primary jurisdiction, management, and regulation of the federal
government (USCOP, 2004). The U.S. EEZ is the largest of any nation and covers 11.7 million km2 (4.5 million square miles), about 50% more than the
total land mass of the lower 48 states (Pew Oceans Commission, 2003). The area spans a diverse array of ecosystems from the frigid Arctic to tropical
marine habitats in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The EEZ is subject to a myriad of critical uses that serve American society, including energy
extraction, seafood harvesting, marine transportation, national defense, ocean recreation, and marine conservation. Although all these uses are highly
significant, its enormous size and great habitat diversity suggest that there are ample resources and space to enhance existi ng uses and, through proper
planning and siting, develop critical new uses for society, for example, wind energy and open ocean aquaculture (USCOP, 2004). Both state marine
waters, which encompass an estimated additional 84,000 km2 (32,500 miles2), and the EEZ are essential to the future of domestic seafood supplies for
America. In 2008, fishery landings for edible and industrial products were 3.8 mmt (8.4 billion pounds) valued at $4.4 billion. Economic benefits of
landings impact the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts as well as Hawaii and the U.S. territories and flag islands. For example, Alaska led all states in value
of landings with $1.7 billion, followed by Massachusetts at $400 million, Maine at $288 million, Louisiana at $273 million, and Washington at $250
million. There are 50 major U.S. ports where commercial fishery landings are significant, moving product volumes of between 4,545 and 455,000 mt (10
million and 1 billion pounds) that are valued at between $10 million and $300 million per year. These ports are located in 16 of 26 U.S. states and
territories with ocean coasts. Moreover, the living resources in the EEZ were the source in 2008 for approximately 65% of all fishery landings in the
United States (NMFS, 2009a). Currently, domestic marine aquaculture contributes less than 1.5% of U.S. seafood consumption, and all production
comes from coastal land sites and nearshore sites in state marine waters (Forster and Nash, 2008). The United States has no commercial open ocean
farms in the EEZ at this time primarily because of the lack of a permitting process and leasing regime to grant and administer the property rights
needed for the private sector to invest in offshore fish farming (Cicin-Sain, et al., 2005; NOAA, 2008). As other nations with ocean coasts (e.g., England,
Ireland, Norway, and China) but less resource potential actively move commercial marine aquaculture into the open ocean (Ryan, 2004; James and
Slaski, 2006; Watson and Drumm, 2007; FAO, 2009b), America has remained hesitant to move forward. This despite conservative estimates showing
that less than 500 km2 (less than 0.01% of the U.S. EEZ) could produce up to 600,000 mt (1.33 billion pounds) or more of additional seafood (Nash,
2004). Marine aquaculture proponents today highlight the huge size and incredible habitat diversity of the EEZ that offer a great opportunity to farm a
wide range of economically important marine species for domestic markets and export (Nash, 2004; USDOC, 2007; Forster, 2008). FEDERAL AND
CONGRESSIONAL EFFORTS TO EXPAND MARINE AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT In 1999, the NOAA of the USDOC spearheaded efforts to expand the
marine aquaculture industry and particularly to allow commercial farming in the EEZ. These efforts were catalyzed by an ambitious policy adopted by
USDOC that framed the need and potential for aquaculture to contribute significantly to domestic seafood supplies by 2025 to include the following: (1)
increase the value of domestic aquaculture production (freshwater and marine) from $900 million annually to $5 billion; (2) i ncrease the number of
jobs in aquaculture from 180,000 to 600,000; (3) enhance depleted wild fisheries stocks through aquaculture, thereby increasing the value of both
commercial and recreational landings and improving the health of U.S. resources; and (4) increase exports of aquaculture goods and services from $500
million to $2.5 billion annually (USDOC, 1999). Over the period 2004 to 2008, a national dialogue on ocean use and policy ensued, largely prompted by
publication of comprehensive reports by the independent Pew Oceans Commission in 2003 and the USCOP in early 2004, followed by the Bush
Administrations U.S. Ocean Action Plan in December 2004. Important components of these discussions focused on the future of fisheries and the role
of marine aquaculture in domestic seafood production and included a need for a lead federal agency for sustainable marine aquaculture, a designation
of the USDOC with primary responsibility to ensure offshore aquaculture develops in an environmentally sustainable manner, and introduction by the
Administration of the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005 (S. 1195, although hearings were held in 2006 the bill did not pass), a preparation of a
10-year plan for the NOAA Aquaculture Program in 2007, and a submission of another offshore aquaculture bill, entitled The Nati onal Aquaculture Act
of 2007 (H.R. 2010 and S. 1609), but again after hearings in 2008, the bill did not pass (USCOP, 2004; Bush Administration, 2004; USDOC, 2007). Real
progress in national legislation to encourage commercial development has been limited. However, the constraints to and the opportunities for marine
aquaculture were fully described, and a large community of stakeholders became better informed. With President Obamas election and the
appointment of a new Administration in 2009, marine aquaculture and ocean farming in the EEZ are again topics of discussion. The President began
developing an ocean agenda and appointed an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force on June 12, 2009, charged with rapidly formul ating a national
policy for the ocean, the coasts, and the Great Lakes. Specifically, the task force was mandated to develop recommendations for a framework for
improved federal policy coordination and an implementation strategy to meet objectives of a national ocean policy, all within 90 days. Further, within
180 days, the group was to develop a framework for coastal and marine spatial planning for federal and state ocean waters and the Great Lakes to
support the development of a national ocean policy (Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ], 2009a, 2009b). On September 10, 2009, the Ocean Policy
Task Force released its interim report for public comment describing a national policy, modifications to the existing governance structure and nine
categories of action (CEQ, 2009a, 2009b). Subsequently, the Ocean Policy Task Force released its required report on marine spatial planning, entitled
Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning on December 9, 2009, for public comment. The report outlined an innovative,
stakeholder-driven process through which the federal government will carry out more integrated planning and management of activities in Americas
oceans and the Great Lakes and provides an ambitious 5-year timetable. Although the initial task force report barely mentions aquaculture, the spatial
planning framework lists a range of 15 social, economic, and cultural uses for consideration, including aquaculture (fish, shellfish, and seaweed
farming), commercial fishing, recreational fishing, ports and harbors, and traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering (CEQ, 2009b). It will be important to
marine aquaculture to see how the 2010 Congress prioritizes and supports this new comprehensive approach to ocean management. Meanwhile, other
recent national actions have focused on actively moving marine aquaculture into the EEZ and are briefly highlighted: In 2009, the Gulf Coast Regional
Fisheries Management Council developed a permit and leasing process for commercial marine aquaculture in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico that
awaits implementation after further deliberation by NOAA to establish a policy for commercial farming in the EEZ. The effort included a comprehensive
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan (Gulf Coast Regional Fisheries Management Council, 2009). Legislation (H.R.
4363) was submitted in December 2009 to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework and research program for offshore aquaculture
development in the EEZ that balances environmental, social, and economic concerns and focuses on establishing a regulatory system; authorizing the
Secretary of Commerce to determine appropriate locations, to permit, to regulate, to monitor, and to enforce offshore aquacul ture activities; requiring
the Secretary of Commerce to issue regulations and permits for offshore aquaculture to prevent and/or minimize impacts on the marine ecosystem and
fisheries; and establishing a research program to guide the precautionary development of offshore aquaculture (Gov. track, 2009). The legislation
awaits hearings at this writing. NOAA announced in December 2009 that it will develop a comprehensive national policy for sustainable marine
aquaculture in federal waters. The policy will enable domestic aquaculture, which adds to the U.S. seafood supply, supports important commercial and
recreational fisheries, develops coordinated federal standards for permitting facilities in federal waters, and formulates strategies to provide the
scientific information needed for permitting decisions. Stakeholder input will be sought in 2010 (NOAA, 2009b). CURRENT ISSUES IN U.S. COMMERCIAL
OFFSHORE MARINE AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT National surveys documenting the changes in the number of farms and farm acreage in the U.S.
aquaculture industry between 1998 and 2005 lead to several conclusions about the potential direction of future development (National Agricultural
Statistics Service, 2000, 2006). Freshwater acreage is growing slowly, and future increases in production will largely come from intensifying production
on existing land-based farms rather than major site expansions and building new farms. Nearshore marine farming (mainly bivalve shellfish) is
increasing rapidly, and further expansion of commercial marine aquaculture into open ocean locations offers the greatest potential for large-scale
growth because of less competition for use of resources and the large area available (Corbin, 2007a). Moreover, according to the USCOP, locating
aquaculture activities further offshore will reduce conflicts over the visibility of facilities from land, be less intrusive to nearshore capture fisheries and
recreational activities, and have fewer environmental impacts (USCOP, 2004). Leasing federal waters for commercial aquaculture has been a
controversial subject in recent years, raising a variety of issues for discussion and consensus building among opponents and proponents. Among the
most difficult to address has been the potential for negative environmental impacts of large-scale marine farming in the open ocean setting of the EEZ.
The most frequently mentioned concerns by opponents include escapes of farmed species and mixing with wild populations, disease and parasite
management and the potential for infection of wild populations, use of fishmeal as a major protein source in fish feeds impacting the source fisheries,
and pollution potential and the need for standards for acceptable change in the quality of the water column and substrate in and around farms
(Lubchenko, 2003; MATF, 2007). The research community and the industry have made significant efforts to study these recurring concerns and how
they can be successfully managed. There have been documented positive reports of negligible environmental impacts from several multiyear offshore
research and commercial marine farming projects in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and New Hampshire, with combined operating experience of over 20 years
(Aquaculture Planning and Advocacy, 2009; Kona Blue Water Farms, 2009; Alston et al., 2005; Langan, 2007). Proponents believe that the results from
these projects, which include comprehensive environmental monitoring (e.g., water column and substrate quality, feeding and feed conversion, stock
health and escapes), and others from around the world (Ryan, 2004) support the conclusion that the potential for negative environmental impacts from
offshore and open ocean aquaculture is very manageable through proper siting and farm operation (e.g., application of well-known industry best
management practices). It is suggested that sufficient empirical and scientific information exists to select open ocean sites with appropriate
oceanographic conditions (e.g., sufficient current for mixing and substrate for anchoring) and operate a finite number of large-scale farms to
demonstrate that todays off the shelf technologies and available native-to-the-region species are scalable and can be sustainably managed. For
example, work by Renzel et al. (2007) and the Scottish Association of Marine Science (2009) on modeling potential site impacts of ocean farming and by
Nash et al. (2005) and Rust (2007) on ecological risk management can be highlighted for guidance. What is lacking at this stage, according to the
nascent industry, is application of this information to establish a workable interim permitting and leasing process for federal waters to allow the private
sector to demonstrate large-scale commercial farming in interested regions. Model processes to base an interim EEZ permitting and leasing program
for cage culture have been suggested for federal waters (Cicin-Sain et al., 2005) and are operating in state waters in Maine and Hawaii, which include
environmental assessment of the site, stakeholder input, and environmental monitoring plans (MDMR, 2009; Corbin, 2007b). Using properly sited
demonstration farms, such as the 24-cage fish culture project being proposed by Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute 5 miles offshore in the Southern
California Bight (MCRI, 2008), federal agencies could require monitoring and collect information from operating farms. In consultation with affected
agencies, states, industry, and the affected public, this information could be used to begin the process of promulgating standardized regulatory and
leasing processes and environmental requirements, while nationwide integrated spatial planning is carried out for federal and state waters. In other
words, a proactive, adaptive management, and place-based planning approach could be used to move commercial marine aquaculture into the EEZ in a
timely manner to address the looming U.S. seafood supply gap and make it sustainable (Corbin and Young, 1997). CONCLUSIONS The
production, distribution, and use of edible and nonedible fisheries products are increasingly
important to the expansive and diverse U.S. economy. Seafood is a multibillion dollar industry
that touches a vast majority of the American population and significantly affects their quality of life. The
seafood/fisheries economy impacts every state and particularly the numerous communities along the U.S. coasts. Domestic
demand for seafood is projected to increase in the next 10 to 20 years, as indicated by the clear trends for increasing population, per capita
consumption, and importation of products. Currently, 84% of U.S. seafood consumption is supplied by imports,
largely from developing countries in Asia, and this dependency is expected to continue and grow
unless there is greater public and especially private investment (the government does not create businesses and jobs, the private
sector does) into research and development to increase domestic production. Domestic supplies
from commercial fisheries have, more or less, leveled off, and freshwater and marine
aquaculture (mostly freshwater species like catfish and trout) have grown steadily but supply only 7% of
consumption. Marine aquaculture has the most potential for large-scale expansion but currently
supplies only 1.5% of domestic consumption. Conservatively, projections indicate that the United States will need between
0.29 mmt (641 million pounds) and 0.76 mmt (1.68 billion pounds) more seafood in 2020 and between 0.52 mmt (1.15 billion pounds) and 1.05 mmt
(2.32 billion pounds) more in 2030. The Administration, the Congress, and the American public can choose to
continue to rely on imports or deliberately expand marine aquaculture and aquaculture-
enhanced fisheries, particularly through establishing commercial farms in the EEZ and stock
enhancement programs to revitalize economically important recreational and commercial
marine fisheries. Meeting projected American seafood needs largely with imports is considered
a risky proposition over the long term, with the likelihood that growth projections for global
aquaculture will not be met and the near- and long-term high volatility of the international
marketplace for seafood products. Major reasons for this concern include the following: The rapidly
changing demographics in developing countries will affect global seafood distribution and
consumption patterns. Increasing population and standards of living in these countries will put
pressure on supply distribution channels to the United States and lead to greater regional competition for products
in both developed and developing countries. The strong urbanization trend of the world population is likely to
drastically impact how seafood is distributed, as products are directed to urban population centers within regions. A scenario
is suggested where regional capture and culture seafood providers will preferentially concentrate on filling nearby urban consumer preferences for
high-quality, fresh products. The dramatic rise of China as a world economic power and a major seafood
producer, consumer, exporter, and importer will continue to significantly influence the flow of
products in international trade. Chinas unpredictable political shifts in domestic and trade
policies and its questionable fisheries and aquaculture production capacity create uncertainty that it
can feed its growing population and expanding middle class while maintaining its increasingly important
role as exporter to the United States. Developing countries, the predominant source of seafood supply and exports in
international trade, are much more vulnerable to the recurring geopolitical events and controversies that will mark the 21st century worlds path to a
sustainable future (Friedman, 2008; Brown, 2009). International financial, energy, human rights, homeland security, trade policy, food safety, and other
issues can have sudden significant and lasting disruptive impacts on the international seafood trade. America has the largest EEZ in
the world, with enormous potential for developing sustainable commercial open ocean
aquaculture of many economically important species. Likewise, closing the life cycles of important marine species would
allow greater use of aquaculture technologies as an important tool to enhance sources of seafood from coastal and ocean capture fisheries through
increased stock enhancement. With greater utilization of the EEZ, multiple use of the resource and other issues will occur and need to be resolved at
the site determination stage. Americas ocean space is enormous, and conservative estimates indicate open ocean aquaculture alone could produce
significant amounts of additional seafood (Nash, 2004). The management guru Peter Drucker has suggested,
Aquaculture, not the Internet, represents the most promisng investment opportunity in the
21st Century. (Drucker, 1999) Prompted by the recognized opportunities and several comprehensive reports on ocean policy and use,
legislation has been proposed in Congress to expand marine aquaculture research and development, particularly in the EEZ. Notably, the Obama
Administration has taken a broadened, multiple use approach to ocean planning, policy, and management. Marine aquaculture and fisheries are among
the proposed topics for this expanded, multistakeholder discussion of planning and managing a myriad of uses of Americas oceans, particularly the
EEZ. The critical marine aquaculture development issues for stakeholder consensus building include identification of appropriate sites, control of stock
escapes, disease prevention and management protocols, reduction in the use of fish meal and oil in stock diets, and development of environmental
standards to control potential pollution. It is suggested that a great deal of pertinent scientific information and empirical evidence has been generated
in the past 10 years that allows detailed assessment and acceptable predictability for site specific impacts of farming, hence identification of
environmentally suitable sites. This database provides an informed basis for establishing an interim ocean permitting and leasing program for the EEZ
that can evolve to a standardized process based on establishing and monitoring a finite number of regional commercial demonstration farms. The
interim permitting/leasing effort to allow the private sector to spearhead progress should be complemented by increased federal investment in
developing commercial-scale marine aquaculture technologies for cultureof species important to farming and aquaculture-enhanced marine fisheries
(Browdy and Hargreaves, 2009). Greater seafood self-sufficiency and security is required to sustainably and
reliably fill Americas growing demand for seafood in a global marketplace. U.S. imports will become
more sensitive to supply disruption due to increasing geopolitical tensions and major demographic and development trends in both
the developed and the developing worlds. Expanding marine aquaculture to sustainably farm the sea and
investing in aquaculture-enhanced fisheries management to rebuild and maintain recreational
and commercial stocks can significantly increase domestic seafood supplies. It also will provide
important job and infrastructure revitalization opportunities for the national economy and many
coastal communities.


US key to global economy collapse causes global stagnation
Caploe 9 (David-, CEO American Centre for Applied Liberal Arts and Humanities in Asia, April
7, Straits Times, Focus still on America to lead global recovery)
IN THE aftermath of the G-20 summit, most observers seem to have missed perhaps the most crucial statement of the entire event, made by United States President Barack
Obama at his pre-conference meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown: 'The world has become accustomed to the US being
a voracious consumer market, the engine that drives a lot of economic growth worldwide,' he said. 'If
there is going to be renewed growth, it just can't be the US as the engine.' While superficially sensible, this view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it ignores the fact that
the global economy has in fact been 'America-centred' for more than 60 years. Countries -
China, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Korea, Mexico and so on - either sell to the US or they sell to
countries that sell to the US. This system has generally been advantageous for all concerned. America gained certain historically unprecedented benefits,
but the system also enabled participating countries - first in Western Europe and Japan, and later,
many in the Third World - to achieve undreamt-of prosperity. At the same time, this deep inter-
connection between the US and the rest of the world also explains how the collapse of a
relatively small sector of the US economy - 'sub-prime' housing, logarithmically exponentialised by Wall Street's ingenious chicanery - has
cascaded into the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression. To put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't
seem to understand that there is no other engine for the world economy - and hasn't been for the last six
decades. If the US does not drive global economic growth, growth is not going to happen. Thus, US
policies to deal with the current crisis are critical not just domestically, but also to the entire
world. Consequently, it is a matter of global concern that the Obama administration seems to be following
Japan's 'model' from the 1990s: allowing major banks to avoid declaring massive losses openly and transparently, and so perpetuating 'zombie' banks - technically
alive but in reality dead. As analysts like Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have pointed out, the administration's unwillingness to confront US banks is the main
reason why they are continuing their increasingly inexplicable credit freeze, thus ravaging the American and global economies. Team Obama seems reluctant to acknowledge
the extent to which its policies at home are failing not just there but around the world as well. Which raises the question: If the US can't or won't or
doesn't want to be the global economic engine, which country will? The obvious answer is China. But that is
unrealistic for three reasons. First, China's economic health is more tied to America's than practically any
other country in the world. Indeed, the reason China has so many dollars to invest everywhere - whether in US Treasury bonds or in Africa - is precisely
that it has structured its own economy to complement America's. The only way China can serve as the engine of the global economy is if the US starts pulling it first. Second, the
US-centred system began at a time when its domestic demand far outstripped that of the rest of the world. The fundamental source of its economic power is its ability to act as
the global consumer of last resort. China, however, is a poor country, with low per capita income, even though it will soon pass Japan as the world's second largest economy.
There are real possibilities for growth in China's domestic demand. But given its structure as an export-oriented economy, it is doubtful if even a successful Chinese stimulus plan
can pull the rest of the world along unless and until China can start selling again to the US on a massive scale. Finally, the key 'system' issue for China - or for the European Union
- in thinking about becoming the engine of the world economy - is monetary: What are the implications of having your domestic currency become the global reserve currency?
This is an extremely complex issue that the US has struggled with, not always successfully, from 1959 to the present. Without going into detail, it can safely be said that though
having the US dollar as the world's medium of exchange has given the US some tremendous advantages, it has also created huge problems, both for America and the global
economic system. The Chinese leadership is certainly familiar with this history. It will try to avoid the yuan becoming an international medium of exchange until it feels much
more confident in its ability to handle the manifold currency problems that the US has grappled with for decades. Given all this, the US will remain the
engine of global economic recovery for the foreseeable future, even though other countries must certainly help. This
crisis began in the US - and it is going to have to be solved there too.
Global economic collapse causes nuclear war
Mead 09 Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, Only Makes
You Stronger, The New Republic, www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-
8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2
The greatest danger both to U.S.-China relations and to American power itself is probably not that China will rise too far, too fast; it is that the current crisis
might end China's growth miracle. In the worst-case scenario, the turmoil in the international economy will plunge China into a major economic
downturn. The Chinese financial system will implode as loans to both state and private enterprises go bad. Millions or even tens of millions of Chinese will be unemployed in a
country without an effective social safety net. The collapse of asset bubbles in the stock and property markets will wipe out the savings of a generation of the Chinese middle
class. The political consequences could include dangerous unrest--and a bitter climate of anti-foreign feeling that blames others for China's woes. (Think of Weimar Germany,
when both Nazi and communist politicians blamed the West for Germany's economic travails.) Worse, instability could lead to a vicious cycle, as nervous investors moved their
money out of the country, further slowing growth and, in turn, fomenting ever-greater bitterness. Thanks to a generation of rapid economic growth, China has so far been able
to manage the stresses and conflicts of modernization and change; nobody knows what will happen if the growth stops. India's future is also a question. Support for global
integration is a fairly recent development in India, and many serious Indians remain skeptical of it. While India's 60-year-old democratic system has resisted many shocks, a deep
economic recession in a country where mass poverty and even hunger are still major concerns could undermine political order, long-term growth, and India's attitude toward
the United States and global economic integration. The violent Naxalite insurrection plaguing a significant swath of the country could get worse; religious extremism among
both Hindus and Muslims could further polarize Indian politics; and India's economic miracle could be nipped in the bud. If current market turmoil seriously damaged the
performance and prospects of India and China, the current crisis could join the Great Depression in the list of economic events that changed history, even if the recessions in the
West are relatively short and mild. The United States should stand ready to assist Chinese and Indian financial authorities on an emergency basis--and work very hard to help
both countries escape or at least weather any economic downturn. It may test the political will of the Obama administration, but the United States must avoid a protectionist
response to the economic slowdown. U.S. moves to limit market access for Chinese and Indian producers could poison relations for years. For billions of people
in nuclear-armed countries to emerge from this crisis believing either that the United States was indifferent to their
well-being or that it had profited from their distress could damage U.S. foreign policy far more severely than any mistake made by George W.
Bush. It's not just the great powers whose trajectories have been affected by the crash. Lesser powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran also face new constraints. The crisis has
strengthened the U.S. position in the Middle East as falling oil prices reduce Iranian influence and increase the dependence of the oil sheikdoms on U.S. protection. Success in
Iraq--however late, however undeserved, however limited--had already improved the Obama administration's prospects for addressing regional crises. Now, the collapse in oil
prices has put the Iranian regime on the defensive. The annual inflation rate rose above 29 percent last September, up from about 17 percent in 2007, according to Iran's Bank
Markazi. Economists forecast that Iran's real GDP growth will drop markedly in the coming months as stagnating oil revenues and the continued global economic downturn force
the government to rein in its expansionary fiscal policy. All this has weakened Ahmadinejad at home and Iran abroad. Iranian officials must balance the relative merits of support
for allies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria against domestic needs, while international sanctions and other diplomatic sticks have been made more painful and Western carrots
(like trade opportunities) have become more attractive. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and other oil states have become more dependent on the United States for protection against
Iran, and they have fewer resources to fund religious extremism as they use diminished oil revenues to support basic domestic spending and development goals. None of this
makes the Middle East an easy target for U.S. diplomacy, but thanks in part to the economic crisis, the incoming administration has the chance to try some new ideas and to
enter negotiations with Iran (and Syria) from a position of enhanced strength. Every crisis is different, but there seem to be reasons why, over time, financial crises on balance
reinforce rather than undermine the world position of the leading capitalist countries. Since capitalism first emerged in early modern Europe, the ability to exploit the
advantages of rapid economic development has been a key factor in international competition. Countries that can encourage--or at least allow and sustain--the change,
dislocation, upheaval, and pain that capitalism often involves, while providing their tumultuous market societies with appropriate regulatory and legal frameworks, grow swiftly.
They produce cutting-edge technologies that translate into military and economic power. They are able to invest in education, making their workforces ever more productive.
They typically develop liberal political institutions and cultural norms that value, or at least tolerate, dissent and that allow people of different political and religious viewpoints
to collaborate on a vast social project of modernization--and to maintain political stability in the face of accelerating social and economic change. The vast productive capacity of
leading capitalist powers gives them the ability to project influence around the world and, to some degree, to remake the world to suit their own interests and preferences. This
is what the United Kingdom and the United States have done in past centuries, and what other capitalist powers like France, Germany, and Japan have done to a lesser extent. In
these countries, the social forces that support the idea of a competitive market economy within an appropriately liberal legal and political framework are relatively strong. But,
in many other countries where capitalism rubs people the wrong way, this is not the case. On either side of the Atlantic, for example, the Latin world is often drawn to anti-
capitalist movements and rulers on both the right and the left. Russia, too, has never really taken to capitalism and liberal society--whether during the time of the czars, the
commissars, or the post-cold war leaders who so signally failed to build a stable, open system of liberal democratic capitalism even as many former Warsaw Pact nations were
making rapid transitions. Partly as a result of these internal cultural pressures, and partly because, in much of the world, capitalism has appeared as an unwelcome interloper,
imposed by foreign forces and shaped to fit foreign rather than domestic interests and preferences, many countries are only half-heartedly capitalist. When crisis strikes, they
are quick to decide that capitalism is a failure and look for alternatives. So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have
tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind
that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a
liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist
radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies
and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As
a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--
as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again.
None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it
has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal
capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American
Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can
breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf
Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start
slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we
can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.


U.S. has the potential to dramatically increase domestic open ocean
aquaculture the plan is key
John S. Corbin May/June 2010, President, Aquaculture Planning & Advocacy LLC and Guest
Editor, Marine Technology Society Journal, Sustainable U.S. Marine Aquaculture Expansion in
the 21
st
Century, Marine Technology Society Journal Vol 44 Number 3, Sustainable U.S. Marine
Aquaculture Expansion, A Necessity,
http://www.ljhs.sandi.net/faculty/DJames/NOSB/Study%20Guides/Aquaculture%20MTS%2044.
3.pdf
On March 10, 1983, President Reagan established by proclamation an EEZ for America.6 In
effect, the EEZ designation puts all living and nonliving resources between 3 and 200 nautical
miles from shore under the primary jurisdiction, management, and regulation of the federal
government (USCOP, 2004). The U.S. EEZ is the largest of any nation and covers 11.7 million km2
(4.5 million square miles), about 50% more than the total land mass of the lower 48 states (Pew
Oceans Commission, 2003). The area spans a diverse array of ecosystems from the frigid Arctic
to tropical marine habitats in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The EEZ is subject to a myriad of
critical uses that serve American society, including energy extraction, seafood harvesting,
marine transportation, national defense, ocean recreation, and marine conservation. Although
all these uses are highly significant, its enormous size and great habitat diversity suggest that
there are ample resources and space to enhance existing uses and, through proper planning and
siting, develop critical new uses for society, for example, wind energy and open ocean
aquaculture (USCOP, 2004). Both state marine waters, which encompass an estimated
additional 84,000 km2 (32,500 miles2), and the EEZ are essential to the future of domestic
seafood supplies for America. In 2008, fishery landings for edible and industrial products were
3.8 mmt (8.4 billion pounds) valued at $4.4 billion. Economic benefits of landings impact the
Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts as well as Hawaii and the U.S. territories and flag islands. For
example, Alaska led all states in value of landings with $1.7 billion, followed by Massachusetts at
$400 million, Maine at $288 million, Louisiana at $273 million, and Washington at $250 million.
There are 50 major U.S. ports where commercial fishery landings are significant, moving product
volumes of between 4,545 and 455,000 mt (10 million and 1 billion pounds) that are valued at
between $10 million and $300 million per year. These ports are located in 16 of 26 U.S. states
and territories with ocean coasts. Moreover, the living resources in the EEZ were the source in
2008 for approximately 65% of all fishery landings in the United States (NMFS, 2009a).
Currently, domestic marine aquaculture contributes less than 1.5% of U.S. seafood
consumption, and all production comes from coastal land sites and nearshore sites in state
marine waters (Forster and Nash, 2008). The United States has no commercial open ocean farms
in the EEZ at this time primarily because of the lack of a permitting process and leasing regime
to grant and administer the property rights needed for the private sector to invest in offshore
fish farming (Cicin-Sain, et al., 2005; NOAA, 2008). As other nations with ocean coasts (e.g.,
England, Ireland, Norway, and China) but less resource potential actively move commercial
marine aquaculture into the open ocean (Ryan, 2004; James and Slaski, 2006; Watson and
Drumm, 2007; FAO, 2009b), America has remained hesitant to move forward. This despite
conservative estimates showing that less than 500 km2 (less than 0.01% of the U.S. EEZ) could
produce up to 600,000 mt (1.33 billion pounds) or more of additional seafood (Nash, 2004).
Marine aquaculture proponents today highlight the huge size and incredible habitat diversity of
the EEZ that offer a great opportunity to farm a wide range of economically important marine
species for domestic markets and export (Nash, 2004; USDOC, 2007; Forster, 2008).
1AC Plan
The United States federal government should increase offshore aquaculture
development by making the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
the sole agency responsible for regulating offshore aquaculture and by
providing permits for offshore aquaculture development.
1AC Solvency
Current regulatory system is a disaster mass inefficiencies create loopholes
plan is key to environmentally sustainable aquaculture development
Johns 13
FARM FISHING HOLES: GAPS IN FEDERAL REGULATION O F OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW Vol. 86 Pg. 681 [http://lawreview.usc.edu/wp-
content/uploads/slideshow/Johns-86-3-Final-PDF.pdf] //
The current regime for regulating offshore aquaculture needs to be r e vised. There is no lead
federal agency for regulating offshore aquaculture and no comprehensive law directly
addressing how it should be admini s tered, regulated, and monitored. Multiple federal agencies
are then left to assert their authority to regulate different aspects of offshore aquacultur e
under a variety of existing laws that were not designed for this purpose. 92 This system can lead
to both overregulation of some aspects of the indu s try, such as overlapping permitting
requirements, as well as underregul a tion of other aspects, such as the effects of escaped
farmed fish on natural ecosystems. Furthermore, because none of the existing laws were
designed to deal sp e cifically with aquaculture, many are left vulnerable to challenge as proper
legal bases for regulatory authority. A. A DMINISTRATI VE O VERLAP C REATES P ATCHY R
EGULATION A number of federal agencies have invoked authority to regulate a q uaculture
activities in federal waters under various statutory authorities: EPA under the Clean Water Act,
the Endangered Species Act, the National Envir onmental Protection Act, the Ocean Dumping
Act, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; NOAA under the Magnuson -
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Endangered
Species Act; Army Corps of E n gineers under the Rivers and Harbors Act and the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act; U.S. Coast Guard under the Rivers and Harbors Act; the Fish and
Wildlife Service under t he Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, and
the Lacey Act; Food and Drug A d ministration under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and
Department of Agriculture under the National Aquaculture Act. Under this patchy reg u latory
scheme , each agency imposes its own independent requirements with little interagency
cooperation or collaboration resulting in both overla p ping regulatory requirements as well as
gaps in the regulation of certain s e rious environmental risks. The most significant consequence
of allowing multiple agencies to i n voke regulatory authority over different aspects of offshore
aquaculture is that there is currently no centralized or streamlined process for obtaining a
permit to operate a farm in federal waters. 93 As discus sed in Part II.C, the permitting process is
often cited as the single greatest constraint to offshore aquaculture development. Because
there is no specific permitting system for offshore aquaculture, multiple agencies have invoked
their authority to requir e permits for various aspects of the aquaculture activities. This co m plex
multiagency permitting system is confusing, time - consuming, and costly. Furthermore, there
are instances where the permit required from each agency actually addresses the same proble
m allowing some aspects of offshore aquaculture to become even overregulated by various
federal agencies. One such example is water quality: the discharge permit required by the EPA
controls the direct discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters of the U nited States, 94
while at the same time the S ection 404 permit required by the Corps controls the discharge of
dredge d or fill mater i al into the navigable waters of the U nited States. 95 The S ection 10 siting
permit 96 required by the Corps also takes in to consideration effects and cumulative impacts u
p on the water quality. 97 Thus, an aquaculturist must obtain three different permits that all
independently evaluate the farms effect on water quality. It may be that this independent -
review approach does m ore to guarantee that a specific environmental risk like water quality is
controlled; yet surely a more coordinated and streamlined process is most efficient for both the
government and potential permit seekers. While the application of overlapping jurisdi ctions to
offshore aquacu l ture can lead to overregulation of certain environmental risks, it can also lead
to underregulation of other risks. The impact of escaped nonnative and transgenic fish on native
species is especially likely to avoid regul a tion. Al though the FDA has stated it intends to
regulate the use of transge n ic fish in aquaculture facilities, it has yet to promulgate any rules
and has little expertise in dealing with impacts other than those on human health. 98 The EPA
may have authority to regu late escaped fish under the Clean W a ter Act, but only if the farms
are considered point sources and only if the escaped fish are considered pollutants . 99 The
Endangered Species Act may give authority to NMFS or EPA to consider the impacts of escaped
fis h on certain native species, but only if those species are listed as threatened or endangered
by the federal government, 100 which only a few of the species involved in aquaculture are.
Another environmental effect left unsatisfactorily regulated is the i m p act offshore aquaculture
has on the habitats and ecosystems of the marine environment. The Army Corps of Engineers
determines if the siting of a certain farm will impact the marine habitat, but it has little expertise
in a s sessing the ecological implicatio ns on the marine environment. At the same time, the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act gives NOAA authority to reg u late actions that might impact
habitats in federal waters, but only if those habitats are in federally designated marine
sanctuaries. 101 The Magnu son - Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MSA)
gives NOAA authority to regulate activities affecting fish populations and hab i tats, but only if
the fishery or habitat is included in a federally designated Fishery Management Plan and only if
the aquaculture activity is indeed considered fishing under the Act. 102 As it stands, the agency
with the least experience in assessing risks to marine habitats, the Army Corps of Eng i neers, is
given primary responsibility to judge whether a farm will neg a tively impact the marine
environment, while the most appropriate agency, NOAA, is given authority to regulate the
impacts on only selected marine habitats.

Plan solves regulatory uncertainty and creates environemtnally sustainable
aqualcture
Johns 13
FARM FISHING HOLES: GAPS IN FEDERAL REGULATION O F OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW Vol. 86 Pg. 681 [http://lawreview.usc.edu/wp-
content/uploads/slideshow/Johns-86-3-Final-PDF.pdf] //
A. C ONGRESS S HOULD E NACT N EW L EGISLATION C REATING A N ATIONA L O F F SHORE A
QUACULTURE F RAMEWORK A new and comprehensive framework for regulating offshore
aquaculture is needed. However, there is much debate over how this can be best achieved.
Some observers argue that federal agencies should use existing statutory aut horities to
create an aquaculture framework, 171 while others claim that Congress should enact new
legislation specifically addressing offshore aquaculture. 172 Those in favor of using existing
laws claim that the MSA or National Aquaculture Act of 1980 could be tweaked to give an
agency authority to develop and implement a regulatory scheme for of f shore aquaculture.
For instance, NOAA could continue to use its authority under MSA to approve aquaculture
fishery management plans that are co n sistent with its new Na tional Aquaculture Policy. 173
However, as discussed in Part I II.B.3 above , NOAAs regulatory authority under the MSA in
the context of aquaculture is open to challenge. To eliminate this ambiguity, some have
suggested that Congress simply amend the MSA to in clude aquaculture as a fishing activity
subject to NOAA management. However, it is unlikely that this will happen: Congress knew of
NOAAs plan to regulate aquaculture under the MSA when it reauthorized the Act in 2007, yet
still deliberately excluded aqua culture from the Acts definition of fishing activities. 174
Furthermore, even if NOAA had authority under the MSA to regulate aquaculture in federal
waters, as it claims, it would still not be able to e n force regulations in regions where the
local Regional Fishery Council has chosen not to implement an aquaculture program into its
FMP. Indeed, most Regional Fishery Councils have classified aquaculture as a nonfishing
activity outside their jurisdiction over fisheries. 175 Furthermore, the National Aquaculture
Policy published by NOAA in 2011 is only meant to guide those Councils choosing to
implement aquaculture programs: it has no binding effect and creates no enforceable
standards or regulations on e i ther a FMP or any private aquaculture operation. 176 Thus, the
MSA even amended may not be the appropriate source for NOAA to base its regul a tory
authority over aquaculture in federal waters. Other academics argue that the National
Aquaculture Act of 1980 could be used to establish an effective regulatory framework f or
offshore aquaculture. This Act may be an ideal basis for regulatory authority because it is the
only existing federal law specifically designed to address aquaculture. However, since its
inception in 1980, the Act has failed to influence aquaculture reg ulation 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
aquaculture plan, 177 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 exper i ence 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 agricultur al
activities on land, the appropriate agency to oversee the U.S. aquaculture industry in its
present form . 178 Indeed, the DAs budget for aquaculture research is much larger than
NOAAs not surprising give n that onshore aquaculture operations make up a larger portion
of the domestic aquaculture industry than do marine farms . 179 This makes it unlikely that
the Act will be revised to identify NOAA as lead federal agency with r e spect to domestic
aquaculture regu lation. Because of the concerns expressed above, existing statutes are not
a d equate bases of authority for implementing a federal regulatory framework for offshore
aquaculture. Instead, Congress should enact new legislation that explicitly creates a nation al
regulatory framework. Below, I will di s cuss what a proper framework should include and
describe previous attempts to implement a marine aquaculture policy. I will conclude by e n
dorsing the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2011 as the ide al piece of
legislation to create such a framework. B. W HAT D OES AN E FFECTIVE R EGULATORY F
RAMEWORK L OOK L IKE ? In 2003, the Pew Oceans Commission, a bipartisan, independent
group of American leaders in science, fishing, conservation, government, education and
business , recommended that Congress implement a new n a tional marine aquaculture
policy based on sound conservation principles and standards. 180 Five years later, the U.S.
House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources commissioned the Governme nt
Accoun t ability Office (GAO) to research and report to it how to go about developing such a
framework. After meeting with a wide variety of important aquacu l ture stakeholders and
analyzing laws, regulations, and studies, the GAO identified the key issu es that should be
addressed in the development of e f fective regulation. First, the GAO noted that identifying a
lead federal agency, as well as clarifying the roles and responsibilities of other relevant
federal agencies, was central to the administration of an offshore aquaculture program. 181
Specifically, most stakeholders identified NOAA as the appropriate lead federal agency
because of its expertise in fisheries and oceans management. 182 Indeed, most scholars and
scientists agree that NOAA is best suited fo r assuming the role of lead federal agency due to
its long history of managing ocean resources and its unique positioning through the Regional
Fishery Councils to address the user - conflict problems associated with any resource proposal.
As one article put it, There are obvious impacts on wild capture fisheries and on marine
mammals which no other federal agency could more effectively eval u ate. 183 The GAO also
recommended that a streamlined permitting system be cr e ated to give offshore
aquaculturists the leg al right to occupy a given area and to establish terms and conditions for
offshore aquaculture perations. 184 Stakeholders again agreed that NOAA should be the
primary agency to manage a permitting or leasing program for offshore aquaculture facilities.
185 Ano ther important aspect of a regulatory framework was some kind of pr o cess to
ensure proper management of environmental impacts, either by mandating facility - by -
facility environmental review and monitoring, and / or enforcing policies mitigating the
potentia l impacts of escaped fish and r e mediating environmental damage. 186 Finally, a
regulatory framework must include a federal research component to help fill current gaps in
knowledge about offshore aquaculture. 187 As of 2013, Congress ha d yet to establish by legi
slation any such framework. However, this is not to say that legislators have not tried. Several
bills have come before the House that, if enacted, would set up a comprehensive regulatory
framework for offshore aquaculture. So far, Co n gress has failed to t ake the bait. C. P
REVIOUS A TTEMPTS TO C REATE A F RAMEWORK T HROUGH N EW L EGISLATION In 2005,
pressed by NOAA, Congress introduced legislation that would specifically authorize
aquaculture in federal waters. The National Offshore Aquaculture Act 188 would have c
reated a regulatory framework to allow for safe and sustainable aquaculture operations for
fish and shellfish in U.S. federal waters. 189 It failed to pass, but in 2007 was reintroduced by
both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The 2007 version 190 de signated NOAA
as the lead federal agency with respect to offshore regul a tion, giving it the authority to issue
offshore aquaculture permits and esta b lish environmental requirements. The Act also
stressed the importance of interagency collaboration, requiri ng that NOAA work with other
federal agencies to develop and implement a coordinated permitting process for offshore
aquaculture. 191 Finally, it mandated a research and development program for all types of
marine aquaculture. 192 The bill, however, was challeng ed by a wide array of fishing,
environmental, and consumer groups. In a letter to the House of Represent a tives,
environmental and fishing advocacy groups including the Ocean Conservancy, Sierra Club,
Institute for Fisheries Resources, Food & Water Watch, a nd the Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermens Associations d e clared their opposition to the bill, explaining that it appears to
promote aqu a culture . . . at the expense of marine ecosystems and fishing commun i ties. 193
They faulted the bill for failing to contain adequate environmental standards to eliminate or
minimize the harms that aquaculture facilities pose to wild fish stock, ecosystems, water
quality and habitat, marine wil d life, and endangered species and instead merely propos ed
that such impacts be considered and addressed to the extent necessary. In a separate report
pu b lished by Food & Water Watch, the Act was criticized for including inad e quate
monitoring and fish - tagging provisions and lacking deficient mech a nisms for enforcement
and liability. 194 Further, t he Act did not create a right of action for citizens to enforce the
statute, a provision included in important environmental laws such as the ESA and the CWA ,
and contained no language to address liability for damage to the marine or human envir o n
ment. 195 Ultimately, the bill failed to pass out of the Committee. In 2009, after NOAA
allowed the Gulf of Mexico Regional Fishery Management Council to implement an offshore
aquaculture program despite there being no national program to regulate such proj ects, the
Natio n al Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act 196 was introduced. The bill would have
authorized aquaculture in federal waters, but unlike the National A q uaculture Act of 2007, it
included binding environmental, socioeconomic, and liability standard s. The Act would again
authorize NOAA as the lead federal agency for regulation, giving it the authority to
determine appr o priate locations for, permit, regulate, monitor, and enforce offshore aqu a
culture in the [ EEZ ] . 197 The Act would also require NOAA to issue legally binding national
standards and regulations to prevent or minimize impacts on the marine ecosystem and
fisheries. 198 Finally, it would establish a research program to guide the precautionary
development of offshore aqu a culture in the [EEZ] tha t ensures ecological sustainability and
compatibility with healthy, functional ecosystems. 199 The bill, introduced by a co n
gresswoman from California, was modeled off the states Sustainable Oceans Act of 2006,
which established strict aquaculture regulatio ns. 200 Representative Capps declared that a
comprehe n sive, commonsense framework must be created to ensure that offshore a q
uaculture development will proceed in an ecologically sustainable fashion, and noted, W e
have a good model for doing this in my home s tate of Califo r nia, which recently enacted
landmark legislation on this topic. 201 She co n tinued, I believe this type of balanced,
comprehensive and precautionary approach will work in California, and my legislation seeks
to accomplish similar goals at the national level. 202 Her prediction may not prove far off.
Interestingly, the same group of environmentalists and fishing interests that had opposed the
National Of f shore Aquaculture bill voiced support for the National Sustainable Offshore
Aquaculture bill. Arguing that the National Offshore Aquaculture Act was defective for not
including statutory criteria or legally binding environme n tal standards, the opponents
nonetheless agreed that *s+ome of these issues have been addressed in legislation enacted
in Ca lifornia in 2006 (the Su s tainable Oceans Act). 203 Although the National Sustainable
Offshore A q uaculture Act failed to pass in 2009, it was reintroduced in 2011 204 just a month
after NOAA issued the nations first commercial fishing permit to Kona Blue. After its June
2011 reintroduction, the bill gained support from scientists and environmentalists: the Ocean
Conservancy noted that the Act is an opportunity to protect the U.S. from the risks of poorly
regulated open ocean aquaculture. 205 D. T HE N ATIONAL S UST AINABLE O FFSHORE A
QUACULTURE A CT I S THE I DEAL L EGISLATION FOR C REATING AN E FFECTIVE N ATIONAL R
EGULATORY F RAMEWORK The National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act is the ideal
legislation for creating a federal regulatory framework. The bill contains ever y aspect the
GAO recommended that an effective framework must include. First, it creates a
comprehensive framework that integrates the re l evant national and state laws and regional
ocean planning and management efforts. 206 This eliminates the patchwork way i n which
environmental laws are currently applied to offshore aquaculture, providing regulatory
certainty and legitimacy to the industry while also encouraging collaboration b e tween
federal, state, and regional agencies. Second, the Act identifies one feder al agency as having
primary regulatory authority over offshore aqu a culture, and properly designates NOAA as
the lead agency to ensure env i ronmental protection. 207 The Act also satisfies the third
aspect of an effective regulatory system: a process for enviro nmental review and
monitoring. It establishes ri g orous environmental standards to guide federal rulemaking
and industry performances. 208 These standards address some of the major environmental
concerns associated with offshore aquaculture, including fish esc apes, disease, poll u tion,
chemicals, and impacts on wildlife and predators. For instance, the Act allows fish to be
cultured only if they are native to the local ecosystem and prohibits the culture of genetically
modified species, decreasing the risk of ha rm to native fish populations in the event of
escape. 209 To prevent the i n cidence of escape, the Act requires that all facilities be
designed, operated, and shown to be effective at preventing the escape of cultured fish into
the marine environment and w ith standing severe weather conditions and marine accidents.
210 Additionally, a permittee must tag or mark all cu l tured fish, and in the event of an
escape, report the number of escaped fish and circumstances surrounding the incident to
NOAA. 211 To minimize the i mpact of disease and pathogens on wild fish stock, the Act
requires that all facilities be designed, located, and operated to prevent the incubation and
spread of disease and pathogens. 212 It also prohibits the use of antibiotics, pesticides, drugs,
and othe r chemical treatments except where necessary to treat a diagnosed disease, and in
such case only where its use is minimized to the maximum extent practicable and is approved
by the Commissioner of the FDA. 213 The Act requires that NOAA consult with the EPA a nd
other local and regional agencies to establish appropriate numerical limitations of nutrient
inputs into the marine environment and that each permittee prevent discharges of pollutants
into ocean waters to the maximum event practic a ble. 214 Finally, the Ac t requires NOAA to
consult with other federal agencies, coastal states, Regional Fishery Management Councils,
academic instit u tions, and other interested stakeholders to establish and conduct a
research program for sustainable offshore aquaculture. 215 The pr ogram would i n form
NOAA how offshore aquaculture permitting and regulation can adopt a precautionary
approach to industry expansion to ensure ecological su s tainability and help it develop cost
- effective solution s to the environmental and socioeconomic i mpacts of offshore
aquaculture. 216 This requirement is consistent with the GAOs recommendation that a
framework include a r e search component. 217

Patchwork regulatory system deters investors offshore specific regs key
Buck 12 masters in marine affairs @ University of Washington
Lisa, U.S. Development of Offshore Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors
[http://gradworks.umi.com/15/28/1528916.html] Accessed June 30, 2014
A review of the literature pertaining to offshore aquaculture development showed that
considerable information exists concerning the limited ability of the current piecemeal
regulatory system to guide development of the industry. Both studies and legal opinions focus
on regulatory factors influencing the development of offshore aquaculture in United States
federal waters, with the majority specific to the Gulf of Mexico EEZ (Fletcher 2001, Fletcher
2004, Cicin-Sain 2005, Showalter 2008, Showalter 2009). Findings of this thesis are consistent
with Fletcher (2004) who found that the current regulatory regime is inadequate due to the
failure of applicable laws and regulations to specifically address regulation of offshore
aquaculture. Fletcher documented that the lack of a comprehensive regulatory structure was
often cited as a cause for the lack of development of domestic offshore aquaculture, and the
lack of federal regulation dealing explicitly with offshore aquaculture is the main culprit of legal
and regulatory inefficiency (Fletcher 2004). These findings are echoed by Cicin-Sain (2005) who
notes various administrative and private level recommendations for development of a lead
federal agency for offshore aquaculture regulation rather than maintaining the status quo. Legal
opinions issued by the National Sea Grant Law Center to also comment on the lack of specificity
of applicable laws and regulations (Showalter 2008, Showalter 2009). Attempts have been made
to establish NOAA as the lead federal authority for regulation of offshore aquaculture (NOA Act
2005, NOA Act 2007), however the regulatory environment for offshore aquaculture
development in the United States remains a fragmented framework of regulations that are only
semi-applicable to offshore aquaculture and inadequate for the development and the proper
regulation of the industry. While there are numerous laws and regulations with aspects that are
applicable to offshore aquaculture regulation, none was designed with offshore aquaculture
specifically in mind. The lack of action by congress to name a lead federal agency for offshore
aquaculture regulation has also had a strong influence on the ability of the industry to develop.
This has led to an unstable regulatory environment that presents disincentives to potential
entrants to the industry. It also serves as a disincentive to potential investors who are unwilling
to risk their return on an investment due to an uncertain permit and lease tenure for a facility.

The federal government must be the first-mover sends a crucial signal of
stability to potential investors
Randy Cates May/June 2010, Member of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Sustainable U.S. Marine Aquaculture Expansion in the 21
st
Century,
Marine Technology Society Journal Vol 44 Number 3, U.S. Open Ocean Fish Farming: Are We
There Yet?,
http://www.ljhs.sandi.net/faculty/DJames/NOSB/Study%20Guides/Aquaculture%20MTS%2044.
3.pdf
A New National Policy for Marine Aquaculture One important thing we have learned in Hawaii is
that if the government is indifferent or hostile to aquaculture, it will not develop. A supportive
public policy is absolutely essential to establishing a successful industry. The NOAA held
listening sessions around the country in April 2010 for stakeholder input to a new national policy
for marine aquaculture development. According to the NOAA, the new policy is being
formulated to reportedly enable an industry that is sustainable, creates employment and
business opportunities, fosters the production of safe seafood, and complements the NOAAs
strategy to main- rain a healthy and productive ocean. This is an initiative of the Obama
Administration that is related to a larger and more comprehensive 5-year effort to create a
national ocean policy for managing all major ocean uses in federal waters and includes detailed
marine spatial planning. Although this action looks very positive, the industry concern is, will
decisive action to significantly develop domestic marine aquaculture and create a permitting
and leasing process for commercial aquaculture farming in the EEZ have to wait until its
conclusion? Longtime members of the industry suggest that the NOAA has been listening in
one form or another to the marine aquaculture community since 1985. It is also important that
the NOAA recognize that these planning efforts are nor starting from zero. Other federal marine
aquaculture policy and planning exercises that considered marine aquaculture and open-ocean
operations were carried out over the past 3 years with the support of the marine aquaculture
industry. In October 2007, the NOAA published a 10-year plan for marine aquaculture (U.S.
Department of Commerce, 2007), an effort requested by the Marine Fisheries Advisory
Committee (2008), an experienced citizen group that advises the Secretary of Com on fisheries
and aquaculture policy. The plan, adopted by the NOAA, was intended to guide a broad national
initiative for marine aquaculture and had four goals: (1) de velopment of a comprehensive
regulatory program, (2) development of commercial marine aquaculture and replenishment of
wild stocks, (3) better public understanding of marine aquaculture, and (4) increased
collaboration and cooperation with international partners. In 2008, the Marine Fisheries
Advisory Committee sent another important planning document entitled, Vision 2020: The
Future of U.S. Marine Fisheries to the Secretary which, among other things, reiterated the need
for a broad and well-financed national initiative in marine aquaculture development.
Conclusions It is clear that America should not rely on imports to meet its growing demand for
seafood. Interference with international supplies can occur for a variety of reasons, including
political, economic, bureaucratic, and food safety concerns. Domestic marine aquaculture,
particularly sustainable commercial farming in the EEZ, is one means to provide significant
increases in supply. However, the fledgling offshore industry and potential investors in it are
languishing because of government indecision and the uncertainties of the political process.
This situation prevails despite the very pertinent policy and planning for marine aquaculture
already completed and adopted by the NOAA as well as candidate legislation introduced in the
Congress by the previous administration and members to implement expanded development
and a permitting and leasing program for the EEZ. These efforts stalled in large part because of
concerns expressed by certain environmental and consumer advocacy groups. Open ocean
aquaculture has its steadfast detractors in the nongovemmental organization community. Ho
ever, I believe that both the recent scientific research and the real-world farming experience in
Hawaii, in the United States, and elsewhere, when accurately analyzed, clearly indicate that
commercial farms can be properly sited, monitored, and managed with minimal or no impacts.
What lessons can be taken away from this brief review of the Hawaii offshore aquaculture
experience and progress nationally? There are several I want to emphasize: Hawaii offers a
model permitting and leasing process that should be studied to help develop a national process
for enabling commercial aquaculture development in fed eral waters. Facilitating development
of large- scale, commercial-scale demonstration projects in a timely manner can provide
additional real-world data from which siting criteria and standards can be better addressed,
formulated, and fine tuned. To do so, the United States needs to rapidly develop a permitting
and leasing process to allow the siting, operation, and monitoring and oversight of
commercial firms in the EEZ. Federal funding for increased ma rine aquaculture research and
de velopmcnt is needed to move the industry forward. A regional ap proach to funding is
suggested with the diverse potentials available for marine aquaculture. The R&D focus should
be on technological constraints to offshore aquaculture and improving farm economic per-
formance rather than on environ mental questions, where extensive data and understanding
already exist and which can be better studied with operating farms. If increased federal R&D
funding is not avail able, then private sector investment should be facilitated. Tackling the
expansion of marine aquaculture technology into the EEZ must be a multidisciplinary team
effort, with collaboration and cooperation among government, university, and private sector
exper tise. In addition, the siting process should include ample opportunity for stakeholder input
to discuss and resolve issues before a farm be gins operation. Lastly, let us not reinvent the
wheel and spend a great deal of time considering new policy lan guage, plans, and actions. The
previous NOAA planning efforts and the comprehensive, long-term research agenda already
developed with the involvement of industry provide an excellent foundation for moving
forward. The ground work has been laid to rapidly decide on a new policy that leads to a re
vitalized, new course of action for U.S. marine aquaculture development and commercial
farming of the EEZ. The bottom line for expanding commercial marine farming is that there will
be a learning curve. We have seen this in Hawaii, and we know it occurs with all new technolo
gies. Helping ensure the long-term stability of U.S. seafood supplies by greater domestic marine
aquaculture production is a priority issue for the economy and the health and well being of the
American people. Everyone involved with producing, distributing, selling, and consuming
seafood, the majority of the U.S. population, should be concerned that supplies are going to be
adequate in the next 10 to 20 years. Putting in place a positive NOAA policy now, one that
facilitates meaningful progress, will allow marine aquaculture to grow and the private sector to
begin farming the EEZ. An effective national policy followed by significant ac tion and
investment can rapidly move U.S. open ocean aquaculture up the learning curve to a global
leadership position.

Regulatory structure is the SOLE deterrent to offshore aquaculture industry
Buck 12 masters in marine affairs @ University of Washington
Lisa, U.S. Development of Offshore Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors
[http://gradworks.umi.com/15/28/1528916.html] Accessed June 30, 2014
Many freshwater and coastal aquaculture facilities are currently operating in the United States
and contributing seafood products to domestic and global markets. These types of aquaculture
have become successful industries, however that success has not yet expanded into United
States federal waters. Regulatory, economic, and political factors that might explain the lack of
development of an aquaculture industry in the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
beyond state waters were examined through available literature, semi-structured interviews,
and case examples of offshore aquaculture development projects. Analysis showed that while
economic and political factors have a definite influence on the development of offshore
aquaculture, the greatest barriers to the growth of the industry in the United States are the lack
of a rational and comprehensive federal regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture, and
lack of explicit regulatory authority naming NOAA as the lead federal agency. Until these
regulatory factors are addressed, development of offshore aquaculture in the United States will
continue to be on a project-by-project and permit-by-permit basis. This case-by-case approach,
by failing to address systematically important economic, political, jurisdictional, and ethical
issues concerning the use of offshore waters for commercial aquaculture, is likely to continue to
inhibit development of offshore aquaculture in the future. I conclude with a discussion of
possible root causes for the lack of clear federal guidance with regard to offshore aquaculture,
and I make recommendations for addressing the regulatory, economic and political factors that
are inhibiting the development of offshore aquaculture in the United States.


***T
T Its
We meet lit proves the aff is the only way the USFG can develop offshore
aquaculture
Buck 12 masters in marine affairs @ University of Washington
Lisa, U.S. Development of Offshore Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors
[http://gradworks.umi.com/15/28/1528916.html] Accessed June 30, 2014
Development of offshore aquaculture in the United States is predominantly influenced by
regulatory, economic, and political factors. While some aspects of each category favor
development of the industry, for example, rising demand and prices for seafood in the U.S., the
dominant thrust of each category to date has been to impede more than favor development.
The most commonly cited barrier to development of the industry by the people I interviewed is
the lack of a clear, comprehensive federal regulatory framework, and the lack of a lead federal
agency with adequate resources to guide and regulate offshore aquaculture. In lieu of a federal
regulatory framework, there is a piecemeal system of applicable laws and regulations. However
none of these was designed with offshore aquaculture in mind. With the enactment of the NAA
in 1980 the Department of Agriculture was designated as the lead federal agency for promotion
of aquaculture, and the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture was established within the
Congress to effectively coordinate aquaculture research and assistance (NAA, 1980). While the
NAA granted the authority to coordinate aquaculture research and assistance efforts, it did not
create a specific mandate for aquaculture development in the offshore. The NAA mandated that
a National Aquaculture Development Plan be created to outline development of the aquaculture
industry in the United States, however at the time of enactment of the NAA in 1980,
aquaculture activities consisted of mainly freshwater and coastal activities. Offshore
aquaculture was not on the horizon. The DOA has promoted traditional types of aquaculture in
the United States, however it has not been effective in the promotion of expansion of
aquaculture in the United States into federal waters due to its lack of expertise and perhaps
interest in the management of marine resources. As a result, no guidance documents have been
created which would assist a prospective developer in navigating through the piecemeal
framework of regulations that currently exists. Moreover, most of the regulatory, economic and
political challenges to the development of offshore aquaculture have been left unaddressed by
federal authorities. It is for this reason that the majority of stakeholders believe that NOAA
should be the lead federal agency responsible for development and regulation of offshore
aquaculture in the United States. NMFS has extensive experience regulating marine fisheries in
the United States EEZ. However attempts by the agency to develop a federal framework for
offshore aquaculture have been met with resistance from opponents of the industry. Finally,
Congress has not come to agreement on what types of guidance should be offered in a federal
regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture.


Definition Aquaculture
Aquaculture is the rearing of marine species besides mammals and birds
Buck 2012, Student for Master of Marine Affairs Degree University of Washington
(Lisa E. Buck, under Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Thomas Leschine, School of
Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, U.S. Development of Offshore
Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors ProQuest, accessed JH 6/26/14)
The term offshore aquaculture is being used in this thesis to describe any aquaculture
activities being undertaken in the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The EEZ extends
from the outer boundary of state waters to 200 nautical miles (nm) from the coast. Most state
waters extend 3 nm from the coast, however state waters of Texas, Puerto Rico, and the Gulf of
Mexico coastline of Florida extend to 9 nm from the coast. The term offshore as used in this
document refers to area between this 3 or 9 nm outer boundary of state waters and the 200 nm
limit of the EEZ (NOAA, 2012). The term aquaculture refers to the rearing of any marine
species other than marine mammals and marine birds. It generally refers to the rearing of
finfish, as that is the main focus of most offshore aquaculture operations, however it is not
exclusive in its scope. Seaweeds, algae, and mollusks are among other types of marine species
that may be included in the definition of aquaculture.

Aquaculture is fishing
Buck 2012, Student for Master of Marine Affairs Degree University of Washington
(Lisa E. Buck, under Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Thomas Leschine, School of
Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, U.S. Development of Offshore
Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors ProQuest, accessed JH 6/26/14)
NOAA has maintained that aquaculture activities are considered fishing as defined by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, which gives NMFS the authority to regulate aquaculture activities
(Johnson 1993, NOAA 2009, NOAA 2011). This view is based on the definition of fishing in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, which includes, (A) the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish; (B) the
attempted catching, taking or harvesting of fish; (C) any other activity which can reasonably be
expected to result in the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish; (D) or any operations at sea in
support of or in preparation for any activity described in subparagraphs (A) through (C)
(Magnuson-Stevens Act, 1996)

Aquaculture is done by the private sector
Silverstein, 10/2010, Agricultural Research Center National Program Leader
(Jeff Silverstein, Agricultural Research journal, released October 2010, Supporting US
Agriculture, ProQuest, accessed JH 6/26/14)
Broadly defined, aquaculture is the captive rearing of any life stage of an aquatic organism and
includes fish farming as well as activities like the hatching and releasing of sport fish by state
agencies. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines aquaculture as a private-sector
enterprise. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) conducts research primarily to support
production of aquatic animals that are privately owned. In 2009, Americans consumed an
average of about 16 pounds of seafood per person, but less than 1.5 pounds of that was from
domestic aquaculture.


Definition Offshore Aquaculture
Offshore aquaculture occurs in the EEZ
Buck 2012, Student for Master of Marine Affairs Degree University of Washington
(Lisa E. Buck, under Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Thomas Leschine, School of
Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, U.S. Development of Offshore
Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors ProQuest, accessed JH 6/26/14)
The term offshore aquaculture is being used in this thesis to describe any aquaculture
activities being undertaken in the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The EEZ extends
from the outer boundary of state waters to 200 nautical miles (nm) from the coast. Most state
waters extend 3 nm from the coast, however state waters of Texas, Puerto Rico, and the Gulf of
Mexico coastline of Florida extend to 9 nm from the coast. The term offshore as used in this
document refers to area between this 3 or 9 nm outer boundary of state waters and the 200 nm
limit of the EEZ (NOAA, 2012). The term aquaculture refers to the rearing of any marine
species other than marine mammals and marine birds. It generally refers to the rearing of
finfish, as that is the main focus of most offshore aquaculture operations, however it is not
exclusive in its scope. Seaweeds, algae, and mollusks are among other types of marine species
that may be included in the definition of aquaculture.


***Solvency
Solvency Regs
Adjusting regulatory and permit barriers meets demand for high quality
aquaculture
Silverstein, 5/2014, Agricultural Research Center National Program Leader
(Jeff Silverstein, Agricultural Research journal, released May 2010, Valuing US Agriculture,
ProQuest, accessed JH 6/26/14)
Although the United States is a small producer in the global aquaculture industry, it is a leader in
advanced technology and has world-class research capacity. It has the natural resources,
markets, and feed grains essential for commercial success, too. Like crop, livestock, and poultry
production, aquaculture is an agricultural industry, with a promising future for growth driven by
innovations and entrepreneurs. It is the fastest growing animal-protein sector worldwide and is
the most efficient animal protein production system. World economies will continue to compete
for available seafood, both wild harvested and farmed, as demand increases. Simplifying
regulatory barriers and streamlining the permit process can stimulate more investment and
growth as demand for high-quality aquaculture products increases. Aquaculture investors are
looking for locations near large markets, while small businesses are supplying local markets. The
lack of access to sites in marine waters is creating strong markets worldwide for many farm-
raised shellfish products. A concerted effort among governmental agencies can help make the
United States an attractive country for investment to supply these markets.

The USFG should set up a regulatory framework
Buck 2012, Student for Master of Marine Affairs Degree University of Washington
(Lisa E. Buck, under Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Thomas Leschine, School of
Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, , U.S. Development of Offshore
Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors ProQuest, accessed JH 6/26/14)
It was the opinion of the majority of interviewees that the government should have a limited
role in the development of offshore aquaculture in the United States. It was generally agreed
among interviewees that the governments role in the economics of offshore aquaculture
should consist of creating a federal framework for offshore aquaculture and eliminating the
regulatory and economic barriers to entry into the industry. As mentioned earlier, these barriers
create a financial burden on potential entrants in the form of time and financial resources spent
navigating the current fragmented permitting process. Interviewees in each category expressed
the belief that the industry must be self-sustaining and should not rely on government subsidies
to maintain its viability. Subsidies were viewed by the majority of interviewees as perverse
incentives that support unsustainable industries and practices. It was further agreed by the
majority of interviewees that while government subsidies did not have a place in the long-term
sustainability of the industry, they would have a benefit in the short-term research and
development stage. Interviewees in all categories cited the need for government funding to
assist with basic research and monitoring. Types of research suggested as candidates for
government funding are listed in Table 10. It was also noted by interviewees in the industry and
research categories that government funding for academic partnerships with research facilities
and technology development facilities has been immensely helpful in the past and could be
highly beneficial again.
Expert Panel CP/Solvency Deficits to the aff
Buck 2012, Student for Master of Marine Affairs Degree University of Washington
(Lisa E. Buck, under Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Thomas Leschine, School of
Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, U.S. Development of Offshore
Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors ProQuest, accessed JH 6/26/14)
While it is agreed by all parties associated with the development of offshore aquaculture
development in the United States that precaution is necessary in the formation of a federal
framework, an over-abundance of caution in the name of conservation of our own marine
resources will prolong the status quo and continue to place environmental externalities on
those who are less capable of managing them than the United States, and will continue to
create an imbalance of need for protein and available supply in some producing countries. This
thesis outlines recommendations in five stages: 1. Establish a panel of experts to examine and
evaluate the need for development of a domestic offshore aquaculture industry 2. Promote
inter-agency coordination for implementation of recommendations of the expert pane 3.
Educate all stakeholders concerning the findings and recommendations of the expert panel
through participatory workshops a. Encourage stakeholder participation in discussion of
concerns with emphasis on potential solutions 4. Educate the general public concerning the
findings and recommendations of the expert panel and stakeholder workshops 5. Draft new
legislation reflecting the findings of the expert panel and the stakeholder workshops with the
goal of creating an appropriate regulatory framework A panel of experts in offshore aquaculture
should be convened to examine more closely the argument that a domestic offshore
aquaculture industry is needed, and to outline a regulatory approach that would provide the
necessary guidance to the industry while assuring appropriate levels of environmental
protection. This group should include representatives from all stakeholder groups included in
Figure 4 of this document, at least one specialist in economics of domestic marine fisheries and
international seafood trade, and a minimum of one representative from the Joint Subcommittee
on Aquaculture. This panel would evaluate the need for a domestic offshore aquaculture
industry, and create a final report outlining recommendations based on their findings In order to
implement the recommendations of the expert panel, coordination between agencies will be
necessary. Since it is the mandate of the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture to coordinate and
disseminate information regarding aquaculture, the JSA will oversee coordination of agency
efforts and sharing of information between agencies concerning the findings of the expert
panel. This coordination will begin to establish the organization of agency specialties with regard
to development of offshore aquaculture, and will lead to the potential structure of government
authorities over aspects of offshore aquaculture regulation. With the establishment of a
preliminary regulatory structure for offshore aquaculture and coordination of government
agencies applicable to offshore aquaculture, it is recommended that stakeholder workshops be
held. The purpose of these workshops is to educate stakeholders on the findings and
recommendations of the expert panel, and the proposed regulatory structure. These workshops
will encourage stakeholders to air their concerns, but will be focused on coming up with
potential solutions to address these concerns while keeping in mind the findings and
recommendations of the expert panel. Communication among stakeholders aimed at identifying
common interests and shared goals and objectives regarding offshore aquaculture development
will be encouraged. This thesis suggests that a rough consensus exists across agency, industry,
research and political interest stakeholders with regard to the need for development of offshore
aquaculture in the United States. However, as noted by one interviewee, the devil is in the
details. This interviewee was referring to the question of the amount of precaution necessary
for offshore aquaculture to be sustainable in the long-term. The findings of the expert panel will
serve as a baseline of unbiased information for stakeholders to discuss in the context of their
experiences, opinions and concerns. The output from these stakeholder workshops will be a
report outlining the various views on development of offshore aquaculture, and describing
proposed solutions to address concerns that have been aired by participants using the findings
of the expert panel as a basis for discussion and decision-making. Upon completion of the
stakeholder workshops, efforts should be made to educate the general public about the findings
of the expert panel and the outcome of the stakeholder workshops. This effort should
incorporate inputs from all stakeholders involved in the development of offshore aquaculture in
order to create a balanced output of information. This stage may prove difficult due to the
variation in capacity for information dissemination between stakeholders, however this
imbalance can be addressed and negotiated during stakeholder discussions, and a solution can
be proposed. At this stage legislation for federal regulation of offshore aquaculture can be
drafted in a way that reflects the findings of the expert panel, and compromises and solutions
reached by stakeholders. Once public perception of offshore aquaculture development has
begun to reflect the findings of the expert panel and the balanced viewpoints of stakeholders,
legislation that also reflects these findings and solutions will have a much higher chance of being
signed into law. These regulations for implementation of offshore aquaculture development will
provide guidance to those interested in participating in the industry, as well as assurance that
concerns have been addressed and included in regulatory measures. While aquaculture in the
United States has been successful in coastal and inland waters, there are advantages to
establishment of a unified federal approach to offshore aquaculture as well. In order to develop
a federal regulatory framework efforts will first need to be made to determine the need and
capacity for offshore aquaculture in the United States, and then to educate stakeholders and
the public about these findings. Efforts to create a federal regulatory system for offshore
aquaculture may be coupled with broader spatial planning efforts in order to accommodate
other uses of United States federal waters such as offshore wind and wave energy production.
While there are currently regulatory, economic and political factors influencing the
development of offshore aquaculture in United States federal waters, these factors can be
discussed and addressed in a productive way that will allow the United States to achieve its
potential for production of aquaculture seafood.


Solvency Johnson
US offshore aquaculture development deterred by lack of regs plan is key to
creating sustainable solution to meet growing demand
Johns 13
FARM FISHING HOLES: GAPS IN FEDERAL REGULATION O F OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW Vol. 86 Pg. 681 [http://lawreview.usc.edu/wp-
content/uploads/slideshow/Johns-86-3-Final-PDF.pdf] //
Fish might be considered brain food, 1 but there is nothing smart about the way the United
States currently manages its seafood production. Although the U.S. governmen t has long
promoted the health benefits of products from the sea even urging Americans to double their
seafood intake 2 it has fallen far behind in developing a domestic source for this se a food.
Currently, the United States relies on an almost primitive met hod for domestic seafood
production: taking animals found naturally in the wild. However, this approach is no longer
sustainable: most federally managed capture fisheries are either stable or declining, with forty -
eight currently overfished, and forty subj ect to overfishing in 2010 . 3 What seafood the United
States does not take from its own fisheries it imports; in 2011 the United States imported as
much as 91 percent of its seafood supply. 4 Fortunately, there is a way for the United States not
only to ease the pressure on traditional fisheries allowing them to recover but also to
provide a significant domestic source of seafood products: through the development and
promotion of its domestic offshore aquaculture industry. However, this industry should not be
allowed to expand free from regulation , as offshore aquaculture may have ser i ous
consequences for both marine and human environments. This Note recommend s that a
comprehensive regulatory framework be put in place now , in advance of the offshore industrys
development, to ensure not only that the industry grows, but also that it does so in an
environmentally conscious and sustainable way. Aquaculture is the farming of shellfish, finfish,
and plants in water. 5 Growing sources for protein, instead of taking t hem from the wild, is not a
novel concept: humans have been raising their own beef, poultry, and pork ever since they
switched from a hunter - gatherer lifestyle to an agrarian one. A quaculture has been around for
thousands of years, but it has not until rec ently received much attention or been actively utilized
in many parts of the world. The United States has an even shorter history of aquaculture
compared to the global industry, 6 and has only recently reco g nized aquacultures economic
potential. Despite it s slow start, the United States has begun to push toward developing its
domestic industry in order to provide jobs and to reduce reliance on foreign seafood imports. 7
Now, aquaculture is the fastest - growing agricultural sector in the nation. 8 Traditionally , U.S.
aquaculture farms are located inland, typically in ponds or tanks that grow freshwater fish.
However, as Americans come to prefer products grown in the sea rather than in freshwater
saltwater shrimp is the number one imported seafood product 9 marine aquaculture
operations are sure to grow. Most marine farms are currently located nearshore or in state -
owned coastal waters; however, as competition for space near the coast increases, the industry
will inevitably move offshore. 10 Much to the delight of en viro n mentalists and consumers
alike, offshore aquaculture may also be healt h ier for both the marine environment and the
human community, as effluents and diseases are more easily diluted and dispersed in the open
ocean than in nearshore sites, which are usually located in bays or other areas with poor
circulation. Offshore aquaculture, thus, has enormous potential in the Uni t ed States: some
proponents even believe we are in the early stages of a blue revolution of offshore
aquaculture production. 11 At th e same time, offshore aquaculture poses a host of
environmental risks, most of which are not properly addressed by current regulatory schemes.
One of the biggest risks is the impact of intentionally or acc i dentally released farmed fish on
native fish popul ations and marine ecosy s tems. Fish escapes can harm native populations by
altering the genetic makeup of the wild population many farmed fish are genetically modified
to grow larger and mature faster or by transferring diseases and path o gens generated in t he
high - density conditions of most farms. And while offshore aquaculture farms may enjoy the
benefit of being located far of f shore, making for easier dilution and dispersion of waste
discharge, these farms also create substantial amounts of organic polluti on in the form of
nutrients which, when released in excess, can harm marine ecosystems in areas with weak
currents and poor circulation. The use of drugs such as pesticides and antibiotics in offshore fish
farms can also endanger the m a rine environment: on ce these chemicals are added to marine
farms, they eadily disperse into the marine environment and can impact nontarget sp e cies. The
increased use of antibiotics in fish farms can threaten the human environment as well: overuse
has led to an increased res istance in both fish and human bacteria, reducing the effectiveness of
these drugs. Finally, offshore aquaculture farms may harm the marine environment by interfe r
ing with wild animals use of their natural habitat , displacing wild fish populations, blocki ng
passages for migrating species, or attracting m a rine predators. These environmental risks are
significant, yet current federal regulation of offshore aquaculture does not adequately address
them mainly because there is no specific federal regulatory sch eme for offshore aquaculture. I
propose that a comprehensive and centralized framework for the of f shore aquaculture
industry be developed, and the roles of the relevant federal agencies and regulatory bodies be
clarified. Without such a framework, U.S. aqu aculturists are discouraged from moving their
operations offshore due to the lack of any regulatory consistency or predictability, which not
only makes it difficult to obtain sufficient investment capital, but also leaves any offshore
operation vulnerable to legal challenge. In fact, the very first commercial offshore aquaculture
project to be issued a fishing permit to operate in federal waters was challenged in federal court.
12 At the same time, regulations are essential to ensuring that the environmental effects of
offshore aquaculture including biological, organic, and chemical poll u tion, the impact of
escaped farmed fish on native populations and marine ec o systems, and habitat modification
are minimized.

Solvency Certainty Key
Patchwork of federal regulations deters offshore aquaculture development
certainty key
Bill Frezza 11/26/12, fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Regulatory Uncertainty
Drives Fish Farmer to Foreign Waters, Real Clear Markets,
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/11/26/regulatory_uncertainty_drives_fish_far
mer_to_foreign_waters_100008.html
It took a while to figure out the proper siting, anchoring, and operating parameters required to
run a fish farm so far from shore, but Brian, like any dedicated entrepreneur, was persistent.
Resistance from local fishermen slowly turned into support when they realized they could get
steady work delivering feed and materials to the farm sites while transporting harvested fish
back to shore on a scheduled basis. But where did Brian set up shop, and why? Panama. The
reason? Regulations. "Panama has a small and limited government, which made it easier to
navigate the business and permitting process," explained Brian. "Deep water fish farming is so
new that we wanted to work with agencies that were responsive and flexible. This was just not
possible in the U.S." Getting the required permits and licenses to operate a deep-water fish farm
in the U.S. would require running the gantlet of dozens of federal and state regulatory agencies,
some with overlapping jurisdictions and none with a mandate to lead the process. Agencies
would include the Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Food and Drug Administration, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Regulations that would have to be complied with include the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Jones Act, OSHA rules, and who knows how many
others. Regional Fishery Management Councils and various state agencies involved in historic
preservation and tourism would all have a say. And all of this is before the courts get involved.
Setting up deep-water fish farms in the U.S. would require a hefty budget for defending against
lawsuits from NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) activists and competing on-shore and near-shore
fish farms, as well as paying an army of lobbyists to fend off opposition from states like Alaska
and Maine where fishing fleet interests have considerable political pull. The cost and
uncertainties introduced by dysfunctional crony capitalism, pay-to-play politicians, and
misguided environmental activists would be deadly to any entrepreneur. Hence Panama, which
is great for Panamanians, as they get the jobs, the fish, and the export revenue, but not so great
for us. Which is a shame, because the U.S. has the largest federal water zone in the world, with
more ocean area suitable for deep-water fish farming than the country has arable land area.
Different fish would have to be selected suited to the water temperature and conditions found
in different regions, but there is no reason why you couldn't grow Cobia in the Gulf, striped bass
up the mid Atlantic Coast, cod and halibut as far north as Maine, and a wide variety of species in
the vast stretch between southern and northern California. That is, if anyone in their right mind
would dare to start a business like this in California.

AT Cant Commercialize
Offshore aquaculture becomes MORE profitable as it scales larger federal
framework is key
John McQuaid - 12/3/09, In Search of New Waters, Fish Farming Moves Offshore, Yale
Environment 360, journalist specializing in science and environment, has written for the
Washington Post, Smithsonian, Slate, U.S. News, Wired, and Mother Jones,
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/in_search_of_new_waters_fish_farming_moves_offshore/2216/
Its an industry that will achieve better economics as it scales, says Neil Sims, the co-founder
and CEO of Kona Blue Farms, an offshore operation in Hawaii that farms a local species of
yellowtail it calls Kona kampachi. We need to grow this industry. Larger pens are going to be
more efficient than smaller ones. Better technology, more automation is going to be better than
using manpower. We need to locate closer to the market or find ways to get product to market
more inexpensively. Indeed, if deep-sea fish farming is to have any impact on the seafood
marketplace, not to mention global food supplies, it will have to get much, much bigger. That
prospect alarms environmental groups that have spent years fighting poorly managed industrial
fish farms. Chile, for example, used to be the worlds number two producer of farmed salmon,
after Norway. But Chilean salmon production has plunged by more than half over the past two
years due to an epidemic of infectious salmon anemia. Scientists blame the disaster on several
aspects of Chilean salmon farms: The practice of packing as many fish as possible into
enclosures puts physical stress on the fish and facilitated the spread of disease, and the
industrys rapid expansion with minimal oversight meant many farms were badly managed and
unable to contain the epidemic. Infectious salmon anemia is a consequence of scaling up of the
industry, not having a precautionary plan that assures you dont overcapitalize and
overdevelop, says George Leonard, who directs the Ocean Conservancys aquaculture program.
Alex Muoz Wilson, Oceanas vice president for South America, who is based in Santiago, Chile,
offers a more vivid description of the diseases impact: It was like a plague from the Bible.
Whether offshore or inshore, Muoz says, large-scale aquaculture operations will be tempted to
crowd fish as a cost-saving measure. Moving offshore also wouldnt solve the problems of fish
escapes or the overuse of antibiotics, which can lower disease resistance in fish populations,
though its possible that the vast spaces of the open ocean will mitigate those effects. Perhaps
the largest unresolved question involves the mathematics of protein consumption. The big
finfish favored by farmers must eat a lot of smaller fish to reach a marketable size in some
cases, four to seven pounds of small fish for every pound of prime finfish. So as fish farming
expands, so does the demand for those fish down the food chain, increasing the risk of
overfishing and population collapses. For this reason many scientists believe the future of
aquaculture depends on using fish that eat algae and vegetation such as tilapia and catfish.
OHanlon says hes working on this problem with his cobia, raising the percentage of vegetation
in the fish meal theyre fed. After more than two years of setup in Panama, hes now preparing
to harvest his first cobia in the next few weeks, approximately 250 tons from six pens, grown
over a 16-month cycle. In 2011, he plans to quadruple the output, on the way to a still-elusive
profitability goal of 2,000 tons a year. He plans to sell the cobia mostly to high-end fish markets
and restaurants in the U.S. Ultimately, the viability of operations like OHanlons, and the
question of whether offshore aquaculture harms or harmonizes with an ocean environment,
hinge on careful management. But that wont happen on a large scale without an external
structure of laws, rules, scientific assessments, and careful government oversight. And none of
those things exist right now. Instead, fish farmers must contend with a bewildering array of
authorities and jurisdictions. In the U.S., state waters go to three miles offshore (except for
Florida, Texas and Puerto Rico, which claim a nine-mile limit). The federal government has
territorial authority out to 12 miles, plus economic and more limited legal rights out to 200
miles, a zone known as the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The agencies that have a hand in
aquaculture include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (fisheries), the Army
Corps of Engineers (navigation), the Environmental Protection Agency (water quality), and the
Food and Drug Administration (food safety). There is no regulatory framework in place if you
were to submit an application for an aquaculture site in the EEZ, its possible it would never be
looked at by anyone, says Richard Langan, the director of the University of New Hampshires
Atlantic Marine Aquaculture Center, which has been experimenting with offshore techniques at
test sites off the Atlantic coast for more than a decade.

AT NOAA Already in Lead
No lead agency now NOAA, Army Corps of Engineers, and EPA all have a say
GAO May 2008, OFFSHORE MARINE AQUACULTURE: Multiple Administrative and
Environmental Issues Need to Be Addressed in Establishing a U.S. Regulatory Framework, GAO-
08-594, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08594.pdf
Currently, multiple federal agencies have the authority to regulate different aspects of offshore
aquaculture, under a variety of existing laws that were not designed for this purpose.
Additionally, there is no lead federal agency for regulating offshore aquaculture, and no
comprehensive law directly addresses how it should be administered, regulated, and monitored.
The key federal agencies include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
which has the authority to protect the marine environment from potential negative impacts
from a variety of sources, including aquaculture. In this regard, NOAA evaluates proposals for
new facilities in the marine environment, such as those for aquaculture or oil exploration, to
ensure that marine mammals, endangered species, and national marine sanctuary resources are
protected. NOAA also coordinates with eight regional fishery management councils to manage
fishing activity and protect fish habitat in federal waters.3 In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) issues permits for structures in navigable waters, such as aquaculture net
pens where fish are raised, to ensure that navigation is not impeded. Similarly, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues permits to limit the release of pollutants from
aquaculture facilities into U.S. waters. This complex structure of federal responsibilities for
offshore aquaculture has led aquaculture researchers, regulators, those who operate
aquaculture facilities (aquaculturists), and environmentalists to advocate for a coordinated
approach to regulating offshore aquaculture in the United States. In 2005 and 2007, the
administration developed legislative proposals to provide a new regulatory framework for
offshore aquaculture.4 The 2007 legislative proposal was introduced in the House and Senate
but has not progressed any farther toward becoming law. Within this context, you asked us to
identify key issues that should be addressed in the development of an effective regulatory
framework for U.S. offshore aquaculture.

AT Other Barriers
No other barriers to aquaculture besides the plan US has the tech and
investors
Price and Morris 13 researchers @ Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research
Carol Seals and James A., Marine Cage Culture and the Environment: Twenty-first Century
Science Informing a Sustainable Industry
[http://www2.coastalscience.noaa.gov/publications/detail.aspx?resource=lS+q3d4eICvFWKFlXB
Ymz48uUqIGeFF871rIXjLV1/Y=] //
The U.S. has everything required to develop a significant marine finfish aquaculture industry in
coastal and open ocean waters including excellent locations, scientific expertise, state-ofthe- art
technology, innovative equipment and feed manufacturers and willing investors. Globally,
aquaculture produces about half of the seafood people eat, but only 5% of U.S. seafood comes
from domestic aquaculture. In the U.S., the aquaculture industry has not developed due to an
uncertain permit processes at the state and federal levels, concerns about environmental
effects and conflicting coastal uses. These factors contribute to trade imbalance, export of
innovative technology and loss of potential jobs.
Offshore aquaculture is feasible demonstration projects exist
Johns 13
FARM FISHING HOLES: GAPS IN FEDERAL REGULATION O F OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW Vol. 86 Pg. 681 [http://lawreview.usc.edu/wp-
content/uploads/slideshow/Johns-86-3-Final-PDF.pdf] //
Ind ed, a number of U.S. aquaculturists are already experimenting with offshore technology: four
projects in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and New Hampshire involved open - ocean designs that could be
viable far offshore. 35 The University of New Hampshire is currently working on technology that
would allow species of mussels and scallops to be grown in far offshore facilities using special
net containers suspended from floating rafts. 36 Kampachi Farms LLC (formerly Kona Blue
Water Farms, or Kona Blue), a Hawaii - based a quaculture company, has recently announced
its first successful harvest of fish grown in offshore waters using an innovative design that allows
an unanchored cage to drift in open - ocean currents from three to seventy - five miles offshore.
37 The success of this project, the co m panys CEO noted, demonstrates that we can grow fish
in the open ocean with no negative impact on pristine ocean ecosystems. 38 He continued, We
must now apply ourselves to responsibly scale up this industry. 39 Optimistic about the offs
hore industrys development, Kampachi Farms next plans to test its design in waters six miles
offshore where it can still move freely in currents while being close enough to shore for easy
delivery of supplies . 40

AT US Cant Expand Enough
US has tech and resources for large scale aquaculture
Silverstein, 5/2014, Agricultural Research Center National Program Leader
(Jeff Silverstein, Agricultural Research journal, released May 2010, Valuing US Agriculture,
ProQuest, accessed JH 6/26/14)
In 2012, the average American ate 14.4 pounds of seafood-reflecting a slight drop from the 15
pounds eaten in 2011. However, this does not necessarily mean that we want to eat less fish.
These figures are a result of an increasing U.S. population and a decrease in commercial fishery
catches used for food, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Our
appetite for seafood is expected to surpass the slowing rate of global harvesting from the wild,
making the success of the U.S. aquaculture industry even more crucial in meeting the demand
for fish and shellfish. Aquaculture, also known as "fish farming," is the propagation and rearing
of animals and plants in aquatic environments, under controlled or selected conditions. More
than 91 percent of the seafood Americans consume is imported. While about half of all seafood
consumed in the United States is produced from aquaculture, only about 5 percent of this
seafood comes from the United States, which produces oysters, clams, mussels, catfish, salmon,
trout, and yellow perch. As a nation, we are the world's third largest consumers of seafood, yet
we rank 15th in total aquaculture production, according to a 2012 United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization report, "The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture." Although the
United States is a small producer in the global aquaculture industry, it is a leader in advanced
technology and has world-class research capacity. It has the natural resources, markets, and
feed grains essential for commercial success, too. Like crop, livestock, and poultry production,
aquaculture is an agricultural industry, with a promising future for growth driven by innovations
and entrepreneurs. It is the fastest growing animal-protein sector worldwide and is the most
efficient animal protein production system.

US aquaculture has the potential to compete in global markets enabling
regulatory structure is key
Gunnar Knapp 9/17/05, Econ Prof @ U of Anchorage, Economic Perspectives on United
States Marine Aquaculture, Presentation to the Marine Aquaculture Task Force,
http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=6793&pt=2&p=7706
If seems likely that the United States could compete successfully with other countries in marine
aquaculture productin --if it chose to do so. COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES diverse and favorable
water conditions. high level of technology. well-developed infrastructure. skilled labor
lowest transportation costs to U.S. markets very competitive in animal farming industries
(chicken, beef, etc.) COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGES high labor costs high values of
competing coastal uses . unfavorable regulatory structure less developed infrastructure and
higher costs in some regions (Alaska) The economic potential for offshore aquaculture may be
less off Alaska than in other U.S. offshore waters. COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES OF ALASKA
RELATIVE TO OTHER U.S. OFFSHORE AREAS favorable cold-water conditions skilled labor
processing facilities COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGES OF ALASKA RELATIVE TO OTHER U.S.
OFFSHORE less developed infrastructure higher labor costs higher processing costs . higher
transportation costs to U.S. markets . more severe weather and ice conditions U.S. marine
aquaculture policy is currently very unfavorable to marine aquaculture development.
Ambivalent-to-hostile regulatory structure for most other coastal marine aquaculture Lack
of clear regulatory structure Opposition by local groups & NGOs Political risk Lack of an
enabling regulatory structure for offshore (EEZ) marine aquaculture Without an enabling
regulatory structure offshore marine aquaculture will not develop

Technological innovation will solve feed and environmental barriers huge
growth potential
Gunnar Knapp 9/17/05, Econ Prof @ U of Anchorage, Economic Perspectives on United
States Marine Aquaculture, Presentation to the Marine Aquaculture Task Force,
http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=6793&pt=2&p=7706
These challenges will limit particular kinds of aquaculture in particular places. But there are no
obvious limits to growth in total world aquaculture production. Feed Fish farmers can
substitute vegetable-based feeds for fish- based feeds. This is already happening for salmon.
Many aquaculture species, such as catfish and tilapia, are grown almost entirely on vegetable-
based feeds. Environmental Effects Environmental effects can be reduced through
regulation and changes in techniques and locations Market Acceptance Rapid growth in
consumption proves that buyers and consumers will accept farmed products There is very
significant potential for growth in aquaculture production. The global aquaculture industry has
very significant resources to invest in research, production and marketing Technological
innovation is occurring rapidly. Once technological hurdles are overcome, farming of new
species can expand at a very rapid rate. The past isnt necessarily a guide to the future. Just
because farming of a species isnt profitable now doesnt mean t wont be in the future Just
because production of a species isnt significant now doesnt mean it wont be in the future.
Just because consumers dont eat a fish today doesnt mean they wont in the future.
Tomorrows major aquaculture species may not be the same as those of today.

***UQ
Global AQC Increasing
Aquaculture development inevitable
DiBenedetto, 2/18/14, senior editor at the Journal of Commerce
(Bill DiBenedetto, Journal of Commerce, Farm Frenzy, ProQuest, accessed 6/27/14 JH)
In just about any Seattle seafood restaurant, a typical conversation will include a crucial
question: Is the salmon wild- caught or farmed? Answer the question wrong and the dinner
party might well turn up their noses and order the chicken. Those perceptions and attitudes
about seafood will likely have to change - and probably sooner than restaurant-goers expect.
Worldwide fish consumption has doubled over the past 40 years, and seafood sales in the
U.S. have grown approximately 10 percent a year since 2001. The problem is that most ocean
capture fisheries are already fully exploited or over-fished. Aquaculture, or fish farming, is
seen as the answer to fill the gap that increasing global demand is unable to fill by "capture"
fishing. "In a not-too-far-away future, some time after 2010 or at the latest 2020,
aquaculture will overtake capture fisheries for food fish supply," said Helga Josupeit, fishery
industry officer at the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization's Fish Utilization and
Marketing Service. But there are some persistent problems on the farm side of the equation,
including regulatory and environmental issues, not to mention the taste issue. Many seafood
diners say wild-caught simply tastes better, and is safer and healthier than farm-raised
varieties. That means they will pay a premium for wild fish at organic or upper-end retail
outlets and at luxury restaurants. The trends are undeniable: World fish supply from catches,
while still dominant, is declining, but the supply from aquaculture is growing rapidly. Of the
total 143 million tons of world food fish produced last year, 91 million tons came from
catches, down from 94 million tons in 2004. Aquaculture represented 52 million tons of the
supply in 2007, up from 46 million tons in 2004. The world seafood industry is valued at an
estimated $400 billion a year, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization. It said
capture fisheries are worth $80 billion, and aquaculture is worth $60 billion.


Global aquaculture increasing doubled in the last decade
Bill Frezza 11/26/12, fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Regulatory Uncertainty
Drives Fish Farmer to Foreign Waters, Real Clear Markets,
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/11/26/regulatory_uncertainty_drives_fish_far
mer_to_foreign_waters_100008.html
Feeding 7 billion people is no small challenge. As it has from time immemorial, high quality
protein harvested from the sea plays a major role in avoiding Malthusian collapse. Commercial
fishermen bring in a wild catch of roughly 90 million tons of fish each year, with another 70
million tons coming from aquaculture. The latter number is the one to watch. While the world's
wild fish catch has flattened over the past two decades, with many fishing grounds facing
depletion and certain species being threatened with extinction, fish farming continues to grow
at a sharp clip, doubling over the last decade. This should come as no surprise to anyone who
understands the very different economic incentives that prevail under the tragedy of the
commons versus those that yield the bounty produced under private property regimes.


US AQC Increasing
Obama increasing aquaculture and food security efforts in the squo
Tullo 6/19/2014, a journalist with Inter Press Service (IPS) News Agency, internally quoting
from an Ocean Summit meeting
(Michelle Tullo, Global Information Network SUMMIT: U.S. TURNS ATTENTION TO OCEAN
CONSERVATION, FOOD SECURITY. ProQuest, accessed 6/28/14 JH)
WASHINGTON, Jun. 19, 2014 (IPS/GIN) - A first-time U.S.-hosted summit on protecting the
oceans has resulted in pledges worth some 800 million dollars to be used for conservation
efforts. During the summit, held here in Washington, the administration of President Barack
Obama pledged to massively expand U.S.-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 Tuesday morning. The "Our Ocean"
conference, held Monday and Tuesday at the U.S. 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 three 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 U.S. 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 U.S.-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 will 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." *Seafood fraud* The Obama administration also
hopes to jumpstart the United States' own seafood production capabilities. According to a
White House fact sheet, the United States today imports most of its seafood, though highly
regulated U.S. aquaculture is widely seen as particularly safe. Early on in his first
administration, President Obama created a new national ocean stewardship policy which
also sought to streamline more than 100 U.S. laws governing the oceans and coordinating
the country's approach to these resources. This week's actions will further simplify
aquaculture production, while aiming to ensure that U.S. aquaculture does not exceed the
population size an environment can naturally support. "The U.S. is really good at innovating,
but not at producing, largely because of the amount of regulatory hurdles," Michael Tlusty,
director of research at the New England Aquarium, told IPS. "Roughly 17 different agencies
have roles in aquaculture regulation, so streamlining the process will put all of them together
at the same table to efficiently provide permits." Tlusty also applauded the administration's
announcement to create a comprehensive program to deter illegal fishing and seafood fraud.
"We can't turn a switch and fix the ocean - we need lots of different strategies," Tlusty said.
"Cutting carbon dioxide emissions is very important ... as is cutting illegal, underreported and
underegistered fishing." Advocacy groups have likewise applauded the initiatives. "President
Obama's announcement is a historic step forward in the fight against seafood fraud and
illegal fishing worldwide. This initiative is a practical solution to an ugly problem and will
forever change the way we think about our seafood," Beth Lowell, campaign director for
Oceana, a watchdog group, said Tuesday. "Because our seafood travels through an
increasingly long, complex and non-transparent supply chain, there are numerous
opportunities for seafood fraud to occur and illegally caught fish to enter the U.S. market."
Oceana points to recent research noting that nearly a third of wild-caught seafood coming
into the United States comes from pirate fishing. The World Wildlife Fund, a major
conservation group, called Obama's announcements "a turning point" for the world's oceans.



***Adv Food Security


UQ Global Hunger
World hunger now
Rappler 14
Rappler is a news organization based in the Philippines The 2013 Global Hunger Index
03/01/2014 http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/hunger/specials/rich-media/44898-2013-
global-hunger-index
MANILA, Philippines - Global hunger has generally declined since the 1990s, a glimmer of hope that could make the
Millennium Development Goal of reducing hunger by half before 2015 even more possible. However, progress is not equally and
simultaneously shared, and the struggle for most countries to sustain food security is far from
over. The reality is that some countries suffer higher and more alarming degrees of hunger and
malnutrition compared to others. As in a race, countries running towards the hunger reduction finish line can be fast or slow, strong
or weak, with varying levels and rates of progress. Hunger is still a severe problem for many countries. In October 2013, the International
Food Policy Research Institute, Welthungerhilfe, and Concern Worldwide published a report on
the Global Hunger Index (GHI), which has been used to assess, measure and map global hunger using collated country-level statistics.
The report, 8th in an annual publication series, also called for better strategies in building resilience among poor and vulnerable communities to
improve food security. The report revealed, among many key findings, that about 19 countries still have
alarming and extremely alarming situations of hunger. This does not include several countries that still have a
serious state of hunger. Highest levels of hunger were found in South Asian and Sub-Saharan African
countries. The graphic below maps global hunger by indicating the GHI for each country. Countries are in varying shades depending on the
degree of hunger assessed for each area. Mouse over a country to see the specific GHI score, along with data related to the key components. The
GHI is calculated based on 3 key components: Undernourishment percentage of undernourished people to the
total population. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), this refers to the consumption of less than 1,800 kilocalories the average
required intake for a healthy life. Child underweight share of children less than 5 years old who are underweight. Child mortality
mortality rate of children less than 5 years old. What does the report generally tell us? There is considerable progress being
made every year, but it is no reason to slow down. Efforts to develop food security and reduce
hunger have to continue for the long haul, not just for some countries but for all.

AQC K/T Food Security
Aquaculture is key to combat hunger
WorldFish Center 08
WorldFish is a CGIAR Consortium of International Agricultural Research Center, is an
international, non-profit research organization dedicated to reducing poverty and hunger by
improving fisheries and aquaculture. CGIAR is a global research partnership that unites
organizations engaged in research for sustainable development. Using Fisheries and
Aquaculture to Reduce Poverty and Hunger
http://www.worldfishcenter.org/resource_centre/WF_1105.pdf
In 2000 the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) helped focus international attention on the plight of the worlds poor. Yet with 2015 fast
approaching many of the worlds poorest and hungriest people are still falling behind. Indeed, even if we halve extreme poverty and hunger by 2015, at
least 800 million people will remain poor and 600 million will still not have enough to eat. Adding to this grim picture, 2008 has seen growing
international alarm over future world food supplies. Triggered initially by the growing scarcity and rising prices of wheat and rice, this global concern
has matured to recognize the need to improve production, not only of traditional staples, but also fisheries, livestock and other food crops.
Fisheries and aquaculture have enormous potential to provide the poor with more food, better
nutrition and increased incomes. Already many of the worlds poorest billion, particularly people
in Asia and Africa, get a substantial portion of the animal protein in their diet from fish. For many of
these people, fish also provides a major source of livelihood. With targeted investment to better manage fisheries and develop aquaculture we can
substantially increase these benefits. Globally, aquaculture has expanded at an average annual rate of 8.9%
since 1970, making it the fastest-growing food production sector. It now provides about half of all fish for human consumption. And with half
of all wild fish stocks now harvested to full capacity and a quarter over-exploited, we can expect
aquacultures share of fish production to increase further. This can benefit poor people by
improving their food security and nutrition, creating jobs, stimulating economic growth and
offering greater diversification of their livelihoods. Although we cannot greatly increase catches from capture fisheries,
wild fish stocks remain vital to many national economies and to the day-to-day welfare of millions of people. So it is essential that we sustain current
catches and grasp opportunities to use the fish we catch better and add to their value. Failure to sustain and make the most of
the catch will have profound consequences for the health, income, livelihoods and well-being of
poor people in many developing countries.

AT Climate Change
Climate change wont impact success of aquaculture
Muir 13 Emeritus Professor in the Department of Aquaculture @ University of Sterling, UK
Jonathan, Fish, feeds, and food security Animal Frontiers Vol. 3 No. 1
[http://www.animalfrontiers.org/content/3/1/28.full] January//
Within the overall context of global to community level food security, aquatic foods deserve
much greater attention, due both to their importance in the overall mix of nutrition aims
and outcomes, and to their critical dependence on ecosystem function, management, and
interactions with other food system processes. It is feasible for fish supplies to be increased
to meet forthcoming demands, whether to meet the needs of expected population growth,
or to expand further to respond to demand arising from income growth and/or shifts in
preference against other animal protein foods. Although climate change is likely to have
notable impacts across the sector, and will create much greater variability in ecosystem
conditions, productivity responses and social benefit, there is at least the adaptation
potential for most of the definable processes and outcomes over the first half of this
century. In this respect, fisheries stocks, substantially redistributed in many areas, are likely
to have broadly similar levels of potential productivity, though some stocks may be lost, and
ocean acidification will have critical impacts in some ecosystems. Inland fisheries resources
are also likely to be increasingly pressured, not just by hydrological shifts, but by human
impacts of water extraction, soil erosion, and waste discharges (Welcomme et al., 2010). As
noted in Foresight (2011), governance of aquatic natural resource systems will be an
increasing challenge, and will need to be purposefully addressed. The consequent growth in
aquaculture will demand extensive and increasing interactions with other resource systems.
While not as important a driver of resource demand as many forms of biofuel, plant crop raw
materials will assume a greater importance as aquaculture expands, and will be influenced in
turn by climate-change-crop interactions (Tubiello et al., 2007) While the issues of food
security associated with aquatic foods can be set out, the future development of the sector
and the greater focus on aquaculture will require specific attention in policy and practice to
ensure that vulnerable groups are not further disadvantaged. To date there has been little
direct involvement of the fishery sector in various food supply and hunger reduction
commitments, nor in practical areas of nutrition delivery, though the opportunities and
potential benefits could be significant. Also in this respect, a range of community based
options linking aquatic foods with climate change adaptation and mitigation, and responsible
resource management, could be valuable in widening opportunities for poorer households
and societies to gain from better livelihoods and food access. In discussing adaptation in
marine fisheries, Perry et al. (2011) note that over the long term, adaptive changes in policy
and fisheries governance can interact with social and ecological change toward new fisheries
and economic diversification, and that robust governance approaches, maintaining the
diversity of response capabilities on short and longer time scales, among both ecological and
human fishing systems, should be a key policy objective. In a wider sense this concept applies
equally to the more holistic challenges of linking future fish supplies, from whatever source
and process, with resource systems, human and institutional capacities, through supply,
value, and benefit chains toward positive and durable outcomes of food security.


AT Other Protein Solves
Aquaculture most efficient way to meet growing nutritional security
National Science and Technology Council 14
National Strategic Plan for Federal Aquaculture Research (2014-2019)
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/aquaculture_strategic_pl
an_final.pdf] June //
A compelling case can be made for increasing scientific and technical knowledge for aquaculture
to produce safe and nutritious seafood in the United States, create new jobs from the coastal
communities to the agricultural heartland, foster sustainable aquaculture practices, and
enhance or restore wild fisheries and habitats. An increase in aquaculture and wild - harvest
fisheries will help meet the growing demand for seafood, a food source high in healthful protein
and omega - 3 fatty acids with many essential vitamins and minerals. Aquaculture provides new
ways to generate prosperity while conserving and enhancing the Nations natural resources.
Aquaculture is now recognized as one of the most efficient ways to produce protein. 18 Aquatic
species are highly resource - efficient, wi th feed conversion rates (amount of feed needed to
produce a product) for fish and shrimp that compare very favorably with terrestrial animal
production. 19 For example, mollusks and seaweeds take up nutrients from the surrounding
water and require no suppl emental feed. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) projects that aquaculture will be critical to feeding a growing world population. 20

Fish uniquely key fast growth rate and food conversion efficiency
De Silva et al 2/2009, professors from the School of Life and Environmental Sciences at
Deakin University
(De Silva, S.,S., Nguyen, T. T. T., Turchini, G. M., Amarasinghe, U. S., & Abery, N. W., , writing in
Ambio, an environmental research studies journal, Alien species in aquaculture and
biodiversity: A paradox in food production Proquest, accessed 5/27/14 JH)
Our argument is in no way based on the view that the existing situation is completely
unacceptable and needs a total overhaul. Aquaculture itself is an alteration of the natural
system, but it is one of the few alternatives available to assure food security in the form of an
animal protein supply for ever increasing human populations, especially rural populations in
developing countries. It is also a fact that natural geographical distribution of freshwater fish
species limits species availability for aquaculture. Fish species suitable for aquaculture indeed
are required to possess certain characteristics such as fast growth rate and good food
conversion efficiency, among others. In countries with a highly diverse freshwater fish fauna,
finding suitable candidates for aquaculture possessing these characteristics is not impossible.
However, in small islands where fish biodiversity is generally low (68), species suitable for
aquaculture are rare in the indigenous fish fauna. Consequently, such countries are compelled
to depend on alien fish species, if aquaculture is to be chosen as a means for food security. A
case in point in this regard is the alien tilapias, which are known to play a major role in
aquaculture systems in China, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka, providing a relatively
cheap source of animal protein for rural poor, as well as considerable export income (39).
According to the database on introductions of aquatic species found in the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) of the United Nations fisheries global information system (69), there were
349 instances of introduction of 17 species of tilapias. In most cases, significant problems either
ecologically or socioeconomically were not observed, and in fact in nearly 17% of the cases
there were socioeconomic benefits, as opposed to 1.7% of cases with adverse socioeconomic
impacts (Table 1). The adverse effects and benefits are undoubtedly derived from an
anthropocentric viewpoint, but the benefits that mankind have received from the introduction
of these exotic species cannot be negated. This is also a paradox with regard to food production
when the issue is viewed from the context of rural development. As can be seen from Figure 4,
introduction of exotic species can be mitigated if a proper mechanism is derived and
implemented.


***Adv Seafood Economy
AQC K/T Econ
US aquaculture creates economic multipliers
Gunnar Knapp 9/17/05, Econ Prof @ U of Anchorage, Economic Perspectives on United
States Marine Aquaculture, Presentation to the Marine Aquaculture Task Force,
http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=6793&pt=2&p=7706
There are a variety of potential economic benefits to the United States and coastal regions from
marine aquaculture. Jobs and income in fish farming in support activities for fish farming
in fish processing in feed production in manufacture of equipment and supplies
Economic diversification for coastal communities Royalties and tax income Potential
synergies with wild fisheries More efficient utilization of processing facilities More efficient
utilization of other infrastructure (ports, roads) Markets for wild fisheries by-products as fish
feed Aquaculture can provide year-round employment in coastal areas. Salmon farming and
processing on a remote island in western Norway in January United States companies are
leaders in aquaculture technology. Potential economic benefits. . . (cont.) The scale of
potential economic benefits from marine aquaculture depends on the scale of production.
Direct employment in or supporting marine aquaculture facilities would likely be much smaller
than the indirect employment created in processing, distribution, feed supply, equipment
manufacture, and other industries. Many of these benefits would not occur locally. The
extent to which local communities might benefit would depend in part upon the regulatory
structure: Local hire requirements Local landing requirements Local taxing authority
Most wild fishermen would not be likely to benefit directly unless they chose to work in the
industry. Unlike many kinds of fishing, marine aquaculture is less likely to develop as small,
family-owned businesses. It would be a larger-scale, corporate activity.

Fishing industry is a key pillar of the U.S. economy
Eileen Sobeck 4/29/14, NOAA's Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, Fishings Impacts
Ripple across the Broader Economy,
http://www.noodls.com/view/1E7D6720D5A6C56D3DC89882ADF073195C6CD3D4?3727xxx139
8809389
Fishing is big business in the United States. From commercial fisheries to recreational and
charter boat business owners, fishing contributes to the United States' economy and supports
jobs. According to new reports issued today by NOAA Fisheries, we continue to see positive
economic impacts from commercial and recreational U.S. fisheries as well as progress in
rebuilding our nation's fish stocks. Between 2011 and 2012 alone, U.S. commercial and
recreational saltwater fishing generated more than $199 billion in sales impacts, contributed
$89 billion to gross domestic product, and supported 1.7 million jobs. Breaking down the
numbers a little more, the value chain of the commercial fishing industry-harvesters, processors,
dealers, wholesalers, and retailers-generated $141 billion in sales, $39 billion in income and
supported 1.3 million jobs in 2012. The recreational fishing sector generated $58 billion in sales,
$19 billion in income, and supported 381,000 jobs in 2012. Surprised? You shouldn't be. The
United States is a world leader in responsibly managed fisheries, and there's no doubt that our
approach to management is directly tied to the positive economic impacts across the broader
U.S. economy in the last few years. In 2010, we turned the corner on ending overfishing and
turned our attention to rebuilding fish stocks, working in partnership with regional fishery
management councils, states, tribes, fishermen, and local fishing communities that rely on those
stocks. The recent report Status of U.S. Fisheries 2013 highlights the continued progress that
NOAA Fisheries and our partners and stakeholders have made to end overfishing and rebuild
fish stocks. Overall, the percent of assessed stocks that are harvested at sustainable levels
continues to increase. And our efforts are paying off; since 2000, 34 fish stocks have been
rebuilt. This positive outcome supports commercial fishermen and fishing communities and
provides Americans with a local source of healthy food. Recreational fishing is an important
social activity for individuals and families and is a critical economic contributor to local
communities and regional economies. While in some instances, sustainable management of
fisheries requires sacrifice on the part of both commercial and recreational fishermen, making
those sacrifices today helps enhance economic opportunities and protect natural resources for
future generations. To continue the progress we've made and continue economic growth within
the fishing industry, we must continue working together to keep marine environments healthy,
fish populations thriving, and our fishing industry on the job.


***AT Aquaculture Bad
AT Alien Species No Escapes
Sufficient technology and know-how exist to minimize escapes
William T. Hogarth 4/6/06, HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL OCEAN
POLICY STUDY OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED
STATES SENATE, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-
109shrg64138/html/CHRG-109shrg64138.htm
Escapes--The issue of escapes is being addressed with technological innovation, best
management practices, and careful species selection. For example, the use of submersible cages
for offshore aquaculture reduces the vulnerability to storm damage that can lead to escapes. In
addition, the knowledge NOAA and other agencies have gained from stock enhancement
programs for commercial and recreational fishing-- deliberate releases of finfish, oysters, and
crabs--allows managers to design safeguards for conserving wild stock.


AT Alien Species No MPX
Benefits of Aquaculture outweigh species translocation
De Silva et al 2/2009, professors from the School of Life and Environmental Sciences at
Deakin University
(De Silva, S.,S., Nguyen, T. T. T., Turchini, G. M., Amarasinghe, U. S., & Abery, N. W., , writing in
Ambio, an environmental research studies journal, Alien species in aquaculture and
biodiversity: A paradox in food production Proquest, accessed 5/27/14 JH)
Our argument is in no way based on the view that the existing situation is completely
unacceptable and needs a total overhaul. Aquaculture itself is an alteration of the natural
system, but it is one of the few alternatives available to assure food security in the form of an
animal protein supply for ever increasing human populations, especially rural populations in
developing countries. It is also a fact that natural geographical distribution of freshwater fish
species limits species availability for aquaculture. Fish species suitable for aquaculture indeed
are required to possess certain characteristics such as fast growth rate and good food
conversion efficiency, among others. In countries with a highly diverse freshwater fish fauna,
finding suitable candidates for aquaculture possessing these characteristics is not impossible.
However, in small islands where fish biodiversity is generally low (68), species suitable for
aquaculture are rare in the indigenous fish fauna. Consequently, such countries are compelled
to depend on alien fish species, if aquaculture is to be chosen as a means for food security. A
case in point in this regard is the alien tilapias, which are known to play a major role in
aquaculture systems in China, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka, providing a relatively
cheap source of animal protein for rural poor, as well as considerable export income (39).
According to the database on introductions of aquatic species found in the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) of the United Nations fisheries global information system (69), there were
349 instances of introduction of 17 species of tilapias. In most cases, significant problems either
ecologically or socioeconomically were not observed, and in fact in nearly 17% of the cases
there were socioeconomic benefits, as opposed to 1.7% of cases with adverse socioeconomic
impacts (Table 1). The adverse effects and benefits are undoubtedly derived from an
anthropocentric viewpoint, but the benefits that mankind have received from the introduction
of these exotic species cannot be negated. This is also a paradox with regard to food production
when the issue is viewed from the context of rural development. As can be seen from Figure 4,
introduction of exotic species can be mitigated if a proper mechanism is derived and
implemented.

Their evidence is alarmism invasive species are harmless
Arnold 11
Carrie Arnold is a freelance science writer who has written for US News, National Geographic,
and had published three books. 08.31.2011 are all invasive species bad?
http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/08/31/are-all-invasive-species-bad
Examples of the damages caused by these so-called "invasive species" are seemingly as endless as the amount of battles waged against them.
But are all non-native species bad?
Biologist Mark Davis says no. Davis, a professor from Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, believes it's time to raise
the white flag against non-native species. Most non-native species, he said, are harmlessor
even helpful. In a letter published in the journal Nature this past June, Davis and 18 other ecologists argued that these destructive
invasive speciesor those non-native species that cause ecological or economic harmare only
a tiny subset of non-native species, and that this tiny fraction has basically given all new arrivals
a bad name. Take Devil's clawa plant that produces hooked pods for increased seed dispersalwhich was imported to the Australian
outback during the 19th century as a horticultural oddity. Despite research failing to show that the species has any
significant effects on local biodiversity or nutrient cycling, the government has spent the last 20 years trying to
remove this plant from the Australian landscape. Efforts that according to Davis are an unwise use of scarce
resources that automatically target non-native species simply because they're newly arrived
immigrants. "What's native and non-native is quite arbitrary," Davis said. "It depends on what time in the past a
species has to have been there to be considered native, and everything after that is non-native.
Unless a species evolved in a particular site, all species are ultimately introduced." Many of the species
we see as part of the quintessential American landscapehoneybees, earthworms, and even the amber waves of grain celebrated in songare actually
imports from Europe. Davis said that most species arrive from somewhere else, so someone's definition of "native" depends on how far back they turn
the clock. Turn it back far enough, and essentially every living organism could fit the definition.

AT Alien Species Turn
Invasive species good provide services and balance to ecosystems and
replenish regions
Keim 11
Brandon Keim is a science journalist and a reporter at wiredscience 02.28.2011sometimes
invasive species are good http://www.wired.com/2011/02/good-invasives/
Invasive species are the stock villains of conservation biology, disrupting ecosystems and throwing native populations into disarray. But in certain
cases, theyre actually quite beneficial, and perhaps its time to recognize that. In California, for example, native
butterflies feed on non-native plants. In Puerto Rico, alien trees help restore abandoned pastures to a
condition suitable for native plants. Even the much-maligned zebra mussel helps filter toxins from lakes. We predict the
proportion of non-native species that are viewed as benign or even desirable will slowly increase
over time, write ecologist Martin Schlaepfer of the State University of New York and colleagues in a paper published Feb. 22 in Conservation
Biology. According to Schlaepfers group, biologists are often biased against invasives, and decline to notice or
report instances of beneficial invasions. They support their unorthodox perspective by reviewing dozens of papers on plants
and animals introduced, accidentally or otherwise, outside their historical ranges. A variety of underappreciated invasive roles
are described: providing ecosystem services, replenishing human-damaged regions, and
generally helping to sustain some semblance of natural health even as many ecosystems
struggle to survive.
Invasive species increase biodiversity
Zimmer 11 Carl Zimmer writes about science for The New York Times and a number of
magazines. A 2007 winner of the National Academies of Science Communication Award, he is
the author of six books,
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/alien_species_reconsidered_finding_a_value_in_non-
natives/2373/
Introduced species can also help restore native ecosystems on degraded land. In Puerto Rico, for
example, much of the native forest was destroyed for farming, and in recent decades
conservation biologists have been trying to nurture them back on abandoned farmland. Native
trees do a poor job of pioneering this degraded landscape. Alien trees, such as African tulip trees
and rose apple, have colonized them instead. These new forests remain dominated by alien
trees for their first three or four decades. But the forests are also a habitat in which native trees
can begin to thrive again. After 60 to 80 years of growth, Puerto Rican forests become mixes of
both alien and native trees. Introduced species can promote diversity by acting like ecosystem
engineers, reworking their new habitat. Off the coast of Chile, for example, a gelatinous
invertebrate called Pyura praeputialis forms massive mats, providing nooks and crannies in
which other species can thrive. Juan Carlos Castilla of Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile
and his colleagues have found 116 species of invertebrates and algae living in these alien
ecosystems, while nearby intertidal rocky shores were home to just 66 species. Honeybees
demonstrate another benefit that introduced species can offer. Other introduced species can
pollinate plants as well, while some animals help native plants in other ways. In Hawaii, a bird
called the Japanese white eye spreads the seeds of a native vine. These new partnerships
between native and non-native species show that they arent precisely linked like a lock and key.
In reality, the world is a lot messier, says Schlaepfer.

Invasive species increase ecosystem resilience
Zimmer 11 Carl Zimmer writes about science for The New York Times and a number of
magazines. A 2007 winner of the National Academies of Science Communication Award, he is
the author of six books,
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/alien_species_reconsidered_finding_a_value_in_non-
natives/2373/
Yet Richardson agrees that its time to think differently about invasive species. He thinks
conservation biologists have to set aside purist ideas about restoring ecosystems to some pre-
human state. In cases where habitats have been radically altered, he says, removing alien
species just because they are alien is futile. A particular passionate endorsement comes from
Scott Carroll, a conservation biologist at the University of California, Davis. My admittedly
ludicrous response to the paper is Yes! Go! May your sensible perspective sprout wings! he
says. Carroll makes a similar argument in the latest issue of the journal Evolutionary
Applications, where he calls for a new kind of science he calls conciliation biology. Simply
trying to eradicate all exotic species can be costly, he argues, and can even harm native species.
Introduced cats were eradicated from Maquarie Island off the coast of Australia, after having
driven two of the islands bird species extinct. But with the cats gone, an introduced population
of rabbits exploded, devouring the native plants. The failure on Maquarie Island, Carroll argues,
stems from a failure to appreciate that species are constantly evolving. In the mid-1900s,
scientists introduced a virus into Australia and its surrounding islands to control rabbits.
Conservation biologists assumed that they could get rid of cats and the virus would still keep the
rabbits at low levels. But the virus, meanwhile, had evolved to become less deadly, which
enabled it to spread more efficiently but made it ineffective in controlling the rabbits. Rather
than try to restore ecosystems to their pre-industrial states, Carroll argues, conservation
biologists should manage the evolution of species to make ecosystems resilient. If a vine starts
to spread across a new habitat, for example, conservation biologists can help native insects to
evolve mouthparts that allow them to devour the vines more quickly. Rather than signaling
defeat, Carroll sees conciliation biology as a way to reach more sustainable outcomes in a
human-dominated world.


AT Disease
Regulatory structures solves disease
Annie-Rose Strasser 4/21/14, The New, Innovative And More Efficient Way Of Feeding
People, Senior Editor of ThinkProgress, ClimateProgress,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/21/3422486/big-ag-takes-to-the-ocean/
But the other big question looming over aquaculture is how to parcel out land where the
farming could occur and in the U.S., the Ocean Conservancy and other conservation groups
worry that we arent looking holistically at a solution for mapping out the sea and preempting
the overcrowding on the horizon. Otherwise, they say, you can run into a situation where an
illness among fish quickly spreads from one farm to another. Chile, for example, suffered a
massive outbreak of infectious salmon anaemia virus (ISA) on its farms, which hurt fish
production and employment prospects in the country. Its a double-edged sword, but no
antibiotics are currently permitted in the U.S. for aquaculture. What we want to avoid is a case-
by-case, permit-by-permit approach to aquaculture. Thats whats gotten others in trouble,
because fish farms are connected to each other depending on how close they are, because of
the flow of water from one farm to the next, said Leonard. So if you dont take into
consideration your neighbors, you can get yourself in a world of hurt, which is what happened in
Chile and their salmon farming industry when the ISA virus spread like wildfire there a number
of years ago. It was basically too many fish in too many cages too close to each other.
Open ocean aquaculture solves antibiotics not necessary
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
Another concern is whether the use of pharmaceuticals, antibiotics, growth-enhancing
chemicals, other animal drugs, and antifouling agents used on gear and enclosures will adversely
affect open water environments. Chemicals used in fish foods are regulated by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration, and veterinarian oversight might encourage proper application and
minimize environmental impact. Drugs such as antibiotics, some of which were developed and
approved for use in a contained or controlled environment, are often introduced to cultured fish
in their feed. Unconsumed feed and fish waste products can pass through the containment
system and be consumed by wild organisms. The use of some of these products may be
declining, as efficacious vaccines eliminate the need for antibiotics and other drugs. Proponents
of open ocean aquaculture suggest that, because of the more pristine and better oxygenated
water conditions offshore, the use of antibiotics has not been necessary in any of the offshore
areas being tested in the United States.33

Demonstration projects prove no antibiotic use
Daniel Benetti et al March 2006, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science,
University of Miami, Can offshore aquaculture of carnivorous fish be sustainable? Case studies
from the Caribbean, World Aquaculture, Larry Baird, James Collins, Refik Orhun, Antonio
Benetti, Brian OHanlon, Andy Danylchuk, Dallas Alston, Jose Rivera, Alexis Cabaracas,
http://www.ceibahamas.org/staticFiles/CEIPublications/Can_offshore_aquaculture_of_carnivor
ous_fish_be_sustainable_Benetti_et_al_2006.pdf
While research in this area progresses rapidly, cobia raised in our offshore projects are fed
pellets containing fishmeal from a properly managed fishery resource, Atlantic menhaden,
without the use of antibiotics, growth hormones, pigments or pesticides. Indeed, if it werent for
the use of ethoxyquin - a synthetically-derived antioxidant (stabilizer) required to prevent
rancidity in the fshmeal the cobia raised in these projects could be considered organic. The
industry is currently investigating alternative sources of organic antioxidants, which at present,
are of limited availability and of prohibitively high cost for use in fishmeal-based feeds. Cobia
growth rates in the demonstration projects are among the fastest ever recorded for teleosts.
Results suggest that growing this species in exposed sites with adequate depth and currents can
produce high yields of seafood for human consumption with low environmental impact.



AT Environment 2AC Empirically Denied
No negative environmental impacts prefer decades of empirics
John S. Corbin May/June 2010, President, Aquaculture Planning & Advocacy LLC and Guest
Editor, Marine Technology Society Journal, Sustainable U.S. Marine Aquaculture Expansion in
the 21
st
Century, Marine Technology Society Journal Vol 44 Number 3, Sustainable U.S. Marine
Aquaculture Expansion, A Necessity,
http://www.ljhs.sandi.net/faculty/DJames/NOSB/Study%20Guides/Aquaculture%20MTS%2044.
3.pdf
Leasing federal waters for commercial aquaculture has been a controversial subject in recent
years, raising a variety of issues for discussion and consensus building among opponents and
proponents. Among the most difficult to address has been the potential for negative
environmental impacts of large-scale marine farming in the open ocean setting of the EEZ. The
most frequently mentioned concerns by opponents include escapes of farmed species and
mixing with wild populations, disease and parasite management and the potential for infection
of wild populations, use of fishmeal as a major protein source in fish feeds impacting the source
fisheries, and pollution potential and the need for standards for acceptable change in the quality
of the water column and substrate in and around farms (Lubchenko, 2003; MATF, 2007). The
research community and the industry have made significant efforts to study these recurring
concerns and how they can be successfully managed. There have been documented positive
reports of negligible environmental impacts from several multiyear offshore research and
commercial marine farming projects in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and New Hampshire, with combined
operating experience of over 20 years (Aquaculture Planning and Advocacy, 2009; Kona Blue
Water Farms, 2009; Alston et al., 2005; Langan, 2007). Proponents believe that the results from
these projects, which include comprehensive environmental monitoring (e.g., water column and
substrate quality, feeding and feed conversion, stock health and escapes), and others from
around the world (Ryan, 2004) support the conclusion that the potential for negative
environmental impacts from offshore and open ocean aquaculture is very manageable through
proper siting and farm operation (e.g., application of well-known industry best management
practices). It is suggested that sufficient empirical and scientific information exists to select open
ocean sites with appropriate oceanographic conditions (e.g., sufficient current for mixing and
substrate for anchoring) and operate a finite number of large-scale farms to demonstrate that
todays off the shelf technologies and available native-to-the-region species are scalable and
can be sustainably managed. For example, work by Renzel et al. (2007) and the Scottish
Association of Marine Science (2009) on modeling potential site impacts of ocean farming and
by Nash et al. (2005) and Rust (2007) on ecological risk management can be highlighted for
guidance.

AT Environment 2AC Offshore Solves
Offshore aquaculture solves environmental issues
Bill Frezza 11/26/12, fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Regulatory Uncertainty
Drives Fish Farmer to Foreign Waters, Real Clear Markets,
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/11/26/regulatory_uncertainty_drives_fish_far
mer_to_foreign_waters_100008.html
Yet farmed fish still carries a bad rap, both from environmentalists concerned about the
pollution caused by on-shore and near-shore farms, and from food snobs who favor the more
robust taste of wild caught fish. Enter a firm called Open Blue, a novel deep-water fish farm
founded by entrepreneur and lifetime fish fancier Brian O'Hanlon. Brian figured that if he could
solve the technology and logistics problems required to anchor a fish farm 10 or 20 miles
offshore, where swift currents carry away and disperse the waste produced by concentrated fish
stocks, it would allow the farmed fish to swim in the same fresh water as their wild cousins-the
best of both worlds. Open Blue farms a fish called Cobia, also known as black salmon, ling, or
lemonfish. It's a tasty, fast-growing species especially amenable to being raised under controlled
conditions. The economics are compelling-a mere 1.85 pounds of feed can yield a pound of
Cobia. Compare this to the 2:1 ratio for poultry and anywhere from 5:1 to 20:1 for cattle, not to
mention the thousands of gallons of water it takes to grow a pound of beef.

Tech advances check environment impacts and promote sustainability
Silverstein, 10/2010, Agricultural Research Center National Program Leader
(Jeff Silverstein, Agricultural Research journal, released October 2010, Supporting US
Agriculture, ProQuest, accessed JH 6/26/14)
Improving consistency and product quality is another important concern. In particular,
treatments to avoid off-flavors in fish are being developed in Louisiana and Mississippi ponds as
well as in recirculating aquaculture systems. Sustaining production without harming the
environment is critically important and a priority for the industry. Pond systems with catfish,
raceway systems with trout, and net pens with salmon are several traditional production
systems. Newer recirculating aquaculture technologies require less water, collect fish wastes,
and offer stricter control of water quality-all benefits to the environment and the producer.
Recirculating systems generally require higher energy inputs than typical systems, but they have
the potential to be located in areas with less abundant water supplies and nearer to markets.
ARS scientists have conducted long-term studies on recirculating systems. Tank systems using
recirculating aquaculture strategies for freshwater and saltwater fish have been successfully
developed in West Virginia and Florida. Work on all kinds of production systems-ponds,
raceways, and water-reuse systems-is being conducted by scientists in Arkansas, Florida, Maine,
Mississippi, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.


AT Environment 2AC Regs Solve
Policies can limit negative environmental effects to aquaculture regulations
are key
Tacon and Forster, 03 (October 2003, Aquaculture journal, Volume 226. Aquafeeds and
the environment: policy implications -
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0044848603004769)
Aquaculture feeds and feeding regimes can play a major role in determining the quality and
potential environmental impact or not of finfish and crustacean farm effluents. This is
particularly true for those intensive farming operations employing open aquaculture production
systems, the latter including net cages/pen enclosures placed in rivers, estuaries or open-water
bodies, and land-based through-flow tank, raceway or pond production systems. This is perhaps
not surprising since the bulk of the dissolved and/or suspended inorganic and/or organic matter
contained within the effluents of intensively managed open aquaculture production systems are
derived from feed inputs, either directly in the form of the end-products of feed digestion and
metabolism or from uneaten/wasted feed, or indirectly through eutrophication and increased
natural productivity. So, as to limit the potential negative environmental impacts of feeds on
aquaculture effluents, the major approaches that have been taken by government authorities
within major aquaculture-producing countries have included (1) requiring the treatment of farm
effluents prior to discharge, through the use of settlement basins, specific filtration devices,
waste water treatment systems, etc., (2) limiting the concentration of specific
dissolved/suspended inorganic/organic materials and/or nutrients contained within the effluent
discharged from the farm, (3) establishing maximum permissible amounts of specific nutrients
(such as total nitrogen or phosphorus) that the farm is able to discharge over a fixed time
period, (4) limiting the total number of licenses that can be issued and/or size of farm,
depending upon the vicinity of other farming operations and the assimilative environmental
carrying capacity of the receiving aquatic ecosystem, (5) limiting or fixing the total quantity of
feed the farm is able to use over a fixed time period, (6) fixing maximum permissible specific
nutrient levels within the compound feeds to be used to rear the species in question, (7)
banning the use of specific potentially high-risk feed items such as fresh/trash fish and
invertebrates, (8) banning the use of certain chemicals on-farm, including specific chemical
therapeutants/drugs and chemicals (i.e., potentially toxic herbicides and pesticides, etc., (9)
prescribing minimum feed performance criteria, such as specific levels of allowable dust/fines,
feed efficiency or nutrient digestibility, (10) requiring the use of specific Codes of Conduct,
including appropriate Best/Good Management Practices for farm operations, including feed
manufacture and use, and environmental management, (11) requiring the development of
suitable farm/pond sediment management strategies for the storage and disposal of sediments,
or (12) requiring the implementation of an environmental monitoring program.

AT Environment 2AC Tech Solves
Environmental impacts are overhyped and the plan solves
Bryan Walsh 7/8/11, senior editor at TIME, Can the U.S. Close Its Seafood Trade Deficit?,
TIME, http://science.time.com/2011/07/08/can-the-u-s-close-its-seafood-trade-deficit/print/
Aquaculture does have pollution issues, but for that matter, so does agriculture on land. But the
U.S. agricultural lobby is incredibly powerful, while the U.S. aquaculture lobby ispretty much
nonexistent. As the new kid on the block, and a small one at that, U.S. aquaculture comes under
more scrutiny than it probably deserves. Nor does it help that there has been little in the way of
a national aquaculture policy, no streamlined permits. America doesnt seem very interested in
having a strong domestic aquaculture industrybut we are interested in eating more seafood.
All that does is push demand overseas. We have the luxury to displace aquaculture to another
country where we dont have to see or hear it, says one U.S. fish farmer. Most countries dont
have that luxury.
Sustainable aquaculture solves environment and resource issues tech exists
just a question of commitment
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department 14
Impact of aquaculture on environment- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations- -ahttp://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/14894/en
Overall, stronger commitment to responsible aquaculture is needed. Not only producers, but
also government authorities and general public, including consumers, are currently enhancing
their awareness and knowledge of potential ecological impacts as well as of negative social and
economic side-effects of a given aquaculture development. Experience has shown that
improved coordination and management of development initiatives at sectorial, eco-regional
and local levels can contribute to more environmentally sustainable development of
aquaculture. Precautionary approaches are advocated for many aquaculture practices,
particularly as regards the introduction and use of alien species. Special consideration must be
given to better management of aquaculture developments affecting sensitive habitats, such as,
for example, estuaries, mangroves, wetlands, riparian fauna and vegetation, or specific breeding
and nursery grounds. The benefits of applying and promoting precautionary approaches become
more evident where environmental data and related information on farming performance and
environmental effects have been generated. Development and application of Environmental
Impact Assessments and regular environmental monitoring can help provide the information
needed for effective environmental management measures targeting individual farms, farm
clusters, or a given sector producing a particular commodity, for example, shrimp, salmon,
mussels, etc. Given that particular attention should be given to the collection of wild seeds,
there continues to be significant scope for the development and improvement of hatchery
techniques and broodstrock management, and related application of genetic and
biotechnological methods, for safe reproduction and supply of aquaculture seeds. Generally,
improved husbandry is very important, and better on-farm practices are required, particularly
with regard to the selection and use of feeds and fertilizers, and the safe and effective
application of drugs and chemicals. Very often there are significant opportunities to better
manage the water resources utilized as well as the wastes generated. Better use of available
resources, emphasizing technical and economic efficiency, will help improve farm management.
Particular attention should be given to large-scale, intensive, high-input systems. Different
qualities of cultured shrimp - the smallest is diseased Different qualities of cultured shrimp - the
smallest is diseased FAO/20316/J.Spaull More intensive production systems actually can help
reducing environmental and resource use problems. For example, extensive systems require
large areas (space) of land (or water), potentially contributing to degradation of habitat in some
areas. More intensive systems require less area, and can be more efficient in terms of resource
use and production. A good example is shrimp farming: the majority of shrimp farms are
extensive or semi-intensive, and the highly publicized problems of wetland degradation are
often associated with extensive systems. Intensive systems obviously may create pollution
problems due to high inputs and high outputs (wastes), but this very much depends on the very
site-specific characteristics of a given location, and, in particular, of the assimilative or
environmental capacity of the recipient water body. In practice, effectiveness of measures and
efficiency in management at the production level may well be very important criteria for
consideration.

AT Environment Algae Blooms
No observed causal linkage to algae blooms
Price and Morris 13 researchers @ Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research
Carol Seals and James A., Marine Cage Culture and the Environment: Twenty-first Century
Science Informing a Sustainable Industry
[http://www2.coastalscience.noaa.gov/publications/detail.aspx?resource=lS+q3d4eICvFWKFlXB
Ymz48uUqIGeFF871rIXjLV1/Y=] //
At some farm sites, a phytoplankton response to nutrient loading was reported, but generally
this is a low risk and causal linkages to algal blooms are not evident. Because a change in
primary productivity linked to fish farm effluents would have to be detected against the
background of natural variability, it is difficult to discern effects unless they are of great
magnitude and duration. At larger scales, the occurrence of many anthropogenically derived
nutrients in coastal marine waters, also make it difficult to attribute increased primary
productivity directly to aquaculture. Hydrology of farms located near shore or in semi-enclosed
water bodies which may be poor farm sites must be carefully examined to prevent
eutrophication and increased primary productivity in coastal areas and habitats. A knowledge
gap continues to be how dissolved nutrients are dispersed and assimilated over large marine
areas, and how ecosystem productivity may be affected under increasing production from
multiple farms.
AT Environment Overfishing
New advances in feed tech decrease demand for carnivorous feed
Muir 13 Emeritus Professor in the Department of Aquaculture @ University of Sterling, UK
Jonathan, Fish, feeds, and food security Animal Frontiers Vol. 3 No. 1
[http://www.animalfrontiers.org/content/3/1/28.full] January//
However, while feed is widely considered to be a major constraint to further expansion, some
20 million tonnes of current aquaculture output, one-third of the total, is not fed. This includes
oysters, mussels, clams, scallops and other bivalve species feeding on planktonic feeds, and fish
such as silver and bighead carp feeding on plankton in fertilized ponds or water bodies, or using
wastes and leftover feed materials of fed species grown in the same multispecies systems (FAO,
2012a, 2012b). However, the percentage of non-fed species in world production has declined
from more than 50% in 1980, strongly influenced by intensification in Asia, with faster growth of
production of fed species, and wider availability of formulated feeds. In terms of fish input,
Bostock et al. (2010) note that up to 25% of fish meal is now derived from fish processing waste,
and ingredient substitution is also increasing the efficiency of fish meal and oil utilization.
Compared with theoretical trophic level conversions of 10:1 in the wild (fish intake to fish
output, FIFO), input/output ratios for salmon improved from 7.5 to 4.9, trout from 6.0 to 3.4,
marine fish from 3.0 to 2.2, and shrimp from 1.9 to 1.4. Herbivorous and omnivorous finfish and
some crustacean species show net gains in output, with ratios in 2006 of 0.2 for non-filter
feeding Chinese carp and milkfish (Figure 5), 0.4 for tilapia, 0.5 for catfish, and 0.6 for freshwater
crustaceans. Quoted FIFO values for the global aquaculture industry include 0.7 (Tacon and
Metian 2008), 0.63 (Naylor et al. 2009), and 0.52 Jackson (2009). Based on lowest current FIFO
values of 0.52, an additional 100 million tonnes of output would require more than 50 million
tonnes of extra fish; more realistically the average FIFO for an expanded level of 160 million
tonnes, using no more fish than at present, would need to fall to around 0.2. Much of the future
direction in feed use for aquaculture will depend on future consumer preferences, with
tradeoffs between cost of production based on lower cost species such as carp, tilapia, or catfish
using mainly terrestrially derived feeds, and higher market and/or nutritional quality, with
marine species using fish-based diets. With a distinct shift toward lower food-chain species and
more terrestrial feed sources and the possible use of genetically modified technologies to
enhance options for key nutrients (McAndrew and Napier, 2010), expanded production could be
viable. Though sourcing terrestrial feeds would have to compete with other parts of the
livestock sector, the quantities are not overwhelming, and the efficiency of feed used would
make aquaculture an effective user of these raw materials.

Aquaculture is a MORE efficient use of fish feed than the squo and its self-
correcting
Gunnar Knapp 9/17/05, Econ Prof @ U of Anchorage, Economic Perspectives on United
States Marine Aquaculture, Presentation to the Marine Aquaculture Task Force,
http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=6793&pt=2&p=7706
Long before large-scale salmon farming, feed fish stocks were being exploited to make fish
meal and fish oil for use in agriculture Salmon farming has resulted in substitution of fish meal
and fish oil from agricultural uses to use as fish feed. Salmon farming has not resulted in large
increases in catches of feed fish. Salmon farming uses fish meal and fish oil being in a way that
produces MORE value. Ending salmon farming would result in fish meal and fish oil being used
in a way that produces LESS value. Not farming carnivorous fish to reduce demand for fish
meal and fish oil is a strategy to reduce the value of major wild fisheries. Growth in
carnivorous fish farming will increase demand for feed fish. Catches of feed fish depend not
just on demandbut also on how feed fish stocks are managed. If feed fish stocks are well-
managed then increasing demands will not lead to irresponsible catches. If feed fish stocks are
not well-managed, then what is needed are policies to strengthen management. Increasing
the value of fish meal and fish oil has the potential to increase the value of many wild fisheries
The greater the value of fish meal and fish oil, the greater the extent to which we will be able
to make economic use of large volumes of unutilized wastes from processing of wild fish
(including wild Alaska salmon)


AT Environment Shark Attacks
New tech prevents shark attacks and entanglement
Price and Morris 13 researchers @ Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research
Carol Seals and James A., Marine Cage Culture and the Environment: Twenty-first Century
Science Informing a Sustainable Industry
[http://www2.coastalscience.noaa.gov/publications/detail.aspx?resource=lS+q3d4eICvFWKFlXB
Ymz48uUqIGeFF871rIXjLV1/Y=] //
At modern fish farms, impacts to predatory sharks and marine mammals are being minimized
with improved net technologies and removal of dead fish from cages to prevent predation on
cultured fish. Siting away from known aggregation sites and installing rigid predator exclusion
nets are effective at preventing negative impacts to cultured fish, farm structures and marine
predators. Acoustic deterrent devices are not consistently useful against sea lions and seals and
may have deleterious impacts to non-target marine mammals. In the U.S., nonlethal
interventions to prevent marine mammal predation are preferred. At marine fish farms,
entanglement in the farm structures may pose a slight threat to sea turtles, dolphins, whales and
seabirds. Keeping lines taut and the water free of debris are effective at minimizing or
eliminating conflict with marine mammals and turtles.


AT Environment Water Quality
Doesnt harm water quality minimal contamination bubble and siting solves
Price and Morris 13 researchers @ Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research
Carol Seals and James A., Marine Cage Culture and the Environment: Twenty-first Century
Science Informing a Sustainable Industry
[http://www2.coastalscience.noaa.gov/publications/detail.aspx?resource=lS+q3d4eICvFWKFlXB
Ymz48uUqIGeFF871rIXjLV1/Y=] //
The primary potential effects to water quality associated with marine cage culture include dissolved nitrogen and phophorus,
turbidity, lipids and dissolved oxygen fluxes. Usually there are no measurable effects 30 meters beyond the
cages when farms are sited in well-flushed waters. Nutrient spikes and declines in dissolved oxygen
sometimes are seen following feeding events, but there are few reports of long-term risk to water
quality from marine aquaculture. The trend of many studies over the last 20 years indicates that
improvements in feed formulation and feeding efficiency are the major reasons for decreased
nutrient loading and acceptable water quality in and near farms, and explains why significant enrichment to
the water column at offshore farms is generally not detected. Impaired water quality may be observed around
farms in nearshore or intertidal habitats where flushing is minimal and at farms using feeds that include unprocessed raw fish rather
than formulated feeds. Protection of water quality will be best achieved by siting farms in well-flushed
waters.


AT Fisheries T/O
A price collapse is inevitable and aquaculture supports wild fishing in the long-
term
Gunnar Knapp 9/17/05, Econ Prof @ U of Anchorage, Economic Perspectives on United
States Marine Aquaculture, Presentation to the Marine Aquaculture Task Force,
http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=6793&pt=2&p=7706
The market impacts of aquaculture will occur regardless of the extent of United States
offshore aquaculture production. Alaskas salmon farming ban did not stop the market
impacts of farmed salmon on wild Alaska salmon. The fact that United States farmed salmon
production (in Maine and Washington) is an almost insignificant part of world production has
not stopped the market effects of farmed salmon on wild Alaska salmon. The fact that United
States farmed shrimp production is an almost insignificant part of world production has not
stopped the market effects of farmed shrimp on U.S. wild shrimp producers. United States
trade policy offers little protection against market impacts of aquaculture on wild fisheries
U.S. wild fisheries are heavily dependent on export markets The most significant effects of
farmed salmon on markets for Alaska wild salmon occurred in Japan. Over the longer term, the
market implications of aquaculture for wild fisheries are not necessarily all bad. Aquaculture
by making more fish more consistently and widely availableexpands demand. As the number
of fish consumers grows, the number of wild fish consumers will grow. As aquaculture
accounts for a larger and larger share of world fish production, niche market opportunities for
wild fisheries--as a special product in limited supplywill grow. This is beginning to happen
for high quality wild salmon.

Marine aquaculture key to sustaining the whole seafood supply chain
NOAA Aquaculture Program 2008, Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic
Considerations, Implications & Opportunities,
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/economics_report/econ_report_all.pdf
The authors also note that a variety of Americans may benefit from offshore aquaculture,
including the following: Consumers will benefit by having access to affordable, locally and
regionally produced, safe, and healthy seafood. The seafood supply, marketing, and food service
industries, including supermarkets and restaurants, will have access to additional U.S. supplies
of seafood, thereby reducing supply risks. Aquaculture and wild capture fisheries are part of a
spectrum of seafood production techniques with many synergies. Boat owners (including
fishermen) will be owner operators or hired by offshore operations. Seafood processing waste is
used in making fish feed. The whole seafood supply chain, from boats to docks to processing
plants to cold storage, benefits from having predictable and increased throughput from
aquaculture. Marine aquaculture may help keep working waterfronts alive.
***AT CP
Uncertainty DA
Uncertainty guts industry growth
Gunnar Knapp 9/17/05, Econ Prof @ U of Anchorage, Economic Perspectives on United
States Marine Aquaculture, Presentation to the Marine Aquaculture Task Force,
http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=6793&pt=2&p=7706
How to Keep U.S. Marine Aquaculture from Happening Aquaculture is a business. Marine
aquaculture will not happen in the United States unless we create favorable conditions for
aquaculture businesses to develop and to compete successfully with other producers. One way
to keep marine aquaculture from happening is to ban it. Other ways include: Allow zero
environmental risk Allow zero economic or social impacts Consider only potential risks and
costs, and ignore potential benefits. Wait until all issues are understood before making any
decisions Create a costly regulatory approval process with unclear and uncertain guidelines
Keep changing the rules Subject the industry to frequent political and legal challenges

***AT CP Land-Based Aquaculture
EEZ Key
Moving aquaculture offshore is the only way to meet growing global demand
coastal zones are out of space
Buck 12 masters in marine affairs @ University of Washington
Lisa, U.S. Development of Offshore Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors
[http://gradworks.umi.com/15/28/1528916.html] Accessed June 30, 2014
Aquaculture in the United States is a growing industry (Asche, 2010). Many inland freshwater
and nearshore facilities are in operation currently, and are contributing seafood products to the
global market (NMFS, 2009). As depicted in Table 1, the United States aquaculture industry is
dominated by the rearing of catfish, with the next most commonly produced species (by weight)
being crawfish. Other finfish and shellfish are also produced in smaller quantities (NMFS, 2009).
While these aquaculture activities have become working industries, their success has not
extended beyond the boundaries of state waters. There are currently no large-scale commercial
aquaculture facilities operating in United States federal waters. As is discussed further in this
thesis, there is a growing demand for seafood at both the national and global scales that can no
longer be met by wild-caught fishery resources. At the global scale aquaculture has seen a
significant increase in production since the 1970s. Seafood production has grown from under 10
million metric tons in 1970 to around 60 million metric tons in 2006 (Asche, 2010). Seafood
production in the United States has grown as well, with production rising 44% between 1991
and 1998 (Goldburg, 2001). However the United States, while being the third largest consumer
of seafood is only 11th in aquaculture production (Goldburg 2001, DOC 2011). Approximately
84% of seafood consumed in the United States is imported from various locations around the
world, and half of this amount is from foreign aquaculture operations (DOC, 2011). As shown in
Figure 1, the majority of imported seafood comes from Asian countries, other North American
countries, and South America, with the most commonly imported species (as shown in Table 2)
being salmon, tuna, shrimp, crab, and lobster. Domestic production of seafood is dominated by
channel catfish raised in the Mississippi delta region. Other domestic products include clams,
Atlantic salmon, tilapia, striped bass, and shrimp (Goldburg, 2001). While domestically produced
seafood is generally exported to Asian countries (NMFS, 2008), the United States has maintained
a large trade deficit in seafood due to dependency on imports (Upton 2010, DOC 2011, NMFS
2008), in the amount of $9 billion since 2010 (Upton 2010, DOC 2011). Seafood species
imported to the United States are either caught in the wild or raised using a variety of
techniques that are adapted to the needs of the species, the environment, and the economic
conditions surrounding production (Asche, 2010) Common production systems are ponds, pens,
raceways, ropes, cages, tanks, and closed recirculating systems (Asche, 2010). Some systems are
adapted for onshore production, such as recirculating systems, while others, such as net pens,
are mainly used in freshwater or marine environments. Growing demand for seafood and
seafood protein has reached a point where wild-caught fisheries are not able to sustain the
demand of the domestic or global market (MATF 2007, NOAA 2009). However, the United States
does not have an explicit system in place to increase aquaculture production in its EEZ (Rieser
1999, Cicin-Sain 2001, Sununu 2006, GAO 2008). As noted earlier, most aquaculture facilities
operating in marine environments in the United States are within State waters near to shore in
coastal areas. Production of seafood has to date not been expanded at a commercial-scale
beyond State waters into the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), however the rising
national and global demand for seafood has created an increase in interest for moving farther
offshore (MATF, 2007). Within coastal areas use conflicts are high, and siting of aquaculture
facilities can be difficult to do in a way that accommodates other coastal needs (MATF 2007,
Ocean Conservancy 2011). Coastal zones and state waters of the United States are very actively
used for industrial development such as mineral extraction and offshore energy production,
recreation, conservation, and commercial fishing. While aquaculture facilities have managed to
operate in some sites, it is becoming increasingly difficult to secure coastal areas for aquaculture
that do not negatively interfere with other uses or values on both environmental and/or social
grounds. For these reasons, there has been interest shown in moving offshore into the EEZ
where use conflicts are relatively fewer and both environmental and social impacts of
aquaculture development are potentially smaller.

EEZ key
John S. Corbin May/June 2010, President, Aquaculture Planning & Advocacy LLC and Guest
Editor, Marine Technology Society Journal, Sustainable U.S. Marine Aquaculture Expansion in
the 21
st
Century, Marine Technology Society Journal Vol 44 Number 3, Sustainable U.S. Marine
Aquaculture Expansion, A Necessity,
http://www.ljhs.sandi.net/faculty/DJames/NOSB/Study%20Guides/Aquaculture%20MTS%2044.
3.pdf
National surveys documenting the changes in the number of farms and farm acreage in the U.S.
aquaculture industry between 1998 and 2005 lead to several conclusions about the potential
direction of future development (National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2000, 2006).
Freshwater acreage is growing slowly, and future increases in production will largely come from
intensifying production on existing land-based farms rather than major site expansions and
building new farms. Nearshore marine farming (mainly bivalve shellfish) is increasing rapidly,
and further expansion of commercial marine aquaculture into open ocean locations offers the
greatest potential for large-scale growth because of less competition for use of resources and
the large area available (Corbin, 2007a). Moreover, according to the USCOP, locating
aquaculture activities further offshore will reduce conflicts over the visibility of facilities from
land, be less intrusive to nearshore capture fisheries and recreational activities, and have fewer
environmental impacts (USCOP, 2004). Leasing federal waters for commercial aquaculture has
been a controversial subject in recent years, raising a variety of issues for discussion and
consensus building among opponents and proponents. Among the most difficult to address has
been the potential for negative environmental impacts of large-scale marine farming in the open
ocean setting of the EEZ. The most frequently mentioned concerns by opponents include
escapes of farmed species and mixing with wild populations, disease and parasite management
and the potential for infection of wild populations, use of fishmeal as a major protein source in
fish feeds impacting the source fisheries, and pollution potential and the need for standards for
acceptable change in the quality of the water column and substrate in and around farms
(Lubchenko, 2003; MATF, 2007). The research community and the industry have made
significant efforts to study these recurring concerns and how they can be successfully managed.
There have been documented positive reports of negligible environmental impacts from several
multiyear offshore research and commercial marine farming projects in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and
New Hampshire, with combined operating experience of over 20 years (Aquaculture Planning
and Advocacy, 2009; Kona Blue Water Farms, 2009; Alston et al., 2005; Langan, 2007).
Proponents believe that the results from these projects, which include comprehensive
environmental monitoring (e.g., water column and substrate quality, feeding and feed
conversion, stock health and escapes), and others from around the world (Ryan, 2004) support
the conclusion that the potential for negative environmental impacts from offshore and open
ocean aquaculture is very manageable through proper siting and farm operation (e.g.,
application of well-known industry best management practices). It is suggested that sufficient
empirical and scientific information exists to select open ocean sites with appropriate
oceanographic conditions (e.g., sufficient current for mixing and substrate for anchoring) and
operate a finite number of large-scale farms to demonstrate that todays off the shelf
technologies and available native-to-the-region species are scalable and can be sustainably
managed. For example, work by Renzel et al. (2007) and the Scottish Association of Marine
Science (2009) on modeling potential site impacts of ocean farming and by Nash et al. (2005)
and Rust (2007) on ecological risk management can be highlighted for guidance. What is lacking
at this stage, according to the nascent industry, is application of this information to establish a
workable interim permitting and leasing process for federal waters to allow the private sector to
demonstrate large-scale commercial farming in interested regions. Model processes to base an
interim EEZ permitting and leasing program for cage culture have been suggested for federal
waters (Cicin-Sain et al., 2005) and are operating in state waters in Maine and Hawaii, which
include environmental assessment of the site, stakeholder input, and environmental monitoring
plans (MDMR, 2009; Corbin, 2007b). Using properly sited demonstration farms, such as the 24-
cage fish culture project being proposed by Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute 5 miles offshore
in the Southern California Bight (MCRI, 2008), federal agencies could require monitoring and
collect information from operating farms. In consultation with affected agencies, states,
industry, and the affected public, this information could be used to begin the process of
promulgating standardized regulatory and leasing processes and environmental requirements,
while nationwide integrated spatial planning is carried out for federal and state waters. In other
words, a proactive, adaptive management, and place-based planning approach could be used to
move commercial marine aquaculture into the EEZ in a timely manner to address the looming
U.S. seafood supply gap and make it sustainable (Corbin and Young, 1997). CONCLUSIONS The
production, distribution, and use of edible and nonedible fisheries products are increasingly
important to the expansive and diverse U.S. economy. Seafood is a multibillion dollar industry
that touches a vast majority of the American population and significantly affects their quality of
life. The seafood/fisheries economy impacts every state and particularly the numerous
communities along the U.S. coasts. Domestic demand for seafood is projected to increase in the
next 10 to 20 years, as indicated by the clear trends for increasing population, per capita
consumption, and importation of products. Currently, 84% of U.S. seafood consumption is
supplied by imports, largely from developing countries in Asia, and this dependency is expected
to continue and grow unless there is greater public and especially private investment (the
government does not create businesses and jobs, the private sector does) into research and
development to increase domestic production. Domestic supplies from commercial fisheries
have, more or less, leveled off, and freshwater and marine aquaculture (mostly freshwater
species like catfish and trout) have grown steadily but supply only 7% of consumption. Marine
aquaculture has the most potential for large-scale expansion but currently supplies only 1.5% of
domestic consumption. Conservatively, projections indicate that the United States will need
between 0.29 mmt (641 million pounds) and 0.76 mmt (1.68 billion pounds) more seafood in
2020 and between 0.52 mmt (1.15 billion pounds) and 1.05 mmt (2.32 billion pounds) more in
2030. The Administration, the Congress, and the American public can choose to continue to rely
on imports or deliberately expand marine aquaculture and aquaculture-enhanced fisheries,
particularly through establishing commercial farms in the EEZ and stock enhancement programs
to revitalize economically important recreational and commercial marine fisheries.
Not Commercially Feasible
Land-based systems arent commercially viable not enough land and too
energy intensive its not a question of the viability of tech
CBS News 14
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] May 1 //
Neil Halse, Cooke's vice-president for communications, said the company has 20 years
experience with land-based recirculating aquaculture systems. Cooke Aquaculture grows
salmon in sea cages in Canada, the United States, Europe and South America. For the most part,
its land-based operations involve small-scale hatcheries for breeding purposes, however, Halse
points to its hatchery in Oak Bay that also raises thousands of breeding stock to full size, on land,
in freshwater tanks. "It's not just [about] the technology, we know how to do it," Halse said.
Halse said to put all of its New Brunswick operations on land would require between 4,000 and
5,000 indoor tanks. "So you have to imagine where you will find the land to do all this tank
farming," said Halse. "And the water supply is even more important." Halse said land systems
also require a tremendous amount of energy to power recirculating pumps. She says her
company's experience has shown consumers would not be willing to pay a premium on the price
of fresh salmon raised on land.

Return on investment too low deters investment
Omand 14
Geordan, Independent study concludes land-based aquaculture model not commercially
viable *http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/food/independent-study-concludes-
land-based-aquaculture-model-not-commercially-viable-264582401.html?device=mobile] June
25 //
HALIFAX - An independent report commissioned by the Nova Scotia government is calling into
question the commercial viability of farming Atlantic salmon in land-based, closed-containment
facilities. But one Halifax-based environmental organization involved in the report said the issue
lies more with flaws in how aquaculture is regulated in the province and the external costs
associated with farming fish on land. "The problem is open-net aquaculture doesn't have to pay
for all the externalities," said Susanna Fuller, a co-ordinator at the Ecology Action Centre, which
was a member of the report's advisory committee. "In closed containment you have to pay for
your externalities: you pay for your waste, you pay for electricity, you pay for your oxygen."
Fuller argued fish farms that use open-net pens avoid these costs by using the marine ecosystem
for free. The report by Gardner Pinfold Consulting also concluded that land-based salmon-
farming operations while technically feasible would have to be large-scale to overcome the
inherent engineering, building, labour and energy costs. The 52-page document added that the
practice's financial feasibility would have to be confirmed by observing the actual performance
of a commercial-scale operation. The report's findings came as no shock to industry
representatives. "I'm not surprised, the technology is available but the return on investment
just isn't there," said Pamela Parker, executive director of the Atlantic Canada Fish Farmers
Association.

***AT CP International Actor
USFG Key Sustainable Development
Only the US is capable of developing sustainable aquaculture model
Buck 2012, Student for Master of Marine Affairs Degree University of Washington
(Lisa E. Buck, under Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Thomas Leschine, School of
Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington,, U.S. Development of Offshore
Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors ProQuest, accessed JH 6/26/14)
While it is agreed by all parties associated with the development of offshore aquaculture
development in the United States that precaution is necessary in the formation of a federal
framework, an over-abundance of caution in the name of conservation of our own marine
resources will prolong the status quo and continue to place environmental externalities on
those who are less capable of managing them than the United States, and will continue to
create an imbalance of need for protein and available supply in some producing countries.
AT Australia Laundry List
Australian aquaculture cant solve multiple warrants
Gibson, Allan, File, Mullen, and Scott-Orr, 05 (TS, GL, G, JD, H, NSW Department of
Primary Industries, Priorities and Principles for Investment in Aquaculture Research, Economic
Research Report No. 36, http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/economics-
research/reports/err36) LL
Australian aquaculture growth has been slower than that in Asia and is concentrated in
Tasmania (salmon), South Australia (tuna) and Queensland (prawns and barramundi). In NSW,
aquaculture growth has been much less than in other States, and while still significant, it is from
a very small base for most species. NSW has also had the additional pressures of increasing
coastal urbanisation and recreational use which have placed limits on the growth of some forms
of aquaculture. There is uncertainty about why aquaculture growth in Australia has been
slower than earlier predictions indicated. Insufficient or inappropriate capital investment,
regulatory restrictions, a general lack of knowledge and skills and a small and highly competitive
domestic market have all contributed.

AT Australia Regulatory Barriers
Australian aquaculture cannot solve legislative and regulatory problems
unique to Australia
Q.A.I.F. 13 (Queensland Aquaculture Industries Federation, The Further Development of the
Aquaculture Industry in Queensland, http://www.aquaculturequeensland.com/about/industry-
strategy.html) LL
With a growing population, changing eating habits, and severe limits on global wild caught fish
stocks, aquaculture is a rapidly developing industry both globally and in Australia. In
Queensland, there has been significant investment in land based aquaculture operations. The
Queensland Government has given a significant commitment to the development of the
industry. The industry is growing. But, the rate of expansion is much slower than experienced
in some other states. There are reasons for this slow rate of growth, and the QAIF Industry
Development Strategy seeks to address those problems. The Strategy sets out eight key areas
for action and calls for a commitment to a Queensland Aquaculture Development Agenda that
will enable Queensland to be a leader in the development of this new industry. It may well be an
industry much different from other States, with a different mix of species, different technology,
and much of it land based. But, it should be an industry that forms a major part of the total
Australian aquaculture industry. Industry is looking for all areas of government with an
interest in the regulation and development of aquaculture to play a role in the implementation
of a development strategy. 1. Policy and Regulation Despite recent efforts to streamline the
approval process, industry still finds the regulatory requirements to be changeable and
difficult. Regulation is seen to be administered by bureaucrats with personal agendas without
sufficient basis in scientific analysis or independent review. Principal amongst the tangle of
regulations facing the industry is the environmental management requirements. The Draft
Productivity Commission Research Paper: Assessing environmental regulatory arrangements for
aquaculture also confirmed the extremely high and complex regulatory arrangements impacting
on aquaculture. A consequence of the intense and uncertain regulation is the general
perception that aquaculture is too risky for the return to be expected. Site identification for new
projects both land based and marine based is major problem. This is having a serious impact on
investment confidence and the growth of the industry. The problem remains both a Federal
one (GBRMPA and EA) and a Queensland one (DPI, EPA). The problems need to be negotiated
and solved between the State, the Commonwealth and the industry. Resolution of these
problems would be helped by the right policy framework is developed. Industry needs from
Government an enabling approach to regulation, not just the current restrictive approach.

Multilayered government and environmental regulations restrain Australia
aquaculture growth
ABARE 3 (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agriculture, Graham Love,
http://data.daff.gov.au/brs/data/warehouse/pe_abarebrs99000981/PC12573.pdf)
Many experts considered the multilayered complex of government bureaucracy and envi-
ronmental regulation involved in the approval process to be a significant impediment to further
investment. Marine aquaculture was perceived to have particular problems in this regard
because it usually involved the use of public waters, was often conducted around coastal and
urban areas that had many alternative competing uses (such as residential, conser- vation,
recreational boating and fishing, and so on), and could potentially involve some level of waste
discharge into public waters. In contrast, freshwater aquaculture was perceived to be relatively
less hindered by bureaucracy because it tended to be conducted on private property in the less
populated areas, with little or no offsite discharge.
Most experts were of the view that there had been some modest progress toward reducing the
multiple layers of government bureaucracy in recent years. However, this modest progress had
taken many years to achieve, and new layers appeared to be being added just as quickly as the
old ones were being removed. The experts suggested that for a typical new aquaculture project
in the $25 million range, the cost of seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals could
stretch to several hundred thousand dollars, with no guarantee of final success. This added to
the cost and the risk of new projects, and reduced their attractiveness for potential investors.




***AT DA Politics
Link N/U
Link is non-unique government recently announced expansion of aquaculture
in federal waters enough to trigger the link but wont solve the aff
Rebecca Burton 5/27/14, U.S. Expected to Allow Fish Farms in Federal Waters, The New
York Times Student Journalism Institute, http://nola14.nytimes-institute.com/2014/05/27/u-s-
expected-to-allow-fish-farms-in-federal-waters/
For the first time, commercial fish farms could be allowed to operate at least three miles
offshore in waters administered by the federal government. The move comes as climate change
and overfishing have decimated United States fish stocks, making it harder for commercial
fishermen to meet domestic demand. Other countries, particularly in Asia, now supply most of
the seafood eaten in this country. Under a new aquaculture program, expected to be approved
by years end, up to 20 offshore fish farms would be allowed in the Gulf of Mexico over the next
decade. The Gulf Aquaculture Plan would enable farmers to produce as much as 64 million
pounds of fish species native to the Gulf, such as red snapper, which could generate an
estimated $256 million in profit. The type of fish farming under consideration involves
submerged cages that can be as big as half a football field and hold up to a million fish.
Currently, between 84 and 91 percent of seafood sold in the United States comes from
elsewhere up 63 percent from 10 years ago and China is the biggest supplier. As a result,
the country is facing a $10.4 billion seafood trade deficit and is playing catch-up as it attempts to
build its own aquaculture industry. This country has to get into the aquaculture business it
really does, said Harlon Pearce, the owner of Harlons LA Fish & Seafood, a wholesale supplier
in Kenner, La. The nations entire commercial fishing industry brought in $5.3 billion worth of
catches in 2011, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Louisiana
brought in $331.1 million worth of seafood in 2012, more than any other Gulf state, according
to the United States Department of Commerce. Fishermen from Gulf states brought in an overall
total of $763 million that same year. Federal officials think the Gulf of Mexico, with its broad
continental shelf and existing oil-drilling developments, is an ideal place to begin commercial
farming. The NOAA is calling for a five-fold increase in domestic fish farming by 2025, said Holly
Binns, an ocean conservation advocate for The Pew Charitable Trusts, a nonprofit based in
Philadelphia. Aquaculture has become the fastest-growing segment of the worlds food
production, said Ms. Binns, whose organization works to promote sustainable fishing practices.
About half of all fish eaten by consumers is from aquaculture operations. But the program has
drawn criticism from fishermen who bring in wild catches as well as environmentalists. Their
opposition has been a big reason the plan, first proposed by NOAA in 2009, has not been
implemented. One issue is how fish farming could affect traditional fishermen who sell wild
catches. Prices for those fish have already been pushed down by cheap imports, and they could
fall further as farming increases supply. Fishermen also say the plan, which prohibits fishing near
farming pens to protect the stock from poachers, will deprive them of prime trawling grounds.
John Williams, executive director of the Southern Shrimp Alliance, a trade group, said that
though a rule the NOAA has proposed to prohibit cages in shrimping areas would help protect
his industry, he remained fearful that the farms might affect wild schools, especially if the two
populations accidentally mix. What happens when a hurricane hits? Mr. Williams said.What
happens when pens get damaged? Brian O Hanlon, chief executive officer of Open Blue Cobia,
a deepwater fish farming operation in Panama, said the risk from hurricanes is exaggerated.
When you dive down and see these pens, its a very calm environment, Mr. O Hanlon said.
There is still a lot of current and movement but nothing like you see on the surface. Theyre
protected. The plan is also opposed by groups like Food and Water Watch. Some
environmentalists cite research at near-shore fish farms that show how keeping large
populations of fish in an enclosed area can contribute to the spread of disease, contamination
from fish waste and overuse of wild bait for feed. But aquaculture advocates claim that the
areas being opened by the federal government would mitigate some of those problems because
water flows are stronger farther out in the ocean.The brisk current would help, for instance, to
dilute fish waste. Some aquaculture advocates themselves are skeptical of starting this kind of
program in the Gulf of Mexico. Daniel Benetti, director of the aquaculture program at the
University of Miami, who for 30 years has sought to bring fish farming to the Gulf, said he had
recently come to view aquaculture as uneconomical for the area and preferred simply
restocking the Gulf. Anyone here would need incentives because the Gulf of Mexico is not
competitive, Dr. Benetti said. Theres too many issues. We shouldnt do aquaculture in the
Gulf. Its not a good place. The rest of the world has made all the mistakes for us, said Mr.
Pearce, the fish and seafood supplier, who is also the commissioner-at-large for the Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council. As long as we kind of follow their lead in some respects
and not make the same mistakes that theyve made in the past with all the water quality, then
we should be fine and the Gulf of Mexico, particularly off the coast of Louisiana, is perfect for
doing this.
No Link Fights

No political fights stakeholders have all agreed aquaculture is inev
John S. Corbin May/June 2010, President, Aquaculture Planning & Advocacy LLC and Guest
Editor, Marine Technology Society Journal, Sustainable U.S. Marine Aquaculture Expansion in
the 21
st
Century, Marine Technology Society Journal Vol 44 Number 3, Foreward,
http://www.ljhs.sandi.net/faculty/DJames/NOSB/Study%20Guides/Aquaculture%20MTS%2044.
3.pdf
These then-novel visions of marine aquaculture have come into sharper focus with the passage
of time, the relentless increase in human population, and the realization of the po ccnrial for
global climate change to drastically disrupt food production regions and the food distribution
networks in an increasingly interconnected and complex world economy. Today in the United
States, the decade-old and at times contentious debate has evolved over the potential and
possible perils of aquaculture in federal ocean waters for increased domestic seafood
production. Policymakers and stakeholders have shifted from wrangling over the merits of
encouraging open ocean aquaculture at all to active discussion of how and where it can be
carried out using environmentally sustainable technologies, economically viable business
models, socially acceptable practices, and appropriate government oversight. Many mainstream
American seafood and environmental interests have accepted the mounting statistics and trend
analyses that demonstrate that the worlds capture fisheries cannot meet societys increasing
demand for seafood and have chosen to work with aquaculture interests to address
development issues. Expert global projections conclude that aquaculture will become the
predominant source of future increases in seafood supply, helping to harmonize capture and
culture seafood distribution channels and more widely improving the livelihoods and diets of
developed and developing countries around the world. Will the United States be an active
participant in this Blue Revolution or simply a hungry market for seafood produced by foreign
sources?