NEG Aquaculture Wave 3
Status Quo Solves
Status quo aquaculture policies foster international cooperation over
aquaculture
FIS, 11
FIS, 6/10/11—world's largest online provider of information for the fishing industry ("DOC,
NOAA jointly release sustainable fish farming policies ", Fish Information and Services,
fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?l=e&ndb=1&id=43491)//emchen
The Department of Commerce (DOC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have
released national sustainable marine aquaculture policies to meet the growing demand for healthy
seafood, to create jobs in coastal communities and restore vital ecosystems. Foreign aquaculture accounts for about
half of the 84 per cent of seafood imported by the US, contributing to the USD 9 billion trade deficit in seafood. “Our current
trade deficit in seafood is approximately USD 9 billion,” Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said.
“Encouraging and developing the US aquaculture industry will result in economic growth and
create jobs at home, support exports to global markets, and spur new innovations in technology
to support the industry.” Juvenile halibut from a hatchery. (Photo: NOAA) “Sustainable domestic aquaculture can help us
meet the increasing demand for seafood and create jobs in our coastal communities,” said Jane Lubchenco, PhD, under secretary of
commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “Our vision is that domestic aquaculture will provide an additional
source of healthy seafood to complement wild fisheries, while supporting healthy ecosystems and coastal economies.” The new
aquaculture policies, which reflect the public comments received after draft policies were released on 9 February, focus on:
encouraging and fostering sustainable aquaculture that increases the value of domestic aquaculture production and creates
American business, jobs and trade opportunities; making timely management decisions based on the best scientific information
available; advancing sustainable aquaculture science; ensuring aquaculture decisions protect wild species and healthy coastal and
ocean ecosystems; developing sustainable aquaculture compatible with other uses;
working with partners
domestically and internationally ; and, promoting a level playing field for US aquaculture
businesses engaged in international trade, working to remove foreign trade barriers, and
enforcing the country's rights under US trade agreements. Along with its new policy, the Department and
NOAA announced additional steps in the future to support the development of the aquaculture industry through: Developing a
National Shellfish Initiative in partnership with the shellfish industry to increase commercial production of shellfish, which would
create jobs, provide locally-produced food, restore shellfish populations and habitats and improve water quality. Implementing the
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Plan for Aquaculture, which includes the regulatory infrastructure needed for offshore
aquaculture development in the Gulf. The domestic aquaculture industry (both freshwater and marine) currently supplies about 5
per cent of the seafood consumed in the US. The cultivation of shellfish, such as oysters, clams and mussels, comprises about twothirds of US marine aquaculture production. Salmon and shrimp aquaculture contributes about 25 per cent and 10 per cent,
respectively. Current production takes place mainly on land, in ponds and in states’ coastal waters. “This new focus on
helping us develop and expand sustainable aquaculture is welcomed,” said Bill Dewey, a shellfish biologist
and a Shelton, Washington-based clam farmer for more than 27 years. “When done right, aquaculture can improve
the environment, provide jobs and reclaim American dollars that are being spent on imported
aquaculture products.” The Commerce and NOAA policies build on priorities of President
Obama’s National Ocean Policy, including the emphasis on protecting, maintaining and restoring healthy
and diverse ecosystems; supporting sustainable uses of the ocean; and increasing scientific
understanding and applying that knowledge to make better decisions.
Aquaculture Bad
Aquaculture destroys diversity – fish escapes, disease
Food and Water Watch 09
(“Offshore Aquaculture: Bad News for the Gulf”,
https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/common-resources/fish/fish-farming/gulf-ofmexico/offshore-aquaculture/, JZG)
On September 3, 2009 a plan for offshore aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico went in to
effect. Read our press statement here. Below are some of dangers the regions could face from offshore aquaculture. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been promoting offshore
aquaculture — growing fish in nets or cages between three and 200 miles from shore — as the best way to
increase U.S. seafood output. Now, NOAA wants to establish this large-scale fish
farming off the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast. Since January 2007, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council, one of eight regional councils Congress established to help manage U.S. fisheries, has been developing a plan to streamline
the permitting and regulation of open water aquaculture. Unfortunately, the Gulf Council‚ draft Generic Offshore
Aquaculture Amendment
fails to really consider, among other matters, the possible
negative economic consequences of ocean fish farming, also known as open ocean or offshore
aquaculture. The plan itself concedes that “the increased supply of aquaculture fish from
the Gulf may tend to decrease the ex-vessel price commercial harvesters receive for
their catch if the increased supply does not come on the market slowly, or if new
markets for products are not created, or if the demand for seafood does not increase.” 1 Yet, there is little
further discussion of this issue. Based on experience elsewhere, the practice of offshore aquaculture,
combined with the influx of farmed fish imports, could threaten the economic
wellbeing of the Gulf‚ active fishing industries. In 2006, the commercial fisheries there landed more than
half a billion dollars worth of seafood.2 And from 2004 to 2005, Gulf recreational fishing pumped $5.6 billion, including
expenditures on such items as hotels, food, and ice, into the regional economy.3 Rather than pressing forward with this plan, the
U.S. government would best serve the public interest by delaying any move toward offshore aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico until
completion of comprehensive, peer-reviewed economic and environmental studies showing that it will not harm the economy or
environment of the region. Background Federal government and other proponents of offshore aquaculture claim that developing
such an industry here in the United States will narrow our country‚ $9.2 billion seafood trade deficit without further depleting our
wild fish stocks. However, increasing U.S. fish production will not necessarily reduce our reliance on imports. In fact, we actually
export some 70 percent of domestic production, driving up our own demand for imported fish.4 NOAA is pushing this Gulf plan as a
model for other regions because attempts to pass national legislation to widely develop commercial open ocean aquaculture have
failed in recent years. Too Many Environmental Questions About Offshore Aquaculture in the Gulf Offshore
aquaculture could hold negative consequences for commercial and recreational fishing in the Gulf of
Mexico. For example, fish waste, uneaten fish feed, and any antibiotics that may be used to
maintain the health of fish crowded into the pens or chemicals to try to keep
organisms from growing on the nets and cages can pollute the seafloor and
surrounding ocean ecosystem. “Little is known about the assimilative capacity of the marine environment for
these pollutants,” concludes a new report commissioned by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. “Pollution from a
greatly expanded industry could have significant effects locally and regionally.” 5
Parasites and disease can spread from fish farms to wild species. In British
Columbia, the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council found that fish farms increased the number
of parasitic sea lice and likely caused the collapse of pink salmon in the Brought Archipelago
in 2002.6 Farmed fish, which come from a genetically limited breeding stock,7,8,9,10 can escape to the open
water. There they could mate with native species, spawning genetically inferior wild
fish that could be more susceptible to disease. In addition, escaped farmed fish also can
compete with wild species11 for increasingly scarce food resources. Both of those
factors could lead to fewer — and possibly less desirable — wild fish for commercial and recreational
fishermen to catch. Although it may not yet be the case in the Gulf, offshore aquaculture in other parts of
the world might be contributing to the unsustainable harvest of smaller wild fish
used to feed farmed finfish. What is more, their wild counterparts are in jeopardy because they are losing the food
they need to survive.12 In some cases, it can take two to six pounds of wild fish to produce one
pound of farmed fish.13
Aquaculture destroys coastal communities – wrecks the economy
Food and Water Watch 09
(“Offshore Aquaculture: Bad News for the Gulf”,
https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/common-resources/fish/fish-farming/gulf-ofmexico/offshore-aquaculture/, JZG)
Price Matters Unsurprisingly, many fishermen do pay heed to how various factors, including aquaculture, might affect the prices
they receive for fish. David Letson, a University of Miami economics professor, noted that the
potentially greater
supply of fish from aquaculture in the Gulf could depress fish prices
in the longer term. However, he did stress that other factors might lessen or eliminate any price decline.14 Meanwhile,
past experience from aquaculture in other places with other fish could portend potential problems in the Gulf. In 2006,
offshore cod farming in Norway got a thumbs-down from a professor at the
Norwegian College of Fisheries Science. Terje Vassdal pointed out that it could
decrease the price of wild cod, which “could be a national economical
catastrophe” for the country.15 Similarly, a 2005 University of British Columbia study concluded that “a decrease in the
price of sablefish will ultimately follow an increase in sablefish supply to market from aquaculture. This decrease will be at the
expense of both sablefish farmers and fishers in Canada but beneficial to sablefish consumers, which in this case are mainly
Japanese. Thus, benefits are exported while costs are entirely absorbed within Canada.” 16 For two decades prior to that,
commercial fishermen in British Columbia had seen the prices they received for salmon
decrease by two thirds, in large part be-cause of aquaculture increasing the salmon supply
worldwide.17 The story was similar next door in Alaska in the late 1990s and into the 21st century when “very rapid
growth in farmed salmon production outstripped the growth in demand, glutted
farmed salmon markets and severely depressed prices for farmed (and wild)
salmon,” according to Gunnar Knapp, an economist at the University of Alaska at Anchorage. His research found that the large
supply of farmed fish contributed to a “drastic drop in the ex-vessel value of the Alaska salmon harvest.”18 Researcher
Michael Weber found that the lower prices commercial fishermen received “contributed to such
financial instability in fishing fleets along the Pacific coast of the United States that many fishermen simply went out of
business, with dramatically negative effects on the economies of rural coastal
communities.”19 Other studies paint a similar picture of salmon prices after the emergence of salmon aquaculture: “Peak
salmon prices in 2002 were 54-92 percent lower than they were in 1988. Many salmon fishers in the region [Pacific northwest] who
bought their boats and permits during the high price years of the late 1980s and early 1990s can no longer afford to stay in operation
and pay off their debts.” 20 From 1992 to 2001, the value of the Alaskan salmon harvest plunged from $600 million to a bit more
than $200 million, a drop of more than 60 percent, according to a Food & Water Watch analysis of economist Gunnar Knapp‚
research.21,22 A
similar price crash would devastate the U.S. Gulf of Mexico fishing
industry , which in 2006 landed
snapper, all valuable finfish.23fish in seaweed
more than $41 million worth of cobia, pompano, grouper, and
Aquaculture won’t help create jobs
Food and Water Watch 09
(“Offshore Aquaculture: Bad News for the Gulf”,
https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/common-resources/fish/fish-farming/gulf-ofmexico/offshore-aquaculture/, JZG)
Jobs, Jobs, and Fewer Jobs?
Proponents of aquaculture often claim that it will lead to more jobs. However,
history and the facts do not necessarily support such assertions. A 2003 study found that a 200
percent increase in salmon production from fish farming in British Columbia
would create few new jobs. In the 1990s industry in the province tripled but added no new jobs.24 Meanwhile, the
salmon farming industry in Scotland and Norway “dramatically expanded”
production, but employment decreased due to increased mechanization.25 Aquaculture Fish Biz
Consolidates Does offshore aquaculture benefit local communities? Although it is too soon to say,
some of the trends appear ominous. It does help a few foreign companies, at least judging from the salmon
farming industry. In 2001, 30 companies accounted for two-thirds of the world‚ salmon and trout.26 But that number has slowly
dwindled to half a dozen or so multinational companies, most of which are based in Europe.27 “Unlike salmon fishing enterprises,
most of which consist of boats and permits owned by individuals who sell their catch to processors or, in some cases, to niche
markets — the large salmon aquaculture enterprises consist of vertically integrated feed, hatchery, grow-out (where the smolts are
raised to maturity), distribution, and value-added processing companies”.28 Economist Gunnar Knapp concluded
that, “unlike many kinds of fishing, offshore
aquaculture is not likely to develop as a small,
family-owned businesses. It would be a larger-scale, corporate activity.” 29 Conclusion and Recommendations
Gulf commercial and recreational fishing communities support thousands of jobs
and haul in billions of dollars in revenue for the region. Offshore aquaculture is
fraught with uncertainty for that continued economic vibrancy. Given this, the U.S. government
should not promote offshore aquaculture that could threaten coastal communities and the marine
environment in the Gulf of Mexico, and further research is needed on the issue before moving forward.
Aquaculture in tropical areas causes virulent disease – turns case and
hurts their profitability
Leung & Bates, 13
(June 2013, Journal of Applied Ecology, “More Rapid, Severe Disease Outbreaks for
Aquaculture at the Tropics: Implications for Food Security,”
http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/1660/more-rapid-severe-disease-outbreaks-foraquaculture-at-the-tropics-implications-for-food-security, JZG)
Future of Disease Outbreaks in Aquaculture Aquaculture in tropical regions has the potential for
greater economic loss in comparison with temperate regions due to climate
change–mediated disease mortality in the light of current forecasts of decreasing
water quality and supply and increasing frequency of extreme weather events
(Handisyde et al. 2009). Moreover, environmental deterioration may be more severe in tropical nations and interact with climate
change outcomes, which are predicted to increase the frequency and risk of disease (Harvell et al. 2002), as well as altering the
distribution and severity of disease outbreaks (Rohr et al. 2011). It will be important to monitor such emerging trends to implement
adaptive management strategies as climatic and nutrient deposition patterns may act synergistically to result in even greater
frequency of disease-induced stock mortalities in aquaculture. There are also important ecological ramifications associated with our
findings that should be considered in future risk assessments. Aquaculture operations may be an
increasing threat to wild stocks, a problem that may be global in scope and
particularly so in tropical nations if disease is not considered in the
implementation of open aquaculture facilities. Certain rearing methods, such as cage systems in
marine or freshwater systems, can facilitate pathogen exchange between farmed and wild
populations (Johansen et al. 2011), leading to pathogen spillover (Krkosek et al. 2006) or spillback
(Kelly et al. 2009). As well as reducing the profitability and sustainability of farming (Salama
& Murray 2011; Jansen et al. 2012), pathogen exchange can result in epizootics that threaten a
range of wild species, a phenomenon that has been well documented from terrestrial systems (Gottdenker et al. 2005;
Colla et al. 2006). Aquacultural settings also have the potential to select for the evolution
of more virulent pathogens (Pulkkinen et al. 2010; Mennerat et al. 2012). The introduction of such
pathogens into the surrounding environment via introduced aquaculture species
can consequently have devastating impacts on wild fish populations and pose a
significant threat to local biodiversity, especially to those species that may be
facing a range of threats or occur at low population numbers (e.g. Gozlan et al. 2005). Coupled
with our findings that more severe outbreaks occur at lower latitudinal regions – where biodiversity reaches a maximum (Gaston
2000) – makes the exchange and potential amplification of disease between farmed and nature populations a considerable concern
not only for aquaculture sustainability but also its impact on local aquatic fauna and ecosystems. The risk of acquiring or introducing
virulent pathogen to biologically diverse locations should be taken into consideration when selecting sites for aquaculture, thus
making biosecurity a key consideration for aquaculture sustainability (Pruder 2004; Lightner 2005; Bush et al. 2010). While
aquaculture systems are typically considered ‘artificial’, the insights gained from studying natural host– parasite systems may have
application to outbreaks in aquaculture and in particular where ranching strategies are used. While ecological approaches can be
applied to facilitate the development of more effective disease control and management practices, studying disease outbreaks in
aquaculture can also broaden our understanding of disease ecology. For example, research in aquaculture has revealed knowledge
gaps in certain aspects of disease ecology such as immunology of invertebrates and its interactions with environmental factors
(Mydlarz, Jones & Harvell 2006). Aquacultural systems provide a setting from which disease can be observed and documented in
greater detail than outbreaks in the wild. Understanding how outbreaks are initiated and unfold in such settings can further provide
insights into the evolutionary ecology of infectious agents, and there is a need for disease ecologists to engage and collaborate with
members of aquaculture community.
Aquaculture causes disease spread – transmits from fish to humans
Hughes and Rose, 11 - Bren School of Environmental Science and Management
University of California AND Michigan State University
(Sara, Joan B., Governing Aquaculture for Human Security,
http://www.fisheriessociety.org/proofs/sf/hughes.pdf, JZG)
Contaminated Food Water pollution is often a more pressing concern for freshwater
aquaculture development because pollution entering fish ponds can transmit
disease to humans. As cold-blooded animals, fish do not support the growth of human bacteria and viruses, but they
can accumulate fecal pathogens in their guts and harbor bacterial pathogens such as Aeromonas, a
bacterium that is a common cause of diarrhea (Fattal et al. 1993). In a few places, sewage wastewater has been
used to supply aquaculture’s water needs. With unchecked use, this can lead to
disease transmission to humans via fish (e.g., trematode diseases, including the oriental liver fluke
(Clonorchis) and the giant intestinal fluke [Fasciolopsis]). In Vietnamese aquaculture systems, the skin and gut
contents of farm-raised fish were found to be highly contaminated when fed with wastewater, and the use of raw fish products from
these ponds is now prohibited (Lan et al. 2007). India banned coastal shrimp farming in 1996 after viral disease outbreaks due to
poor management practices (Yadava 2002). Bacterial infections associated with contaminated fish
are also a potential public health risk in coastal waters subject to sewage outfalls
and agricultural runoff and are a more prevalent threat than viruses (WHO 1999).
Regulatory systems in many places provide a mechanism to close areas where pollution levels may cause shellfish to become health
hazards. One newly arising concern is the potential of antibiotic use in fish farms to
spread antibiotic resistance in aquatic environments and within microbial
populations. The main antibiotics used in aquaculture systems include furazolidone, niturpirinol, oxolinic acid,
oxytetracycline, sulfamerazine, trimethoprim/sulfadiazine, and florfenicol, with a majority of these used in large finfish operations.
Throughout Europe and North America, such compounds are regulated for use in aquaculture, and Japan has a slightly wider range
of antimicrobials (WHO 1999). However, while overall use of antimicrobials in inland aquaculture and coastal shrimp farming is
relatively low, as the intensity of farming operations increase so does the use of antimicrobials. Both human and
animal health could be endangered as result of overuse of antibiotics and
resistance. Fernández-Alarcón et al. (2010) studied fish farms in Chile and found that 21.8% of the Pseudomonas-type
bacteria carried resistance to Florfenicol. Interestingly, these resistant strains of bacteria were
also resistant to streptomycin, chloramphenicol, and oxytetracycline, thus
indicating that genetic resistance to one antibiotic can confer resistance to many
other antibiotics. Not only does aquaculture have the potential to negatively impact water quality, but existing water
quality problems can pose a challenge to locating and safely operating aquaculture facilities. The impacts of pollution
from urban and agricultural wastewater on offshore aquaculture remain a
significant challenge when determining the locations for marine aquaculture
systems, particularly shrimp and oyster farms. Many fish farming areas are protected so that
contamination can be prevented, but human viruses from sewage discharge still
largely contribute to the risk 8 hughes and rose of disease outbreaks associated with seafood. In the United States
and Australia, 10–20% of such outbreaks come from seafood, but in countries like Japan, this percentage increases to 70% where
seafood is eaten raw (Lees 2000). In Japan, virus monitoring is undertaken from the oyster beds up into the watershed in order to
evaluate the susceptibility of the aquaculture system to sewage contamination (Figure 2).
Aquaculture competes with existing ecosystems- cause massive
ecological destruction
Hughes and Rose 11 - Bren School of Environmental Science and Management
University of California AND Michigan State University
(Sara, Joan B., Governing Aquaculture for Human Security,
http://www.fisheriessociety.org/proofs/sf/hughes.pdf, JZG)
Ecosystem Degradation Aquaculture development can place pressure on existing fish
populations through coastal habitat degradation and the production of fish meal
for aquaculture feed. Large-scale aquaculture operations consume large amounts
of natural resources, including wild fish stocks, in the production of farm-raised fish (Pauly et al.
2003). While a relatively small percentage of the total volume of aquaculture production, carnivorous species such as salmon
depend on a steady stream of fish meal, which is often made from wild fish catch.
Aquaculture used 68.2% of the global fish meal production in 2006, and the use of fish meal
in aquaculture has doubled since 1995 (Tacon and Metian 2008). Further, many coastal aquaculture
operations have historically consisted of intensive monocultures , leading to loss
of ecosystem function, erosion and vulnerability, and social impacts on coastal
communities. According to the World Resources Institute (2000), of serious concern for the environment are “large-scale
facilities used to raise high-value shrimp, salmon, and other premium species.”1 Mangrove destruction in
tropical areas has been of particular concern (Iwama 1991), but large-scale salmon
operations in North America and Europe have also been found to negatively
impact coastal environments, including through the spread of fish disease (Bjorn et al.
2001). Aquaculture’s ecological impacts can also be indirect. Aquaculture must often compete with
existing ecosystems for finite space, habitat, and resources (Box 2), which can result in indirect
ecosystem effects such as “habitat modification, food web interactions, introduction of exotic species and pathogens that harm wild
fish populations, and nutrient pollution” (Naylor et al. 2000). Aquaculture can affect genetic diversity at
the species, community, ecosystem, and landscape levels (FAO 1997b). Farm-raised fish
are often less genetically diverse than their wild counterparts and nonnative fish
can introduce exotic genotypes to wild populations, both of which threaten the
fitness of wild fish populations. The ecological consequences of aquaculture development can also expand beyond
the site of production. “The growing demand for fish, in combination with the increase in fish trade and coupled with the
technological developments in fish handling, preservation and distribution, is contributing to the creation of new, often spatially
extended, commodity chains linking the practices of fish production and of fish consumption” (Oosterveer 2007). Trade integration
and expansion will continue to open new markets for fish producers and consumers, and accounting for these types of linked effects
is critical to developing sustainable aquaculture systems.
California CP
California aquaculture standards sets a precedent for a national
framework that spills over—solves the harms of status quo
aquaculture
Scott, 6
Scott, 5/10/6—staff writer for the Inside Bay Area (Julia, "Bill would create tough standards for
fish farms", Inside Bay Area,
www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_3804869)//emchen
State Sen. Joe Simitian has heard the horror stories of commercial fish farms: an outbreak of
infectious salmon anemia in a pen in Maine, causing the deaths of thousands of fish; the spread of parasitic
sea lice from salmon farms to wild fish in British Columbia. Worried that California could be next,
Simitian, D-Palo Alto, authored a bill imposing strict environmental standards on any commercial
fish growers in state waters. Although no such operations exist here now, Simitian believes they are
imminent — and that could mean the spread of disease and parasites, threats to wild fish from escaped
stocks, and uncontrolled discharge of waste, chemicals and antibiotics. "When you put a couple hundred
thousand fish in a pen, ask yourself what they'd do to the ocean colony. Ask yourself what they'd do to the earth. We're doing this
before the problem exists," said Simitian. The state Assembly passed Simitian's bill, known as the
Sustainable Oceans Act, last week. It is expected to be considered by the Senate on Thursday. Suspended in vast
offshore nets orheld in below-surface aquariums until they are old enough to eat, commercially farmed
fish are known to discharge heavy concentrations of untreated waste in locations where it is not
easily dispersed. "The pollution that's produced by a population of 200,000 or 300,000 fish would be the equivalent of the
waste produced by a town of 60,000 people," said Tim Eichenberg, regional director of the Ocean Conservancy, a supporter of the
bill. Living in such tight quarters also breeds disease, which some fish farmers historically have tried
to solve by dumping pesticides into the water, said Eichenberg. Some fish also invariably escape their
nets, spreading disease and interbreeding with fish that have a different genetic code.
Carnivorous species such as tuna, cod and halibut also eat several times their body weight in wild prey,
fed to them through an underwater tube. Eichenberg said the process was stripping the oceans of
small fish as a result. "If it's not done properly, it can actually increase the problems in the ocean,"
he said. "If it's done sustainably, it can be a boon to the economy." Under Simitian's bill, the California Department of Fish
and Game and a local water quality control board would review a proposed project's environmental
impacts before approving it. Projects would be monitored to ensure they are located in deep enough water that
limits are imposed on the fish held in a single net, and that the use of chemicals and antibiotics is
"minimized." The legislation affects only fish in California state waters — up to three miles from shore. Congress now is
debating several federal aquaculture bills that "have no standards," said Simitian. He said he hoped
his bill would be an example to other states . "These will be the toughest standards anywhere in the
country, if the governor signs the bill," said Simitian. With supplies of wild seafood dwindling and demand on
the rise, the U.S. Department of Commerce has mandated a fivefold increase in U.S. aquaculture production
by 2025. The U.S. has a long way to go to catch up with Chile, Norway and other countries whose fish
farms provide the world with 20 percent of its total food-fish supply. Although there are only about 4,000
aquaculture operations in the U.S. now, including those that raise aquatic plants, shellfish and finfish, experts predict it will be a $5
billion industry in 20 years' time. Fish farming is still in the experimental stage in California. Several nonprofits are in the midst of
raising different species of native fish, such as halibut, tuna, sea bass and rockfish, to replenish fish stocks in coastal waters. State
law already forbids raising genetically modified fish and non-native species such as salmon. "We expect that aquaculture will come
to California in the not-too-distant future," said Simitian. San Mateo County's Pillar Point Harbor, already the site of a small
albacore operation, is a prime location for future commercial fish farms. Local fisherman Duncan MacLean is not thrilled at the idea.
He predicted a boom in aquaculture would benefit large corporations but compete with fishermen in the marketplace. "In terms of
the value of the product we catch, it is a very definite threat," said MacLean. "But aquaculture is more of a threat to
the environment than any other industry in this country."
US regulatory standards is the first step to sustainable aquaculture—
California sets a unique model
Ocean Conservancy, 12/17/9—nonprofit environmental advocacy group; helps formulate
ocean policy at the federal and state government levels based on peer reviewed science ("Ocean
Conservancy: National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act Will Protect Ocean Health From
Risks of Open Ocean Aquaculture", Business Wire,
www.businesswire.com/news/home/20091217006367/en/Ocean-Conservancy-NationalSustainable-Offshore-Aquaculture-Act#.U8ioYrGleil)//emchen
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Yesterday, Representative Lois Capps (D-CA) introduced the National
Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2009. This legislation establishes the first legally-binding
national standards for how fish farming should be conducted in the open-ocean. There are currently
no overarching policies or laws governing how this method of fish farming should be governed in
America’s territorial waters, generally beyond three miles from the coastline. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) has said it will offer its own national aquaculture policy early in 2010. “My
step forward
in our
legislation represents a huge
efforts to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for
offshore aquaculture development that balances environmental, social, and economic concerns” “ It’s time to
set a standard for open-ocean aquaculture , and the National Sustainable Offshore
Aquaculture Act is an important step . The legislation offers a science-based precautionary
approach including overarching environmental, socioeconomic, and liability standards,” explained
George Leonard, Ocean Conservancy’s aquaculture program director. “We need a strong national framework for
marine aquaculture before expansion occurs in our federal ocean waters, and Congresswoman Capps is to
be commended for showing leadership on this important national issue.” “My legislation represents a huge step forward in our
efforts to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture development that balances environmental,
social, and economic concerns,” said Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-CA). “I believe that by working together we can
create a common sense framework that ensures that offshore aquaculture development proceeds
in an ecologically sustainable fashion. We have a good model for doing this in my home state
of
California, which recently enacted landmark legislation on this topic. 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.” Highlights of the legislation include: Ensuring aquaculture
development in federal waters adopts the precautionary approach as its guiding principle and
establishes a priority for the protection of wild fish, associated habitats, and functional marine ecosystems.
Articulating legally-binding national standards that ensure that offshore aquaculture poses minimal risks to fisheries, marine
wildlife, and the ecosystems on which they depend, protects the long-term public interest in healthy marine ecosystems, and
incorporates appropriate public input. Anticipating and preventing cumulative and secondary impacts from expansion of a marine
aquaculture industry. Integrating offshore aquaculture development into the nation’s broader national ocean policy, including the
Administration’s move toward ecosystem-based management and marine spatial planning. Rendering null-and-void all regulatory
structures previously approved (Gulf aquaculture FMP). In January of 2009, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
developed the first federal permitting program for open ocean aquaculture, setting a dangerous precedent. The plan was later
approved by NOAA. “The National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2009 is just the type of
legislation our country needs to prevent the patchwork of regulation that went into effect
when the Gulf aquaculture plan was approved. The health of the ocean and the coastal economy is critical and the
dangerous precedent set by the Gulf Council’s aquaculture plan is a threat to all coastlines, from New England to the Gulf of Mexico
to the Pacific coast,” concluded Leonard. Ocean Conservancy has been working on strong environmental
standards for aquaculture during the past two Congresses and through state legislatures. California’s state
guidelines, adopted in 2006, serve as a model for the kind of national legislation that Ocean
Conservancy envisions. California’s bill and the federal legislation introduced today will ensure that offshore aquaculture
develops in an orderly manner, incorporates appropriate public input, protects the long-term public interest in healthy marine
ecosystems, and poses minimal risks to fisheries, marine wildlife, and the ecosystems on which they depend. Additional seafood
facts: Americans consumed a total of 4.9 billion pounds of seafood in 2007, slightly less than the 4.9 billion pounds in 2006. The
U.S. continues to be ranked the third largest consumer of fish and shellfish, behind China and Japan. The nation imports about 84%
of its seafood, a steadily increasing proportion. Imports accounted for only 63% of U.S. seafood just a decade ago. At least half of the
seafood imported to the US is farmed. Aquaculture production in the rest of the world has expanded dramatically in the last 30 years
and now supplies half of world seafood demand. America’s aquaculture industry currently meets only 5-7% of domestic demand for
seafood, mostly catfish. Marine products such as farmed oysters, clams, mussels and salmon supply 1.5% of American seafood
demand.
ITQs / Catch Shares CP
Catch shares solve fishery collapse – more effective and helps safety
O’Carroll 08
(Eoin, Study: Privatization could avert fisheries' collapse, SEPTEMBER 26, 2008,
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2008/0926/study-privatizationcould-avert-fisheries-collapse, JZG)
Replacing the fishing season with a quota system could prevent fisheries from
being depleted, a new study has found. Writing in last week's issue of the journal Science, a trio of
researchers has found that the world's handful of fisheries with a "catch share"
system, in which individual fishermen own long-term rights to a percentage of a
predetermined catch limit, are half as likely to have collapsed than traditionally
managed fisheries, in which fishermen try to catch as many fish as possible during a fishing season. The study's
authors – two from the University of California at Santa Barbara and one from the
University of Hawaii – surveyed 121 fisheries with catch-share systems and
compared them with catch statistics from 11,135 fisheries around the globe from 1950 to
2003. Their conclusion: "Implementation of catch shares halts, and even reverses,
the global trend toward widespread collapse. Institutional change has the
potential for greatly altering the future of global fisheries." It can't happen soon enough. As the
Monitor reported in June, one-quarter of the world's fish stocks are overfished, and another half are fished to full capacity. One
study found that, if current trends continue, the world will completely run out of seafood by midcentury. So how does a
catch-share system work? First, marine scientists establish a safe level of annual
catch for a species or group of species. Then, each individual boat or fleet is granted the
right to a percentage of that catch, and they have all year to fish for it. The allowable catch
fluctuates from year to year, but the percentages are guaranteed. Fishermen can buy and sell these shares,
but no new shares are allowed. The Washington Post quotes Galen Tromble, fisheries chief at the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, who explained how fishermen qualify for the shares: Each share system operates
differently, Tromble said, but federal guidelines dictate that anyone who has "substantially participated" in a fishery deserves part of
the overall quota and that no individual can have "an excessive share." In the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, which
switched to a share system on Jan. 1, 2007, managers set quotas based on the 10 best consecutive catches an individual had brought
in from 1990 to 2004. David Krebs, who owns Ariel Seafoods in Destin, Fla., and has been fishing there since
1969, owns almost 6 percent of the gulf's annual red snapper catch, just below the maximum
share. Krebs noted that red snapper used to fetch $1.50 a pound dockside and has risen to $4.50 a pound as the fishing pressure has
eased. He calls the new system "truly a success story." "It's the most versatile tool that
allows a fisherman to fish when the market needs the fish," Krebs said. A 2007 report by
the Environmental Defense Fund found that the benefits of catch sharing go well beyond preventing fishery decline. In a study
of US and Canadian catch-share fisheries, the EDF found that revenues per boat
increased by 80 percent, as fishermen sought to maximize the value of their share by delivering fish according to
market demands. Bycatch – species other than the ones fishermen were trying to catch – was reduced by 40 percent. And
safety more than doubled, as fishermen were able to stay ashore during bad
weather and did not have to rush to catch as many fish as possible as they do
during a constricted fishing season. A success story can also be found in the Alaska halibut
fishery, which converted to a catch-share system in 1995. By that year, the stocks had
become so depleted that the fishing season had dwindled to only a few days, during
which time prices were low because the market was flooded. Today, the season lasts almost eight months,
and a boat can remain in the water until it has caught its share. Fisherman can land bigger fish
and sell them at higher prices. And according to the Economist, since the system was put in place, search-and-rescue missions have
dropped by more than 70 percent and deaths by 15 percent.
Free market CP
Solvency
Federal aquaculture is bad—crowds out the better managed private
aquaculture
Randy, 7
(Parker – CEO of the Utah Farm Bureau, 12-8-2007, “Free market aquaculture benefits the
fishing public”, LexisNexis, amp)
Brett Prettyman's Nov. 29 anti-free enterprise attack on Utah's private aquaculture industry and Rep. Mike Noel demands a
response. For far too long, conjecture and innuendo have driven the debate that swirls around
Utah's fisheries,
whirling disease and what has happened to our once-thriving
aquaculture industry. In 1991, 33 aquaculture operations were selling millions of dollars of
processed and live fish in Utah, throughout the Western United States and globally. Today, only a
handful survive. In 2005, state regulators condemned five of the surviving fish
farms for whirling disease. In fact, one test even came from California. Private fish farmers, always
concerned about disease, conduct ongoing, independent laboratory testing in addition
to state-required testing. Their tests were negative for whirling disease. They asked regulators
for a confirmatory test. They were denied. A confirmatory test seems only fair. Legislative action
in 2006 provided a confirmatory test. Rep. Noel's bill, The Aquaculture Revitalization Act, requested by rural
county commissioners and Utah Farm Bureau, investigates opportunities for aquaculture to again be a rural economic engine.
Prettyman postures, "should the state save struggling retailers?" Show me where government is competing with electronics or
grocery retailers. Utah aquaculture faces state-funded competition every day. Since 1991,
the Department of Natural Resources has expanded its hatcheries, using millions
of taxpayer dollars. The Tribune says Department of Wildlife Resources Director Jim Karpowitz offered to buy from
private fish farms at the agency's cost of production. Will he factor in the multimillion-dollar costs of
state facilities, upgrades, vehicles and the salaries of scores of state employees? Or
will DWR continue to undercut the private industry's prices to take away community
fishing ponds and private fisheries? For example, DWR took the Spanish Fork community pond from a private fish
farmer by undercutting the price. It gave away government-raised fish for free. More than 30 of Utah's fisheries are
infected with whirling disease, including Logan River, Deer Creek and Provo River, without a single
privately grown fish being planted in state waters. The disease continues to spread
under DWR's watch. Prettyman suggests the testing process of DNR is for some reason superior to that of private
aquaculture. Private operators are independently tested by Utah Department of
Agriculture and Food regulators, with the samples being sent to certified private
laboratories. DNR testing is done in-house, by its staff and in DWR laboratories,
with no independent oversight. Positive tests, like last month's Springville
hatchery second positive whirling disease test, ultimately turn into legislative
requests at taxpayer expense. The Tribune continues to contend that whirling disease was brought to Utah by Gov.
Mike Leavitt. Same old tired, worn-out diatribe. Check the facts. The Leavitt aquaculture operation received its water from Fremont
Creek. The same Fremont Creek that DWR planted fish in upstream of the Leavitt facilities. Any correlation? A government-
run monopoly using predatory pricing practices is anti-free enterprise. Utah's private
fish farmers, if they can produce fish that meet the state's fish health standards
and are more cost effective, deserve an opportunity to supply the market. Utah's fishing
public deserves the competition.
Free market aquaculture supported by government backed property
rights solves best—further intervention and incentives are
counterproductive
Phillips, 90
(Brian, 9-1-1990, Foundation for Economic Education – The Freeman, “Aquaculture: The Birth
of an Industry”, http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/aquaculture-the-birth-of-an-industry,
amp)
In recent years, growing health awareness has led to a rising demand for fish and other seafood. Despite this, American fishermen
are finding it difficult to earn a living. As is often the case, the industry has become increasingly politicized. The free market has
received much of the blame for the problems facing the fishing industry, and the solutions proposed by the industry almost always
involve an expansion of government controls. But the fact is, the flee-market, private-property system hasn’t been allowed to
operate, and this is the real cause of the industry’s woes. The birth of a new industry—aquaculture—
offers a free market alternative. Government Policy To understand and appreciate the rise of aquaculture, we
must first have a grasp of government policy regarding fisheries and the commercial fishing industry. Many analysts of the fishing
industry summarize the industry’s problems as simply a matter of too many fishermen chasing too few fish. This is true, so far as it
goes, but it fails to tell us why there are too many fishermen and too few fish. Like the family farmer, fishermen have a long, rich
history in America. Like the family farmer, fishermen have been hard hit by high interest rates and
foreign competition. And, like the family farmer, fishermen have responded by demanding
help from the government, which Congress has been more than willing to provide.
As in agriculture, such interventions sever the industry from market considerations,
creating economic distortions. In both industries, technology has greatly increased
productivity. In the fishing industry, bigger, faster boats, equipped with modern
refrigeration and sophisticated electronics, allow fishermen to stay at sea longer,
catch more fish per trip, and bring the catch to port already processed. In a free
market, increased productivity reduces the number of workers needed in a given
industry. But in neither agriculture nor fishing have these productivity gains
resulted in a proportional decrease in the number of producers. In agriculture, the result is a
glut of many farm products. In the fishing industry, the result is overfishing and the depletion of fish
stocks. Like agriculture, government policies—low-interest loans, subsidies,
protection from foreign competition—have encouraged production.
Simultaneously, these interventions permit less efficient producers to remain in
business. The result is too many fishermen. “The Tragedy of the Commons” The problem of
overfishing illustrates what is commonly called “the tragedy of the commons.” Fisheries are
public property, since nobody owns them. To the fisherman, the only way to profit
from a fishery is to harvest its products. As an individual, he has little incentive or
ability to preserve the resource. His conservation efforts will be offset by the counterefforts of other fishermen. Consequently, each fisherman seeks to maximize his catch
today, without regard to the impact it will have on his catch tomorrow.
Government interventions in economic affairs ultimately lead to further
interventions in the future. The fishing industry is no exception. Government
interventions stimulate production and lead to overfishing. In response, the
government then intervenes to limit production. The redfish, or red drum, provides an
example of a typical government reaction to overfishing. Until Louisiana chef Paul Prudhomme
created blackened redfish in the early 1980s, the red drum was a relatively obscure fish. But as blackened red-fish became a national
craze, demand soared. Fishermen responded accordingly. In 1980, about 54,000 pounds of redfish were
caught in the Gulf of Mexico. Six years later, an estimated 5.4 million pounds were caught. At the time, officials predicted that by
1990 the annual catch would exceed 20 million pounds. Fearing the extinction of the red-fish, state and
Federal officials banned virtually all commercial fishing for the red drum. The problem
of overfishing is hardly limited to the redfish or the Gulf Coast. In New England, lobster, mackerel, and scallops are in short supply.
And the government’s policy has been essentially the same—reduce landings of the species in question. There are many methods for
achieving this, such as limiting the fishing season, issuing fewer commercial fishing licenses, and outright bans. On one
hand, the government seeks to stimulate production through subsidies and lowinterest loans; on the other, it seeks to limit production through tighter
restrictions on fishermen. Like the family farmer, fishermen are caught between
contradictory policies. Aquaculture The solution to the problem of overfishing is to
privatize oceanic fisheries. When resources are privately owned, the owner has an
economic incentive to conserve the resource. If he depletes a renewable resource
more quickly than it can be replenished, he ultimately destroys the resource and
loses his investment. While privatization of fisheries faces numerous political obstacles, a new industry—
aquaculture—is establishing a de facto form of privatization. Simply defined, aquaculture is fish
farming. Its history stretches back many centuries—it is believed that the Chinese engaged in fish farming as
many as 4,000 years ago. Hawaiians built complex fish ponds long before the arrival of Captain Cook. In Southeast Asia,
flooded rice fields have long been stocked with carp and mullet. In the United States, aquaculture has existed for many years,
primarily in the South, but it wasn’t until the 1980s that it began to develop into a viable industry. While the United States is a
relative newcomer to aquaculture, the nation’s demand for seafood is fueling rapid growth in the industry . In 1982, total
U.S. aquaculture production was 180,000 tons. in 1987, the harvest of catfish alone was
nearly 175,000 tons, while all aquaculture products amounted to 375,000 tons. The
industry’s growth promises to accelerate during the 1990s—aquaculture has become one
of the hottest investments around. In 1989, plans were announced to produce 500,000 pounds of hybrid
rockfish annually at the nation’s largest indoor fish farm in Maryland. Naiad Corporation hopes to be harvesting 50 million pounds
of catfish each year from its ponds near Danbury, Texas. M-K Ranches in the Florida Panhandle produces nearly one million pounds
of crawfish each year. Redfish Hatchery in Mississippi expects to produce a million pounds of redfish annually. In addition, dozens
of other companies are raising the above species, as well as tilapia, trout, striped bass, and freshwater shrimp. The term “fish
farming” describes the very essence of aquaculture. Traditional fishermen are hunters. They must chase their quarry and capture it.
As fuel costs rise and the stock of fish declines, traditional fishing has become increasingly expensive. Aquaculturists, however, raise
fish in a closed environment, just as farmers raise chickens, pigs, and other domesticated animals. In fact, aquaculture is a form of
animal husbandry. Until the development of agriculture, human beings were hunters and gatherers; their food consisted of what
they could capture or find. Agriculture allowed mankind to take control of his own destiny; aquaculture promises to expand that
control. “The big thing about aquaculture is that you don’t need to wait for a good catch day,” says Levy Amar, general manager of
Sealantic Inc., which raises tilapia fish in Katy, Texas. “If somebody needs the product, he will get it the same day in most cases.”
Over the past 30 years, landings of ocean fish have held steady at around 57 million metric tons annually. There is a limit to the
ocean’s ability to produce seafood. “Aquaculture is probably going to be the solution for the food supply in the fish market for the
future,” says Amar. “I don’t think the oceans are going to produce more fish than what is being caught.” One of the problems facing
aquaculture entrepreneurs is marketing. The tilapia fish, which has been cultivated for hundreds of years in other parts of the world,
is virtually unknown in the United States. “We basically have to educate people,” Amar says about the fish his company is raising.
Catfish, which has long been enjoyed in the South, has only recently begun to be marketed in other parts of the country. But
marketing an unknown product isn’t the only problem facing aquaculture companies. Despite aquaculture’s long history, there is
still much to be learned. For example, duplicating the natural conditions of the redfish, which range from coastal marshes to the
open Gulf of Mexico, has posed numerous problems. Redfish also are very sensitive to cold weather—one Texas company lost
150,000 during a winter freeze in 1989. Some experts said it would be impossible to raise redfish in a closed system. Yet, several
Texas companies are now successfully raising redfish in indoor tanks. A Louisiana farmer is raising redfish in a salt water pond,
while others grow redfish in blocked-off canals or submerged cages. Magiculture Aquaculture is frequently described as fish farming;
mariculture is often called fish ranching. In aquaculture, fish are contained by barriers. In mariculture, fish are permitted to roam
freely in the ocean. Anadromous fish (those that spawn in fresh water but spend most of theft lives in salt water, such as salmon), are
most frequently targeted for mariculture. A typical venture consists of raising salmon in a hatchery until they are of age to be set out
to “pasture.” The young salmon are released into a freshwater stream and swim out to sea, where they “graze” until they have
reached sexual maturity. At that time, they return to the freshwater stream to spawn. The salmon rancher then captures his “herd”
and delivers them for processing. Like aquaculture, salmon ranching is a risky business. Only 1 percent of all salmon return to
spawn. However, in Japan, researchers have found that improving the health of young salmon can double that figure. Indeed,
biotechnology offers one of the greatest hopes for increasing seafood production. For example, one marine biologist has developed a
species of lobster that weighs a pound within 20 months, instead of the usual five to eight years. However, mariculture faces one
major obstacle-the lack of private property rights. Without clearly stated property rights, those who
introduce fingerlings or improved species into the wild will have no guarantee that
they will be able to catch those fish at a later time. Without such assurances, theft incentive is greatly
reduced. Fortunately, three states—Oregon, Alaska, and California—have recognized this problem
and established property rights for salmon ranchers. In Alaska, once salmon reach
a certain area, they become the property of the company that released them.
Similar guarantees will be needed for other species if mariculture is to develop. Impediments to
Aquaculture Traditional fishing cannot meet the world’s growing demand for seafood. The oceans have a limited ability to produce
fish and other seafood. Like agriculture before it, aquaculture offers the possibility of overcoming nature’s limitations. Despite this,
the aquaculture industry faces three serious obstacles: environmentalists, the government, and the industry itself. Environmentalists
have frequently lobbied for tighter restrictions on fishermen. In the early 1980s, environmentalists fought for a ban on commercial
redfish landings. At the end of the decade, they demanded laws requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp boats. It would seem
that environmentalists would welcome aquaculture, yet this is often not the case. Some aquaculture enterprises use vast quantifies of
water, a fact which concerns many environmentalists. Fish feces, fertilizers and other chemicals used in aquaculture,
environmentalists argue, can pollute waterways. Additionally, fish farms often attract wild animals, such as birds and raccoons, in
search of food. To protect theft property, owners often resort to shooting these animals, an action environmentalists condemn. Given
the “greening” of America and the growing power of environmentalists, these objections pose a real threat to the industry.
Government, by both its action and inaction, will play a significant role in the success of the industry. Already, the
Controls on
land and water use are so extensive in some areas that a prospective aquaculturist
needs as many as 30 permits before he can begin operation. However, government
does have a legitimate role to play in aquaculture, particularly in maricul-ture. All industries
depend on the recognition and protection of property rights. As the realm of man’s productive
efforts expands, government’s proper role is the application of the principle of individual
rights. Without this, new industries, such as mariculture, will be thwarted from the very
beginning. The most significant obstacle could be the industry itself. Many within the aquaculture
industry welcome government intervention, just as farmers and fishermen have
welcomed government intervention for years. Unlike beef, poultry, and pork products, seafood isn’t
subject to many government inspections. As ties between the industry and government become
more cozy, the industry could ask for a government inspection program that would
supplant private inspections. The result would be more government control. In the
meantime, aquaculture entrepreneurs are defying the wisdom of the experts in creating a new industry. They are
transforming the fisherman from a hunter to a cultivator. They are finding more efficient ways to provide
food and utilize resources. If allowed to operate in a free and open market, with
clearly defined, enforceable property rights, all of us will benefit.
agricultural departments in many states are heavily involved in regulating and/or promoting aquaculture.
Bureaucracy Bad
Bureaucracy turns solvency
South Coast Today, 98
(4-26-98, “Promise of less bureaucracy for aquaculture is not enough”,
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19980426/OPINION/30426989
3&cid=sitesearch, amp)
When Bill Gates of Microsoft had his computer crash last week, smack in the middle of a major demonstration of his Windows '98
operating system, lots of people had a good laugh -- at mega-billionaire Gates' expense, for once. When some state
officials, aquaculture boosters, came to New Bedford to promote this new opportunity for
a shaky fishing industry, they ran into a crash, too. But their embarrassment is our
embarrassment; their failure is our lost opportunity. Trudy Coxe, the state's secretary of
environmental affairs, couldn't make the trip because of a scheduling conflict, we were told. Too bad; she should make some room in
her schedule soon to visit, in particular, Trio Algarvio Seafood, which has poured half a million dollars so far
into an aquaculture project. But instead of farming flounder, which is the firm's goal, the owners find
themselves three long years into this process -- and headed into court. They're fighting a
$53,000 Department of Environmental Protection assessment because of some
unpermitted filled-in tidelands -- tidelands that were filled in by the city. We're sure that somewhere
along the line, a mid-level DEP official discovered this particular little problem and fed it into the maw of the DEP bureaucracy. It is
hard to know how much it mattered that Trio Algarvio was jumping through every regulatory hoop in the book to get this project
moving, and spending a fortune in the process. It is hard to know how much it mattered that department officials are
going around promising that these permitting nightmares are supposed to be ending
with "one-stop shopping." It is hard to know. But all signs point to the answer not much. It
seems that rules are rules, and even though the land in question had been through a
succession of owners since the city filled it in during the 1940s, Trio Algarvio is the one left
holding the bag. Owner Kathy Downey has gone to court seeking relief (while paying her lawyers, to boot) and there are
indications that she may well win. She understands that similar assessments around Boston harbor have been successfully
challenged. But if that is the case, then why does the DEP persist with its procedures? Did no
one
review these issues with an eye toward avoiding needless confrontation and
pointless court battles? Mr. Downey declined to be included on the tour when state aquaculture officials made their
tour. (They did stop, among other places, at a Tiverton, R.I. aquafarm producing a hybrid bass, a farm that does not have to answer
to the Massachusetts DEP). And we do have to give credit to the state for pushing this industry and issuing several hundred permits
to plant the seeds for future growth -- of the fish and the economy around them. Still, though, there was nothing in it for Trio
Algarvio but a verbal shrug from Jay Healy, commissioner of Food and Agriculture. "No doubt there have been problems with people
going through the different permitting agencies," he said. "But I think we're beginning to make real strides." Perhaps so, and we
know that the DEP is not Mr. Healy's direct concern, although if it is undermining his efforts maybe it ought to be. We have
seen incidents in which sleepy bureaucracies that didn't get the word were
embarrassed into action because a local company couldn't get the permits it needed
to add jobs, machinery, or floor space. We've sounded the alarm in this space on occasion, only to have
state officials become a bit indignant about all the criticism, then make the necessary improvements
after all. Here's hoping that once again the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and that the Trio Algarvio matter is settled soon, perhaps
with some direct attention by Mr. Coxe. Then, or even before then, we would love to see her visit sometime and see the aquaculture
industry blossom in New Bedford, proof that even the DEP is getting with the program.
BAD CARDS—could be used as aff uniqueness:
Empirically proven
Associated Press, 89
(The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, 12-16-89, “Bureaucracy Called to Block Aquaculture”,
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19891216&id=t6xjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=reED
AAAAIBAJ&pg=6878,4591771, amp)
SPOKANE - The potential expansion of the Pacific Northwest's $100 million aquaculture
industry is snagged in a bureaucratic net, experts calling for better governmental
cooperation said Friday. Finfish and shellfish farmers meeting at the Pacific Northwest Aquaculture Conference in
Spokane are looking at new technologies and water conservation methods that could
double or triple current production, said John Pitts, Washington state Department of Agriculture
aquaculture coordinator.
Absent bureaucracy, there would be efforts to make aquaculture
more sustainable—regulations aren’t key
Associated Press, 89
(The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, 12-16-89, “Bureaucracy Called to Block Aquaculture”,
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19891216&id=t6xjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=reED
AAAAIBAJ&pg=6878,4591771, amp)
But despite its promise, aquaculture is confronted with obstacles, others said. Concerns about use of
resources and conservation have netted a confusing network of permits required by someone starting a fish farm, said Ernest
Brannon. director of the University of Idaho's aquaculture program. "In some cases, 26 different permits are
needed to start up." Brannon said. "The major obstacles (to expansion of the industry) tend to
be bureaucracy in obtaining permits from governmental agencies." Brannon said
the industry needs to cooperate with regulators to address environmental and other
concerns. Research into water quality issues is being done at the region's
universities in order to make the industry less threatening to domestic supplies. hesaid. The industry could double or triple during the next decade, but political squabbles
could limit the possibilities, said John Forster, president of the Washington Fish
Growers Association. Rather than expanding and marketing their products, fish farmers
"spend a lot of time fighting other issues, such as development and siting issues."
Forster said. '
China solves
Squo solves
2NC short laundry list wall – China aquaculture
sustainable now
Chinese aquaculture is ecologically sustainable now—multiple
warrants
The 11th 5 year plan solves
NSBO, 10
(Netherlands Business Support Office, “An overview of China's aquaculture”,
http://china.nlambassade.org/binaries/content/assets/postenweb/c/china/zaken-doen-inchina/import/kansen_en_sectoren/agrofood/rapporten_over_agro_food/an-overview-ofchinas-aquaculture, amp)
Nowadays, the main development of aquaculture is based on depletion of natural resources and expansion of culture area. At the
same time, resources have not been used efficiently and occurrences of diseases are still quite frequent. In the 11 th 5 year
plan, the government has planned to develop new technologies and healthy culture. The
main aims in the field of fisheries during the 11 th 5 year plan period are as following: 1. To accelerate
the transfer of scientific and technological achievements into commercial/mass
production and get an over 50% transferring rate. 2. To set up a complete system of developing good
strain seed and corresponding breeding technology. Cultivate around 10 new good species or strains in
aquaculture. 3. To achieve a significant improvement on techniques for aquatic
organisms conservation and aquatic ecology, and put the scientific achievements
in areas of selective capture, prevention of pollutions and recovery of environment
to use efficiently. 4. To increase the percentage of processing aquatic products from 35% to 45%, and develop techniques
for processing products and value added products. 5. To get a breakthrough in diseases prevention
technology of cultured species and food safety control system. Develop more than six
new kinds of compound feed and four new kinds of vaccine for aquatic products. In
the period of the 11 th 5 year plan, legislation on fishery rights got an important
breakthrough. For the first time, it was clearly defined that the farmers’ right of culturing and fishing in waters and tidal
area are protected by the law. Some relevant standards for fisheries such as standard of
pollution free aquatic product, standard of waste water discharge in freshwater
aquaculture have also been set up. Meanwhile, the supervision and testing system of
residues of antibiotics and chemicals in aquatic products is improving. The Food
Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China, which was adopted at the 7th Session of the
Standing Committee of the 11th National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China on February 28, 2009, was
promulgated and had come into force as of June 1, 2009.
New tech
NSBO, 10
(Netherlands Business Support Office, “An overview of China's aquaculture”,
http://china.nlambassade.org/binaries/content/assets/postenweb/c/china/zaken-doen-inchina/import/kansen_en_sectoren/agrofood/rapporten_over_agro_food/an-overview-ofchinas-aquaculture, amp)
China’s academies of science and universities are the main sources for new
technologies and innovation. In the past, the scientific achievements of the institutes and
universities haven’t been transferred into mass production efficiently and in time.
Recently, the government has realized this problem and begins to improve transferring
efficiency of new research achievements. At the same time, some academies begin to
cooperate with farming companies. Disease curing and prevention, health farming and
cultivation of good quality strain are the main interests of the research area. Some
new technologies are elaborated below: GMO engineering has been used in some
aquaculture species. Polyploid breeding of some species have achieved and come to mass production. The polyploidy
product has the advantages in growth, yield and stress resistance ability. For example,
the triploid product has the characteristic of sterility, and no need to consume energy for gonad growth, and it
has a great significant advantage in growth. Normally polyploid can be induced by biological, chemical and physical methods. The
disease prevention and treatment of aquaculture species become an important issue when the intensive aquaculture getting more
and more popular. In the past, antibiotic has been used to solve the problem. However nowadays the antibiotic abuses make some
bacteria get drug resistance, on the other hand, most antibiotics have been prohibited to use in aquaculture. Under this
circumstance, some immunopotentiator are studied to improve the anti diseases ability
of the cultured species. Currently, Taurine, lactoferrine and Vitamin E have been used
to improve the immunity of the products and have got good effects. Traditional
Chinese herb medicines begins to use in aquaculture in recent years. Using the
Chinese herb medicine can get following effects: decrease the feed conversion
ratio, improve the growth rate, cure some diseases and also can prevent some
diseases. Nowadays, a number of preparations of probiotics are commercially available and
have been introduced to fish, shrimp and molluscan farming as feed additives, or
are incorporated in pond water. These products are effective in supporting the health
of aquatic animals. Replacement of fish meal is always a hot subject to study. Feed cost is the main cost in finfish
aquaculture and account for around 50% of the total cost (Guo, et al., 2005). Feed Cost is mainly decided by feed price and feed
conversation ratio. The price of feed in mainly determined by the protein sources, of which, fishmeal is the essential and traditional
one. Recently many researches have been conducted to find the substitute of fishmeal. Following cheap protein feedstuffs, poultry by
product meal, meat and bone meal, feather meal, blood meal, soybean meal, cottonseed meal and rapeseed meal, have been used as
part of protein source in feed recently. In China, fish vaccines had been researched around 30 years before, they went
through a rapid development period and now are
at a new age. Though fish vaccines is mainly stay
on research stage, they began to used in commercial production more and more
recently. Fish vaccines can play an important role in control of fish diseases,
especially in the control of some malignant infectious diseases.
bioremediation
Yi et al, 5
(Yi Zhou, Hongsheng Yang, Haiyan Hu, Ying Liu, Yuze Mao, Hua Zhou, Xinling Xu, Fusui
Zhang, Key Laboratory of Marine Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Institute of Oceanology,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, 1-31-2005, “ Bioremediation potential of the macroalga
Gracilaria lemaneiformis (Rhodophyta) integrated into fed fish culture in coastal waters
of north China ”,
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://www.meercas.com/d/file/topic/zuixin
yanjiulunwen/2009-0528/aba10ef90558f5a2e7f5007de1dccd3b.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm2e5ORNFNrqru7MKUAW
2lUZdYdzhQ&oi=scholarr, amp)
In recent years, there has been increasing emphasis on developing sustainable approaches to
coastal aqua cultures (Folke and Kautsky, 1989; Wurts, 2000; Frankic and Hershner, 2003; Neori et al., 2004). The
cultured organisms in different trophic levels are the basis of environmentally friendly
aquaculture (Chopin et al., 2001; Neori et al., 2004). It is ideal to accommodate two or more
ecologically compatible species in one system; they can co-inhabit an environment with
no conflict in foods and space (e.g.,Neori et al., 2000; Zhou et al., in press). By integrating fed mar iculture
(e.g., fish and shrimp) with inorganic and organic extractive mariculture (seaweed and filter feeding
bivalve), the wastes of one resource consumer become a resource (fertilizer or food) for others
in the system. Such a balanced ecosystem approach provides nutrient
bioremediation capacity, mutual benefits to co-cultured organisms, and economic diversification
by producing other value-added profitable products (Chopin et al., 2001). Biofiltration
allows for environmentally sustainable mariculture (Schuenhoff et al., 2003; Neori et al., 2004). The
benefits of integrating the production of macroalgae (seaweeds) with the fed mariculture of fish or invertebrates to recapture waste
nutrients are well known (Neori et al., 1996; Troell et al., 1997; Chopin et al., 2001). Modern
integrated
mariculture systems, seaweed-based in particular, are bound to play a major role in sustainable
development in coastal aquaculture (Neori et al., 2004). Fish effluents produced by open-water systems are
more difficult to treat than those from land-based systems (Troell et al., 1999a). Water-quality processes in open-water
integrated mariculture are most comparable to natural ones (Neori et al., 2004). However, studies
investigating the open-water integrated mariculture approach have been hampered by the difficulties involved with experimentation
and data collection at sea (Petrell and Alie, 1996; Troell et al., 1997; Chopin et al., 2001; Neori et al., 2004). Integration with
seaweeds and/or filter feeders is often proved to be the only economically feasible alternative for waste treatment in open-water
systems (Troell et al., 2003). The use of seaweeds integrated with fish culture in open-sea systems
has been studied in Canada, Chile, the United States, Japan, and China (Petrell et al.,
1993; Petrell and Alie, 1996; Troell et al., 1997; Chopin et al., 1999; Fei et al., 2002).
Chinese regulations
FAO, 3
(Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, “Aquaculture Development in
China: The Role of Public Sector Policies”,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4762e/y4762e06.htm, amp)
The Chinese Government always attaches great importance to the legal system for
the fishery sector. The basic law in fisheries and aquaculture is "The fisheries law of
People’s Republic of China" which was promulgated by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in
1986, and was revised in 2000. It first set up the guiding principle in the fishery sector, which consists
of simultaneously developing aquaculture, fishing, and processing, with special emphasis on aquaculture. It also
regulated specially the for-not-fishing species, fishing areas, fishing methods and
fishing periods. The goal was to protect the fishery resources. Some regulations, rules, or
directive notices are also important parts of the legal system regulating aquaculture
development. All these provide safeguards for sustainable aquaculture development in
China, taking account of the following points: 1. Protect fishery resources After the "Regulation on breeding and
protection of aquatic resources" was put into effect in 1979, several regulations or laws were promulgated for protection of the
fishery resources. Besides the "The fisheries law of the People’s Republic of China" in 1986, there were the
"Implement regulation on protection of aquatic wild animal", in 1993, on the protection and
breeding of aquatic wild animal. In 1999, the Government established the policy of zero growth
on fishing, enhanced policy of fishing ban period to protect fishery resources. To some
extent these policies encouraged the farmers to take up aquaculture industry. 2. Provide access to water areas and
management Water areas and aquaculture lands in China are either state-owned or
collective. Producers can get user rights through contracts. The laws providing user
rights for water areas and lands are "The Agriculture law of the People’s Republic of
China" and "The fisheries law of the People’s Republic of China". Chapter II of the "Fisheries
law" defines the provisions on water use. The following passages extracted from the chapter illustrate some of the important points
on the use and access to water. In particular, Article 10 states: "The State encourages units owned by the
whole people, units owned by the collective and individuals to make full use of water areas and tidal flats
that are united to aquaculture department". Article 11: "The State makes unified plans for the use of water areas and
designates water areas and tidal flats that can be used for aquaculture. Any unit and/or individual that wishes to use the water areas
or tidal flats owned by the whole people and designated for aquaculture according to national plans shall apply to the administrative
department for fisheries under the local people’s government at or above the county level. An aquaculture permit
shall be issued after examination by the people’s government concerned, allowing
the applicant to use certain water areas or tidal for aquaculture. Specific measures for
examining and issuing aquaculture permits shall be formulated by the State Council. The water areas and
tidal flats owned by the collective or by the whole people but used by agricultural collective economic organizations may be
contracted out to individuals or collectives for aquaculture". Article 13: "Where a dispute arises between
the
parties over the use of the water areas or tidal flats designated for aquaculture according to national plans, it
shall be handled in accordance with the procedures prescribed by relevant laws. Pending settlement of the
dispute, no party to the dispute may disrupt aquacultural production". Producers are
provided the rights for the use and management of water areas or tidal flats. They can make decisions as to
what and when to produce based on their knowledge of the market. These regulations
greatly strengthened
farmers’ confidence and encouraged investments in aquaculture. 3. Protect the environment
The rapid development of aquaculture caused some environmental problems. To reduce the impact on
environment and ecosystem, the Government issued the "Water Standard for
Fishery Sector" regulation. This was based on the principles stipulated in the
"Environment Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China" and the "Water
Pollution Prevention Law of the People’s Republic of China". Besides water
pollution, the ecological impact resulting from the loss of genetic biodiversity as
well as other environmental issues are also of concern to the Government and are
dealt with under these regulations. 4. Control aquaculture production methods and
practices To maintain sustainable and healthy aquaculture, the Government put emphasis
on monitoring aquaculture production practices including important factors of
production such as seed and feed. Fully aware of the importance and the dangers
which can result from the abusive use of production inputs such as seed, feed,
drugs and chemicals in aquaculture development , the Government enacted laws and
regulations for their control. Thus, the production of seed must be approved by the fishery
authorities above the county level. The import-export of seed must be approved by
the fishery authorities by the State or Provincial government according to the provisions of the
"Fisheries Law of the People’s Republic of China". To control seed production, a "National Committee
on High Quality Original Seed" was created in 1991. Regulations were also passed
as the "Administrative Rules on Aquatic Seed" in 1992 and as the "Administrative
Rules on High Quality Original Aquatic Seed" in 1999. In 1999, two documents, namely
the "List and Usage of Pharmaceuticals that can be Used for Aquaculture" and the "List of Pharmaceuticals that cannot be Used for
Aquaculture" were released by the Government to guide the use of drugs in aquaculture.
Feed for aquaculture is another important issue for aquaculture production. The
"Administrative Rules on Feed
and Feed Additives" issued by the Ministry of Agriculture in 2000 is the new
regulation which governs feed production, including fish feed. Specific standards
for the formulation and processing of fish feed were defined by the Government
for inclusion into the Government regulations that guide the feed industry. In
1999, the Government issued the "Regulation on Healthy and Safe Aquaculture
Production", which will promote healthy and safe aquaculture practices in the
country. 5. Aquatic food safety In addition to the regulations on aquaculture drugs and feed use in the production of
fish, special regulations on the processing of aquaculture products have also been
issued by the Government. The aim was to control the business environment of the industry for the interest of the
public. The "Administrative Rules on Aquatic Product Processing", which was issued by the
Ministry of Agriculture in 1999, spells out detailed requirements for food safety and
prevention of health hazards in the processing and packaging of aquatic products.
Food safety improvements
NSBO, 10
(Netherlands Business Support Office, “An overview of China's aquaculture”,
http://china.nlambassade.org/binaries/content/assets/postenweb/c/china/zaken-doen-inchina/import/kansen_en_sectoren/agrofood/rapporten_over_agro_food/an-overview-ofchinas-aquaculture, amp)
Nowadays Chinese government is making a lot of efforts to improve the food safety
and quality. Firstly, the training of farmers has been emphasized. In China most farmers are
not well educated and have no much knowledge on regulations and rules. Many of them don’t know about the chemicals and
antibiotics which forbidden to use and their impacts for the health risk. In some areas, short training
programs have been hold by local governments to teach the farmer about the
related knowledge. Secondly, the traceability system was built. The finished
products are companied with the lot number of raw materials. Based on the lot
number, the products can be traced to the culture ponds. Thirdly, testing and
monitor 1 6 technique are the basic of food safety control. Many researches in testing
and monitor technique area had been conducted recently.
General
Status quo solves sustainable aquaculture—multiple incentives
Bondad-Reantoso et al, 5
(Melba, Rohana P. Subasinghe, J. Richard Arthur, Kazuo Ogawa, Supranee Chinabut, Robert
Adlard, Zilong Tan, Mohamed Shariff, *Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the UN, **Department of Aquatic Bioscience, Graduate School of Agricultural
and Life Sciences - The University of Tokyo, ***Department of Fisheries, Kasetsart University
Campus, ****Queensland Museum, Biodiversity Program, *****Intervet Norbio Singapore Pte
Ltd, ******Universiti Putra Malaysia, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia,
“Disease and health management in Asian aquaculture”, Elsevier, Science Direct, amp)
6.5. Biosecurity There will be increasing demand for improved aquatic animal
biosecurity . This will be driven by
multiple objectives
(aquaculture, wild fisheries and the general environment),
such as resource protection
food security, trade, consumer preference
for high quality and safe products, production profitability, investment and
development issues, and new threats of emerging health problems (e.g. new diseases/
pathogens, new hosts for well-studied pathogens). Biosecurity programmes have a strong scientific
basis and use risk assessment to evaluate the most significant disease hazards, their
possible routes of entry, the likelihood of them becoming established, the possibilities of spread and risk management approaches in
order to ensure appropriate protection. Risk analysis for aquatic animal trade provides a science-based, justifiable means to
estimate the risks posed to aquaculture and aquatic biodiversity due to pathogen introduction or, in a more specific form, the risk to
a particular farm unit. Such analysis makes use of scientific and technical information as a basis
for policy development and decisions, and can also be used to identify knowledge
gaps and thereby assist in prioritizing future research direction and priorities. The
process employs sound epidemiological principles, approach and data. Epidemiology, the study of the frequency, determinants and
distribution of disease, has as its ultimate objective the resolving of animal health problems (Thursfield, 1995).
Epidemiological studies generate the data required for risk analyses; biosecurity measures require good information
for accurate assessment, which leads to appropriate risk management decisions. Thus, biosecurity, risk
analysis and epidemiology are highly interrelated and are all aimed at making good use of scientific research for disease prevention,
control and management.
Chinese guidelines ensure ecologically sound practices
FAO, 3
(Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, “Aquaculture Development in
China: The Role of Public Sector Policies”,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4762e/y4762e06.htm, amp)
To further foster and boost the sustainable and rapid development of aquaculture, the State
Council issued another "Directive Notice on the Approval and Implementation of
the Instruction of the Ministry of Agriculture to Further Expedite the Development
of the Fishery Sector" in 1997. This Notice demanded further reform and liberalization of the
market to further strengthen the development of aquaculture and a radical change of
the structure of the fishery sector and approaches to promote the growth of the economy. It also requested that
the species mix and production structure should be adjusted to market conditions and that new technologies should be put into
wider practice as soon as possible to improve the performance of the whole fishery sector. The Notice also set the
following additional guidelines to further develop the sector: Productivity improvement or
higher output per unit of input will be the major effort to further develop the aquaculture sector. This can be achieved by improving
the technology employed, promoting the use of high value species and by adjusting species mix or choice of the species cultured
based on market condition; Strong efforts shall be exerted to step up the greater and wider cultivation of the under- or unutilized
"three uncultivated lands" (water surface, mudflat, flooded land suitable or fit for aquaculture) to make full use of the ‘cultivable’
aquatic lands; Aquaculture licences for newly cultivated aquaculture lands can be given to local collectives or villages. These licences
can be distributed to producers on a ‘production-by-production’ contract basis, rental basis or temporary lease transfer basis and
even by auction; The Chinese aquaculture industry should be further liberalized and market regulations enacted and enhanced to
promote the large-scale development of the industry; Aquaculture and the other agricultural industries should be equally developed
in all possible regions of the country. Ecologically sound or ecosystem-based agriculture systems
like integrated fish-livestock-silkworm-mulberry bush farming systems or fish
culture in paddy fields should be actively promoted; In regions where the incidence of poverty is high
or where poverty is endemic, especially in the mid-west region of China that is rich in or well endowed with aquaculture resources
aquaculture should be adopted not only as the source and means of livelihood and food security but also as the main engine to drive
the economy of the region in the fight against poverty and malnutrition; Enterprises, either public or private sector businesses
engaged in aquaculture in the newly cultivated lands from the "three uncultivated lands" or in education or research in aquaculture
such as in the production or development of aquatic seed and new species should be exempted from the agricultural special product
taxes as an incentive; Available fiscal support and other assistance from all levels of government for developing aquaculture should
be kept and/or even increased, if necessary to promote aquaculture investments; As aquaculture production bases in suburban areas
are the main suppliers of aquatic products for the cities, the acquisition and requisition of land for aquaculture should be prioritized
and conversely denied or disallowed if aquaculture land is being taken out of aquaculture for other non-aquaculture use unless such
requisition is in the national interests or for the common good of all citizens in the area; More investments should
be made in the production of quality seed and fish health management to promote
sustainable aquaculture development and management; Aquaculture health
management problems, in particular the treatment of fish diseases should be solved by the guiding
principle of "prevention first, prevention and treatment combined" through the
establishment of a network for fish disease protection at different levels
throughout the whole country. These guidelines and prescriptions for action under
the new general policy for aquaculture illustrate the Government’s commitment to
developing the sector in a sustainable way.
Governmental policies resolve sustainability concerns—they motivate
quality seed production and healthy practices
FAO, 3
(Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, “Aquaculture Development in
China: The Role of Public Sector Policies”,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4762e/y4762e06.htm, amp)
The Government’s policies and other timely intervention have greatly contributed to the rapid
development of aquaculture in China in the past twenty years. However, as the industry
developed it soon became apparent that there were serious inherent structural problems, which needed to be addressed if the
industry was to grow further. In the main aquaculture production areas, the supply of aquaculture products of some traditional
species exceeded demand, which resulted in depressed prices. Aquaculture diseases broke out and spread rapidly. All these
developments greatly affected the efficiency of the aquaculture industry and depressed producers’ incomes. In response, in 1999,
the Ministry of Agriculture released a new document called the "Guiding Instrument
on Adjusting the Structure of the Fishery Sector" which was designated to
restructure the fishery sector including aquaculture. As far as aquaculture is concerned, the content/provisions of this
Instrument can be summarized as follows. The guiding rationale is that more effort will be made to develop new
markets and/or expand existing ones, increase demand for fish through market promotion and develop new value-added products
as well as improve the quality of aquatic products through tech nological innovation,
provision of improved infrastructures and facilities and reform of the legal system.
The guiding principles of the structural reform of the sector are: promotion of open market
operations by fostering the establishment of competitive marketing services, analysis of market demand and supply conditions and
provision of market and price intelligence to producers and consumers alike to increase the efficiency of the aquaculture industry; to
capitalize on favourable regional comparative advantages such as under-exploited natural resources endowment, growing and
under-supplied markets and available advanced technology by investing in aquaculture development; greater reliance on
technology to further strengthen the resilience and health of aquaculture through promoting
technological innovation on aquatic seed quality and fish health management respect of
farmers’ rights to make production decisions. The fishery authorities at all levels should refrain from giving directives,
unless necessary. Instead, the authorities should facilitate and formulate enabling and practicable policies and
guidelines to
speed up structural reform of the fishery sector, including providing
information and setting up pilot farm to guide them. The main constraint to
aquaculture development in China is still the low supply and ready availability of quality seed
at the place and time needed. Good quality seeds should be available wherever and whenever they are needed for stocking. As for
species, the seed production of shrimp and crab is still low compared to shellfish and seaweed in marine aquaculture. For freshwater
aquaculture, it is finfish seed. The second major constraint is that in some of the well-established aquaculture areas, the supply of
the traditionally cultured species such as Chinese carps greatly exceeds the demand in the market, which pulled the prices down
considerably. Also, the high value or market-preferred species, which are in demand in the domestic and international markets, are
not fully exploited on a large scale. The third is that the farming systems are out-dated or behind time as far as the application of the
latest modern technology or latest development in aquaculture technology. The latest scientific and technological advances are not
widely applied in upgrading and improving the systems of production. As a result, the farming or production systems are not as
efficient as they can. This implies that the costs of production of aquaculture products can be further reduced by improving its
efficiency, thus making Chinese aquaculture products more competitive in the international markets. The fourth constraint
is water pollution and frequent outbreaks of fish diseases. This constraint is becoming more
serious and is rapidly spreading due to increasing water pollution. It is not only becoming a health hazard but also increases the cost
of production. To overcome these constraints, the Notice provides the following
instructions: Develop industrialized farming systems by improving the design and
upgrading the systems of production employing the latest technology and selecting
the best combination of species to be cultured based on market conditions prevailing in both the
domestic and international markets. For freshwater aquaculture, increase the market share and thus the proportion of production of
the high value or high quality new species for culture as well as the species suitable for export. To increase its production and market
or business efficiency, their production must be operated on a large-scale industrial basis. In parts of the country where poverty
remains, the fishery sector, especially aquaculture production must be actively promoted as the
main agriculture practice to increase the income of the rural people by developing
paddy field fish culture and other integrated ecosystem-based aquatic production.
Greater attention must be given to the production of high quality seed, making use of modern
biotechnology to select and breed high quality seed using, wherever appropriate imported high quality seed. At the same time,
industrial-scale aquaculture farming systems can be developed, taking advantage or making full use of the different regional
resources endowment and unique characteristics of the region. Establish as soon as possible an integrated
scientific system and network of fish breeding and seed production of high quality
indigenous or endemic species as well as fish health management and disease
prevention, diagnosis, control and treatment. This will ensure that quality seed
and fish health clinical services will be available at the time and place they are needed by the farmers
and other interested parties. This Notice of Instruction is another important instrument for
further development and growth of aquaculture in China. It aims to guide the
development of aquaculture in a sustainable way in the new century and new millennium.
It provides a sound planning framework of ‘causes and effects’ as well as the ‘endsmeans’ relationships, highlighting the constraints and possible solutions to the
problems identified.
ASC certification is producing a more sustainable form of aquaculture
in China and other countries now
ASC, 12
(Aquaculture Stewardship Council, 10-12-12, “Major EU Project for ASC: Greening the Supply of
Chinese Tilapia”, http://www.asc-aqua.org/index.cfm?act=update.detail&uid=137, amp)
The Aquaculture Stewardship Council has formed an alliance with two partners in
China, the China Aquatic Products Processing and Marketing Alliance (CAPPMA) and WWF China, to begin to
tackle the problem of how to help the world’s biggest grower of Tilapia to operate
in a more environmentally sustainable way. This has been made possible by a
grant of €1 million from the European Union (EU). Tilapia is the second largest species of fish farmed (after carp)
worldwide. Global production of farmed tilapia is almost 3 million metric tonnes a year, with 40% produced by China. Four southern
provinces, Hainan, Guangdong, Guangxi, and Fujian, account for about 90% of China’s total production. China is the world’s biggest
tilapia exporter, with over 50% of Chinese tilapia entering into the global market. The EU is currently the third largest importer of
Chinese tilapia, with a share of around 10%. An increasing number of European consumers are buying tilapia and the EU is a
growing market for Chinese tilapia. But there are two major challenges facing tilapia aquaculture in China. The first is a lack of
transparency in the supply chain. Without access to sufficient information on issues such as traceability, hygienic regulation and
environmental management, the confidence of consumers in the industry and its products will be lower than desirable. The second
is the known weakness of the production system in some Chinese Tilapia farms where unsustainable practices such as poorly
managed chemical use, pollution to waterways, species invasion and conversion of natural wetlands is known to exist. The ASC
partnership with CAPPMA and WWF China will tackle these problems and help to
drive the Chinese Tilapia aquaculture industry towards a more sustainable basis.
With a grant of €1 million from the EU-China Environmental Governance
Programme, the action will engage Tilapia aquaculture enterprises in China
proactively and promote more sustainable practices. In addition, it will also enable public
access to information on the Tilapia supply chain, raise consumer awareness and
advise the government of China on sustainable fish farming policies. Welcoming this new
initiative for the ASC Chris Ninnes, CEO, commented “this is a most challenging, but exciting, project for the ASC. Thanks to
the support of the EU, the ASC and its two partners CAPPMA and WWF China will
be able to begin to help move a key industry towards a more environmentally
sustainable, socially responsible form of operation. Tilapia producers in China, and consumers in Europe as well as in
China and elsewhere, will have a new opportunity to encourage and support fish farmers of Tilapia who follow best practice in this
important industry. European retailers and food service providers are keen to buy ASC certified Chinese Tilapia. It is up to all of us
to help develop the market in the right way and ensure that this most valuable EU initiative succeeds. The two year long
project has three specific objectives: to improve the transparency of Chinese Tilapia
aquaculture production by improving public (both in China and Europe) access to detailed
information on the Tilapia supply chain; to promote sustainable production of Chinese Tilapia by
introducing ASC standards to China and supporting leading Chinese Tilapia
producers selling to the European market to achieve ASC Certification; and to
establish and maintain an effective information sharing platform accessible to the public and to
advocate for policy and guide consumer demand that can enable and encourage
sustainable Tilapia production practices. Cui He, Vice Executive President and Secretary-General CAAPMA
said “China as the largest developing country is also a power in aquaculture. Developing countries contribute nearly an 80% share of
the global aquaculture industry, so how to guide them to go down a sustainable aquaculture road seems very important. The
Chinese Tilapia industry is looking for the sustainable development method all the
time. Based on the chance given by the EU project, CAPPMA would like to direct Chinese Tilapia producers towards complying
with the ASC standards. Through the encouragement from capable and responsible big Tilapia
companies that implement the ASC standards first, the whole tilapia industry can
enjoy an improvement in environmental and social benefits. CAPPMA really hopes that the goal of the
sustainable development of the Chinese Tilapia industry can be achieved early as more companies achieve ASC certification.“ A
spokesman for the third partner, WWF China, Wang Songlin, Senior Marine Programme Officer said “this is a remarkable moment
for WWF and our partners to kick off the transformative change in China’s enormous Tilapia aquaculture sector towards higher
efficiency and measurable environmental sustainability. It is great that we are not only witnessing this change, but also contributing
to it.” Recently the first ASC certified farmed fish products entered the world’s seafood
markets. So far eight Tilapia farms in Indonesia, Ecuador and Honduras have
received ASC certification.
Chinas integrated aquaculture solves sustainable practices
Chopin et al, 1
(Thierry, Alejandro Buschmann, Christina Halling, Max Troell, Nils Kautsky, Amir Neori,
George Kraemer, Jose Gonzalez, Charles Yarish, Christopher Neefus, all of them have PhDs in
and are professors of ecology, *University of New Brunswick, **Universidad de Los Lagos,
***Stockholm University, ****Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics,
*****Stockholm University, etc, “INTEGRATING SEAWEEDS INTO MARINE AQUACULTURE
SYSTEMS: A KEY TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY”, Journal of Psychology, Wiley Online Library,
amp)
Asian countries, which provide more than two thirds of the world’s aquaculture production,
have been practicing integrated aquaculture , through trial and error and experimentation,
for centuries (Li 1987, Tian et al. 1987, Wei 1990, Liao 1992, Edwards 1992, 1993, Chan 1993, Chiang 1993, Qian et al. 1996).
Interestingly, civilizations
most successful at developing integrated aquaculture systems are the
ones that treat wastes as valuable resources to be reused as they have understood
the meaning of the word recycling for centuries. Integrated farming, especially in
freshwater and brackish pond systems, is an ancient practice in China, which has become more
refined as a consequence of the agricultural and rural development policies implemented since
1949. These policies were motivated by the need to maximize productivity per unit
of land and water bodies and were based on diversified self-reliance in food and basic
raw material production and the philosophy that the by-products (wastes) from one
resource use must become an input into another use of resources (Ruddle and Zhong 1988).
Western countries are regularly reinventing the wheel (Ryther et al. 1979, Indergaard and Jensen
1983, Kautsky et al. 1996, Chopin et al. 1999b). However, the determination to develop integrated aquaculture systems will only
come about if there is a major change in the attitude of consumers toward eating products cultured on wastes and in political, social,
and economic reasoning by seeking sustainability, long-term profitability, and responsible management of coastal waters.
The 11th 5 year plan solves—our evidence is predictive of improving
conditions
NSBO, 10
(Netherlands Business Support Office, “An overview of China's aquaculture”,
http://china.nlambassade.org/binaries/content/assets/postenweb/c/china/zaken-doen-inchina/import/kansen_en_sectoren/agrofood/rapporten_over_agro_food/an-overview-ofchinas-aquaculture, amp)
Nowadays, the main development of aquaculture is based on depletion of natural resources and expansion of culture area. At the
same time, resources have not been used efficiently and occurrences of diseases are still quite frequent. In the 11 th 5 year
plan, the government has planned to develop new technologies and healthy culture. The
main aims in the field of fisheries during the 11 th 5 year plan period are as following: 1. To accelerate
the transfer of scientific and technological achievements into commercial/mass
production and get an over 50% transferring rate. 2. To set up a complete system of developing good
strain seed and corresponding breeding technology. Cultivate around 10 new good species or strains in
aquaculture. 3. To achieve a significant improvement on techniques for aquatic
organisms conservation and aquatic ecology, and put the scientific achievements
in areas of selective capture, prevention of pollutions and recovery of environment
to use efficiently. 4. To increase the percentage of processing aquatic products from 35% to 45%, and develop techniques
for processing products and value added products. 5. To get a breakthrough in diseases prevention
technology of cultured species and food safety control system. Develop more than six
new kinds of compound feed and four new kinds of vaccine for aquatic products. In
the period of the 11 th 5 year plan, legislation on fishery rights got an important
breakthrough. For the first time, it was clearly defined that the farmers’ right of culturing and fishing in waters and tidal
area are protected by the law. Some relevant standards for fisheries such as standard of
pollution free aquatic product, standard of waste water discharge in freshwater
aquaculture have also been set up. Meanwhile, the supervision and testing system of
residues of antibiotics and chemicals in aquatic products is improving. The Food
Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China, which was adopted at the 7th Session of the
Standing Committee of the 11th National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China on February 28, 2009, was
promulgated and had come into force as of June 1, 2009.
New tech solves
NSBO, 10
(Netherlands Business Support Office, “An overview of China's aquaculture”,
http://china.nlambassade.org/binaries/content/assets/postenweb/c/china/zaken-doen-inchina/import/kansen_en_sectoren/agrofood/rapporten_over_agro_food/an-overview-ofchinas-aquaculture, amp)
China’s academies of science and universities are the main sources for new
technologies and innovation. In the past, the scientific achievements of the institutes and
universities haven’t been transferred into mass production efficiently and in time.
Recently, the government has realized this problem and begins to improve transferring
efficiency of new research achievements. At the same time, some academies begin to
cooperate with farming companies. Disease curing and prevention, health farming and
cultivation of good quality strain are the main interests of the research area. Some
new technologies are elaborated below: GMO engineering has been used in some
aquaculture species. Polyploid breeding of some species have achieved and come to mass production. The polyploidy
product has the advantages in growth, yield and stress resistance ability. For example,
the triploid product has the characteristic of sterility, and no need to consume energy for gonad growth, and it
has a great significant advantage in growth. Normally polyploid can be induced by biological, chemical and physical methods. The
disease prevention and treatment of aquaculture species become an important issue when the intensive aquaculture getting more
and more popular. In the past, antibiotic has been used to solve the problem. However nowadays the antibiotic abuses make some
bacteria get drug resistance, on the other hand, most antibiotics have been prohibited to use in aquaculture. Under this
circumstance, some immunopotentiator are studied to improve the anti diseases ability
of the cultured species. Currently, Taurine, lactoferrine and Vitamin E have been used
to improve the immunity of the products and have got good effects. Traditional
Chinese herb medicines begins to use in aquaculture in recent years. Using the
Chinese herb medicine can get following effects: decrease the feed conversion
ratio, improve the growth rate, cure some diseases and also can prevent some
diseases. Nowadays, a number of preparations of probiotics are commercially available and
have been introduced to fish, shrimp and molluscan farming as feed additives, or
are incorporated in pond water. These products are effective in supporting the health
of aquatic animals. Replacement of fish meal is always a hot subject to study. Feed cost is the main cost in finfish
aquaculture and account for around 50% of the total cost (Guo, et al., 2005). Feed Cost is mainly decided by feed price and feed
conversation ratio. The price of feed in mainly determined by the protein sources, of which, fishmeal is the essential and traditional
one. Recently many researches have been conducted to find the substitute of fishmeal. Following cheap protein feedstuffs, poultry by
product meal, meat and bone meal, feather meal, blood meal, soybean meal, cottonseed meal and rapeseed meal, have been used as
part of protein source in feed recently. In China, fish vaccines had been researched around 30 years before, they went
through a rapid development period and now are
at a new age. Though fish vaccines is mainly stay
on research stage, they began to used in commercial production more and more
recently. Fish vaccines can play an important role in control of fish diseases,
especially in the control of some malignant infectious diseases.
Their evidence doesn’t assume bioremediation
Yi et al, 5
(Yi Zhou, Hongsheng Yang, Haiyan Hu, Ying Liu, Yuze Mao, Hua Zhou, Xinling Xu, Fusui
Zhang, Key Laboratory of Marine Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Institute of Oceanology,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, 1-31-2005, “ Bioremediation potential of the macroalga
Gracilaria lemaneiformis (Rhodophyta) integrated into fed fish culture in coastal waters
of north China ”,
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://www.meercas.com/d/file/topic/zuixin
yanjiulunwen/2009-0528/aba10ef90558f5a2e7f5007de1dccd3b.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm2e5ORNFNrqru7MKUAW
2lUZdYdzhQ&oi=scholarr, amp)
In recent years, there
has been increasing emphasis on developing sustainable approaches to
coastal aqua cultures (Folke and Kautsky, 1989; Wurts, 2000; Frankic and Hershner, 2003; Neori et al., 2004). The
cultured organisms in different trophic levels are the basis of environmentally friendly
aquaculture (Chopin et al., 2001; Neori et al., 2004). It is ideal to accommodate two or more
ecologically compatible species in one system; they can co-inhabit an environment with
no conflict in foods and space (e.g.,Neori et al., 2000; Zhou et al., in press). By integrating fed mar iculture
(e.g., fish and shrimp) with inorganic and organic extractive mariculture (seaweed and filter feeding
bivalve), the wastes of one resource consumer become a resource (fertilizer or food) for others
in the system. Such a balanced ecosystem approach provides nutrient
bioremediation capacity, mutual benefits to co-cultured organisms, and economic diversification
by producing other value-added profitable products (Chopin et al., 2001). Biofiltration
allows for environmentally sustainable mariculture (Schuenhoff et al., 2003; Neori et al., 2004). The
benefits of integrating the production of macroalgae (seaweeds) with the fed mariculture of fish or invertebrates to recapture waste
nutrients are well known (Neori et al., 1996; Troell et al., 1997; Chopin et al., 2001). Modern integrated
mariculture systems, seaweed-based in particular, are bound to play a major role in sustainable
development in coastal aquaculture (Neori et al., 2004). Fish effluents produced by open-water systems are
more difficult to treat than those from land-based systems (Troell et al., 1999a). Water-quality processes in open-water
integrated mariculture are most comparable to natural ones (Neori et al., 2004). However, studies
investigating the open-water integrated mariculture approach have been hampered by the difficulties involved with experimentation
and data collection at sea (Petrell and Alie, 1996; Troell et al., 1997; Chopin et al., 2001; Neori et al., 2004). Integration with
seaweeds and/or filter feeders is often proved to be the only economically feasible alternative for waste treatment in open-water
systems (Troell et al., 2003). The use of seaweeds integrated with fish culture in open-sea systems
has been studied in Canada, Chile, the United States, Japan, and China (Petrell et al.,
1993; Petrell and Alie, 1996; Troell et al., 1997; Chopin et al., 1999; Fei et al., 2002).
Solves biodiversity
Chinese governments artificial infusion of biodiversity solves the
impact
FAO, 3
(Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, “Aquaculture Development in
China: The Role of Public Sector Policies”,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4762e/y4762e06.htm, amp)
Due to differences in socio-economic development and cultural traditions, preferences of consumers vary greatly across the country.
Thus, the Government strongly promotes the diversification of species used in aquaculture.
About twenty
years ago, species used for freshwater aquaculture were merely carp species, around
30 species, which include
not only finfish, but also crustaceans, amphibians and other species. In the past 20
years, the Government invested important amounts of money to develop culture and breeding
technologies for new indigenous species. The Government has also been promoting the
introduction of exotic species with good potential for culture in the country. There is a regular
10 species altogether. Currently, commonly cultured freshwater species have exceeded
programme set up in 1994 to especially support the introduction of exotic species. Introduction of exotic species contributed to the
production significantly in the recent years. Tilapia, Malaysian giant freshwater prawn and
European eel are the best examples.
AT no enforcement / Chinese gov doesn’t care enough
China regulates stringently
FAO, 3
(Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, “Aquaculture Development in
China: The Role of Public Sector Policies”,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4762e/y4762e06.htm, amp)
The Chinese Government always attaches great importance to the legal system for
the fishery sector. The basic law in fisheries and aquaculture is "The fisheries law of
People’s Republic of China" which was promulgated by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in
1986, and was revised in 2000. It first set up the guiding principle in the fishery sector, which consists
of simultaneously developing aquaculture, fishing, and processing, with special emphasis on aquaculture. It also
regulated specially the for-not-fishing species, fishing areas, fishing methods and
fishing periods. The goal was to protect the fishery resources. Some regulations, rules, or
directive notices are also important parts of the legal system regulating aquaculture
development. All these provide safeguards for sustainable aquaculture development in
China, taking account of the following points: 1. Protect fishery resources After the "Regulation on breeding and
protection of aquatic resources" was put into effect in 1979, several regulations or laws were promulgated for protection of the
fishery resources. Besides the "The fisheries law of the People’s Republic of China" in 1986, there were the
"Implement regulation on protection of aquatic wild animal", in 1993, on the protection and
breeding of aquatic wild animal. In 1999, the Government established the policy of zero growth
on fishing, enhanced policy of fishing ban period to protect fishery resources. To some
extent these policies encouraged the farmers to take up aquaculture industry. 2. Provide access to water areas and
management Water areas and aquaculture lands in China are either state-owned or
collective. Producers can get user rights through contracts. The laws providing user
rights for water areas and lands are "The Agriculture law of the People’s Republic of
China" and "The fisheries law of the People’s Republic of China". Chapter II of the "Fisheries
law" defines the provisions on water use. The following passages extracted from the chapter illustrate some of the important points
on the use and access to water. In particular, Article 10 states: "The State encourages units owned by the
whole people, units owned by the collective and individuals to make full use of water areas and tidal flats
that are united to aquaculture department". Article 11: "The State makes unified plans for the use of water areas and
designates water areas and tidal flats that can be used for aquaculture. Any unit and/or individual that wishes to use the water areas
or tidal flats owned by the whole people and designated for aquaculture according to national plans shall apply to the administrative
department for fisheries under the local people’s government at or above the county level. An aquaculture permit
shall be issued after examination by the people’s government concerned, allowing
the applicant to use certain water areas or tidal for aquaculture. Specific measures for
examining and issuing aquaculture permits shall be formulated by the State Council. The water areas and
tidal flats owned by the collective or by the whole people but used by agricultural collective economic organizations may be
contracted out to individuals or collectives for aquaculture". Article 13: "Where a dispute arises between
the
parties over the use of the water areas or tidal flats designated for aquaculture according to national plans, it
shall be handled in accordance with the procedures prescribed by relevant laws. Pending settlement of the
dispute, no party to the dispute may disrupt aquacultural production". Producers are
provided the rights for the use and management of water areas or tidal flats. They can make decisions as to
what and when to produce based on their knowledge of the market. These regulations greatly strengthened
farmers’ confidence and encouraged investments in aquaculture. 3. Protect the environment
The rapid development of aquaculture caused some environmental problems. To reduce the impact on
environment and ecosystem, the Government issued the "Water Standard for
Fishery Sector" regulation. This was based on the principles stipulated in the
"Environment Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China" and the "Water
Pollution Prevention Law of the People’s Republic of China". Besides water
pollution, the ecological impact resulting from the loss of genetic biodiversity as
well as other environmental issues are also of concern to the Government and are
dealt with under these regulations. 4. Control aquaculture production methods and
practices To maintain sustainable and healthy aquaculture, the Government put emphasis
on monitoring aquaculture production practices including important factors of
production such as seed and feed. Fully aware of the importance and the dangers
which can result from the abusive use of production inputs such as seed, feed,
drugs and chemicals in aquaculture development , the Government enacted laws and
regulations for their control. Thus, the production of seed must be approved by the fishery
authorities above the county level. The import-export of seed must be approved by
the fishery authorities by the State or Provincial government according to the provisions of the
"Fisheries Law of the People’s Republic of China". To control seed production, a "National Committee
on High Quality Original Seed" was created in 1991. Regulations were also passed
as the "Administrative Rules on Aquatic Seed" in 1992 and as the "Administrative
Rules on High Quality Original Aquatic Seed" in 1999. In 1999, two documents, namely
the "List and Usage of Pharmaceuticals that can be Used for Aquaculture" and the "List of Pharmaceuticals that cannot be Used for
Aquaculture" were released by the Government to guide the use of drugs in aquaculture.
Feed for aquaculture is another important issue for aquaculture production. The
"Administrative Rules on Feed
and Feed Additives" issued by the Ministry of Agriculture in 2000 is the new
regulation which governs feed production, including fish feed. Specific standards
for the formulation and processing of fish feed were defined by the Government
for inclusion into the Government regulations that guide the feed industry. In
1999, the Government issued the "Regulation on Healthy and Safe Aquaculture
Production", which will promote healthy and safe aquaculture practices in the
country. 5. Aquatic food safety In addition to the regulations on aquaculture drugs and feed use in the production of
fish, special regulations on the processing of aquaculture products have also been
issued by the Government. The aim was to control the business environment of the industry for the interest of the
public. The "Administrative Rules on Aquatic Product Processing", which was issued by the
Ministry of Agriculture in 1999, spells out detailed requirements for food safety and
prevention of health hazards in the processing and packaging of aquatic products.
AT no species diversification
Governmental policy infuses new species
FAO, 3
(Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, “Aquaculture Development in
China: The Role of Public Sector Policies”,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4762e/y4762e06.htm, amp)
Due to differences in socio-economic development and cultural traditions, preferences of consumers vary greatly across the country.
Thus, the Government strongly promotes the diversification of species used in aquaculture.
About twenty
years ago, species used for freshwater aquaculture were merely carp species, around
30 species, which include
not only finfish, but also crustaceans, amphibians and other species. In the past 20
years, the Government invested important amounts of money to develop culture and breeding
technologies for new indigenous species. The Government has also been promoting the
introduction of exotic species with good potential for culture in the country. There is a regular
10 species altogether. Currently, commonly cultured freshwater species have exceeded
programme set up in 1994 to especially support the introduction of exotic species. Introduction of exotic species contributed to the
production significantly in the recent years. Tilapia, Malaysian giant freshwater prawn and
European eel are the best examples.
AT seed issues
Government steps solve seed quality issues
FAO, 3
(Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, “Aquaculture Development in
China: The Role of Public Sector Policies”,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4762e/y4762e06.htm, amp)
Realizing the crucial importance of high quality seed production in sustainable
development of the aquaculture industry, the Government took the following steps: 1.
Encouragement of private investment in hatcheries Before 1978, nearly all hatcheries were in the Government’s
hands. Currently, most are owned and operated by the private sector (individuals or families), cooperatives and corporations,
although cooperative ownership is gradually changing into corporate ownership[11]. Most of the investments are made
in species with high commercial value and in high demand by the consuming public. These species
are frequently new species which are not yet available in the Chinese market. They include a wide range of species from shellfish
(scallop and abalone) to crustacean (Litopenaeus vannamei), from amphibians (American frog) to reptiles (turtle and crocodile) as
well as from endangered (sturgeon) to exotic species (turbot). About 90 percent of the investors are private, some coming from
abroad. The productive capacity of these hatcheries is still low as most are small-scale. Large-scale ones can produce good quantities
of seeds. For example, one abalone hatchery and farm in Guangdong can produce 15-20 million seeds and 300 tonnes of edible
abalone annually. All the other breeding stations and bases are State-owned. Their operations are financed from Government funds
and income from selling seeds. 2. Seed quality control policy The Government established the
China National Fish Protogenic and Fine Seed Certification Committee in 1991. A
great deal of work was accomplished in the field of for fish seed production and quality
management. This includes the development of fish seed management methods,
identification of key sites for the construction of freshwater fish protogenic and good quality seed farms, and development
of protogenic and good quality fish seed certification methods and standards. From 1991 to 1995, the
Government approved the construction of 26 protogenic and good quality seed farms. In 1997, the construction of an additional 40
of such farms was also approved. So far, 61 farms of this type have been established by the Government. Since 1991,
several national quality standards for fish species such as black carp, grass carp, bighead carp, Nile
tilapia have been formulated and published. Seed quality standards for other species are
also being formulated. As of December 2001, the China National Fish Protogenic
and Fine Seed Certification Committee has examined and certified 40 species for
aquaculture. The Government also created other committees at the province level.
For example, in Shandong Province, the largest aquaculture producer in China, an
Identification Committee of Aquatic Breeding was established in 1999. The task of this
Committee is to carry out broodstock selection and other breeding work to select or breed fish with good economic characteristics.
The Committee has so far issued the "Identification Methods of Well-Bred Aquatic
Organisms of Shandong Province" and the "Approval Method of Aquatic Breeding
Station of Shandong Province". From then on, nine stations for the selection and
production of well-bred aquatic species were constructed. The species selected and bred
include the Chinese shrimp (P. chinensis), scallop (Chlamys farreri), flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus), turbot (Scophthalmus
maximus), kelp (Laminaria japonica) and others. They were identified and passed the genetic selection
examination. In general, the programme on the identification of well-bred species
and establishment of breeding stations has been strengthened and improved since
the ninth "Five-Year Plan". They will be further strengthened in the tenth "FiveYear Plan". 3. Establishment of legal provisions on seed production and
propagation The Government encouraged and supported, by law, the production
and dissemination of good quality seeds. An example is the 1986 "Fisheries Law of
the People’s Republic of China" which was amended in October 2000. In its Chapter 2, articles 16 and
17, the Law says: Article 16: "The State encourages and supports seed selection, breeding and
propagation of fine varieties of aquatic species. The propagation of new varieties of
aquatic species shall be subject to verification by the National Verification
Commission for Pedigree and Fine Varieties of Aquatic Species and approval by
the administrative department for fisheries under the State Council. The import and
export of fry and fingerling of aquatic animals shall be subject to examination and
approval by the administrative department under the State Council or such
departments under the people’s governments of provinces, autonomous regions or
municipalities directly under the Central Government. The production of fry and fingerling
of aquatic animals shall be subject to examination and approval by the administrative
departments under the people’s governments at or above the county level, except
where fishery workers breed fry and fingerling of aquatic animals for their own
use". Article 17: "The fry and fingerling of aquatic animals for import or export shall
undergo quarantine in order to prevent the spread of diseases in or out of the territory.
Quarantine shall be conducted in accordance with the quarantine laws and
administrative regulations concerning the entry and exit animal and plant
quarantine. Introduction of transgenic fry and fingerling of aquatic animals shall undergo
safety evaluation, the concrete administrative work shall be undertaken in accordance
with the relevant regulations of the State Council". The goal of these measures is to
ensure that fish seed production and distribution in the future are conducted in a more
orderly manner.
AT feed
New government efforts solve feed issues
NSBO, 10
(Netherlands Business Support Office, “An overview of China's aquaculture”,
http://china.nlambassade.org/binaries/content/assets/postenweb/c/china/zaken-doen-inchina/import/kansen_en_sectoren/agrofood/rapporten_over_agro_food/an-overview-ofchinas-aquaculture, amp)
Meantime, food safety has become a very serious issue in China’s feed industry. In the past,
some feed manufacturers were found to add some antibiotics into feed to improve anti-disease ability in order to get more market
share. Antibiotics such as chloramphenicol, nitrofurans and fluoroquinolone etc. have been found in feeds in the past. On the other
hand many farmers are not well educated, they don’t know the risk of over use the antibiotics. They would like to choose the feeds
that have good characteristic to prevent diseases and decrease the death rate and lower price. All of these made the feed plant’s
abused antibiotics. Some feed plants that have no social responsibilities have been found to add Melamine as fake protein into feeds
to reduce the cost and lower the price. In recent years, Chinese government has made many efforts
to improve the supervision system. The situation is getting better. At the same time, some
seafood processing plants which have enough financial support has built a
complete supply chain of the all industry to ensure the food safety. Some
companies have their own hatchery, culture pond, feed plant and processing plant.
The Chinese government solves food safety issues
NSBO, 10
(Netherlands Business Support Office, “An overview of China's aquaculture”,
http://china.nlambassade.org/binaries/content/assets/postenweb/c/china/zaken-doen-inchina/import/kansen_en_sectoren/agrofood/rapporten_over_agro_food/an-overview-ofchinas-aquaculture, amp)
Nowadays Chinese government is making a lot of efforts to improve the food safety
and quality. Firstly, the training of farmers has been emphasized. In China most farmers are
not well educated and have no much knowledge on regulations and rules. Many of them don’t know about the chemicals and
antibiotics which forbidden to use and their impacts for the health risk. In some areas, short training
programs have been hold by local governments to teach the farmer about the
related knowledge. Secondly, the traceability system was built. The finished
products are companied with the lot number of raw materials. Based on the lot
number, the products can be traced to the culture ponds. Thirdly, testing and
monitor 1 6 technique are the basic of food safety control. Many researches in testing
and monitor technique area had been conducted recently.
Federal regulations solve feed quality
FAO, 3
(Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, “Aquaculture Development in
China: The Role of Public Sector Policies”,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4762e/y4762e06.htm, amp)
Starting in early 1980s, the Government has attached high importance to the
development and application of formulated pellet feed in China. The Government first supported
the research on the nutritional requirements of major cultured species. It provided
very strong base for the development of well-balanced formulated feed of the
species later. Use of locally easily available cheap ingredients for formulated aquaculture feed is highly encouraged by the
government. It was also important to reduce the cost of the formulated feed as the major species cultured are low priced
commodities in China. Formulated feed for major cultured species such as grass carp, common carp, tilapia
and Chinese bream were
developed following the two principles, cheap in cost and
meeting the general nutritional requirements of the animal. Because of the
introduction of some new and high valued species in aquaculture, high quality formulated
feed, feed premix and additives were also developed. The goal was to improve the nutritional
value of the feed in order to meet the special requirement of the introduced
species. In the past, China used to import large quantities of high quality feed for high value species
such as eel and shrimp. Most of this feed is now locally developed and produced. It is gradually
replacing the imported feeds, which reduced the reliance on imported feed and production costs. Establishment of
a regulatory framework for the feed industry In May 1984, the State Council promulgated the "1984-2000 Outline of China’s Feed
Industry Development". From then on, the construction of feed mills and development of the Chinese feed industry was brought into
the national economic and social development plan, leading to the rapid development of the industry. By the end of 1999, China’s
total annual output of compound feed reached 55.52 million tonnes, of which about 5 million tonnes are fish feed. Recently,
the Government started paying attention to the quality of feed used in aquaculture.
It has set feed standards for some important species such as carps, tilapia, trout
and eel. Most of these standards were formulated in 1997. Some of them are: "Nutritional Standard of Formulated Feed for
Common Carp, SC/T 1026-1997" for common carp, "Nutritional Standard of Formulated Feed for Grass Carp, SC/T 1024-1997" for
grass carp, "Nutritional Standard of Formulated Feed for Tilapia, SC/T 1025-1997" for tilapia, "Technical Criteria in Rainbow Trout
Culture-Formulated Pellet Feed for Rainbow trout, SC/T 1030-1997.7" for rainbow trout and "Formulated Feed for Japanese Eel, SC
1004-1992" for eel. In 1999, the State Council promulgated the "Regulation on Feed and
Feed Additives Management". The regulation has since provided a legal framework for
the feed industry. The main clauses include procedures for the approval and publication
of new feeds and new feed additives; first time registration of imported feeds and feed
additives; production licensing for feed additives and additive premixes; system of
approval code for feed additives and additive premixes; production records and retained
sample observation system for feeds and feed additives; labelling; quality
monitoring and legal responsibilities. The "China National Feed Management
Office" within the Ministry of Agriculture is the Government authority responsible
for the management and guidance of the Chinese feed industry. Provide economic incentives to
investors in the feed industry As the aquaculture industry expands quickly at home, large quantities of some feed ingredients, mainly
fishmeal and soybean, are imported. To promote development of the aquaculture feed industry,
relatively low tariffs are levied on the major imported raw materials. For example, in 1999,
import tariffs for fishmeal intended for aquatic animal feed were only 3 percent in 1999 (Table 22), compared to 30 percent for
fishmeal intended for human consumption. Similarly, import duties for soybean meal used for feed production were 40 percent,
compared to 114 percent for soybean imported for other uses.
AT water quality
Probiotics improve water quality
NSBO, 10
(Netherlands Business Support Office, “An overview of China's aquaculture”,
http://china.nlambassade.org/binaries/content/assets/postenweb/c/china/zaken-doen-inchina/import/kansen_en_sectoren/agrofood/rapporten_over_agro_food/an-overview-ofchinas-aquaculture, amp)
With increasing demand for environment friendly aquaculture, the use of probiotics in aquaculture is now
accepted. In Guangdong area, some farmers have used the probiotics to improve the
quality of the water. Recent research also shows that the use of commercial probiotics
in Penaeus vannamei Pond can reduce concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus and increase the
shrimp yields (Wang et al., 2008).
Geography information systems solve water sustainability issues
NSBO, 10
(Netherlands Business Support Office, “An overview of China's aquaculture”,
http://china.nlambassade.org/binaries/content/assets/postenweb/c/china/zaken-doen-inchina/import/kansen_en_sectoren/agrofood/rapporten_over_agro_food/an-overview-ofchinas-aquaculture, amp)
Geography information system (GIS) played a great role in the management an display
of marine date, especially in the three dimensional modeling, visualization and
quantitative analysis since 1990s (Su, et al., 2006). Recently using GIS as a tool to survey the
farming pond of shell fish alongshore is ongoing in Liaoning province. Using GIS, more accurate data in aquaculture area, the
density of the cultured pond can be acquired. This can help the government to set proper policy and
allocate water resource in a more sustainable way.
AT disease
Vaccinations and tech advancement solves now
FAO, 3
(Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, “Aquaculture Development in
China: The Role of Public Sector Policies”,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4762e/y4762e06.htm, amp)
Availability of high quality artificially formulated feed greatly increased the productivity of
Chinese fish farming. The vast improvements made in the culture techniques and
production facilities for intensive cultivation of marine fish and paddy-fish culture have also contributed to the higher
output. Fish health management was better understood and improved. More than 100 fish and
40 shrimp diseases were identified; the diagnosis and treatment of other aquatic
pathogens were possible and effective vaccines for their prevention have been developed.
Recognizing science and technology as the most important drives of productivity, the
Government has attached very high importance to aquaculture technological
development since the economic reform and open-door policy initiated in the late 1970s. Examples of the technological
development impact in aquaculture can be found in marine aquaculture. Expansion of Japanese kelp (L. japonica) production from a
pre-l950 annual output of 40 tonnes (dry weight) in 1949 to 62 53.3 tonnes in 1958, or an increase of 155 times within nine years,
was made possible by the introduction of artificial substrates in the construction of rafts for kelp growth. Before 1950, the Japanese
kelp was cultivated on sea-bottom rocks. The method consists of throwing stones to the sea bottom or breaking submarine rocks to
enhance kelp growth on natural substrate. Annual average output was estimated at about 40 tonnes (dry weight). With the
introduction of artificial substrate (floating rafts) in 1950, the cultivation of kelp expanded quickly and output increased
dramatically. In 1952, kelp cultivation by raft method produced 206 tonnes and 322 tonnes from the on sea-bottom rocks method.
At the end of 1956, raft cultivation surpassed sea-bottom cultivation by 52 tonnes by producing about 320 tonnes against 168 tonnes
from the former method. In 1958, there were approximately 5 267 tonnes produced by using the raft cultivation method and 986
tonnes produced by sea-bottom rocks culture method (15.8 percent of the total output). Since then, kelp cultivation on natural rocks
on sea-bottom has been phased out as a method for commercial seaweed cultivation.
Quarantine solves
FAO, 3
(Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, “Aquaculture Development in
China: The Role of Public Sector Policies”,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4762e/y4762e06.htm, amp)
Article 17: "The fry and fingerling of aquatic animals for import or export shall
undergo quarantine in order to prevent the spread of diseases in or out of the
territory. Quarantine shall be conducted in accordance with the quarantine laws
and administrative regulations concerning the entry and exit animal and plant
quarantine. Introduction of transgenic fry and fingerling of aquatic animals shall
undergo safety evaluation, the concrete administrative work shall be undertaken in
accordance with the relevant regulations of the State Council".
AT no tech
Foreign tech and private investment solves
FAO, 3
(Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, “Aquaculture Development in
China: The Role of Public Sector Policies”,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4762e/y4762e06.htm, amp)
Introduction of foreign technologies
While developing aquaculture technology locally, the Chinese Government also
attaches high importance to introduction of foreign technologies for the need of aquaculture
in China. Cage culture and pen culture technologies were introduced to China in late 1970s
and early 1980s respectively. It significantly promoted the aquaculture in inland water bodies. Indoor circulating
system and deep-sea cage have been introduced to China to improve marine
aquaculture, especially finfish culture. China is a developing country. High-technology enclosed running water systems do
not suit the present situation in most parts of the country. However, the Government has been supporting
research and development of such a system in order to meet future needs. The
Government is also investing in the establishment, for demonstration purposes, of farms
equipped with advanced running water culture systems. Encourage private investment in
technology development The role of private sector in the culture technology development was not
significant in the past, except in aquaculture feed technology development. The Government has
called upon this sector to contribute more in technological development. As a result, an
increasing number of private enterprises are entering aquaculture sector and many
large-scale private fish farms are being established in China. The private sector
might play a more important role in aquaculture technology development, especially in the
areas such as breeding of high valued species and enclosed running water systems. There are already some private
aquaculture research institutes in China.
New tech solves
NSBO, 10
(Netherlands Business Support Office, “An overview of China's aquaculture”,
http://china.nlambassade.org/binaries/content/assets/postenweb/c/china/zaken-doen-inchina/import/kansen_en_sectoren/agrofood/rapporten_over_agro_food/an-overview-ofchinas-aquaculture, amp)
China’s academies of science and universities are the main sources for new
technologies and innovation. In the past, the scientific achievements of the institutes and
universities haven’t been transferred into mass production efficiently and in time.
Recently, the government has realized this problem and begins to improve transferring
efficiency of new research achievements. At the same time, some academies begin to
cooperate with farming companies. Disease curing and prevention, health farming and
cultivation of good quality strain are the main interests of the research area. Some
new technologies are elaborated below: GMO engineering has been used in some
aquaculture species. Polyploid breeding of some species have achieved and come to mass production. The polyploidy
product has the advantages in growth, yield and stress resistance ability. For example,
the triploid product has the characteristic of sterility, and no need to consume energy for gonad growth, and it
has a great significant advantage in growth. Normally polyploid can be induced by biological, chemical and physical methods. The
disease prevention and treatment of aquaculture species become an important issue when the intensive aquaculture getting more
and more popular. In the past, antibiotic has been used to solve the problem. However nowadays the antibiotic abuses make some
bacteria get drug resistance, on the other hand, most antibiotics have been prohibited to use in aquaculture. Under this
circumstance, some immunopotentiator are studied to improve the anti diseases ability
of the cultured species. Currently, Taurine, lactoferrine and Vitamin E have been used
to improve the immunity of the products and have got good effects. Traditional
Chinese herb medicines begins to use in aquaculture in recent years. Using the
Chinese herb medicine can get following effects: decrease the feed conversion
ratio, improve the growth rate, cure some diseases and also can prevent some
diseases. Nowadays, a number of preparations of probiotics are commercially available and
have been introduced to fish, shrimp and molluscan farming as feed additives, or
are incorporated in pond water. These products are effective in supporting the health
of aquatic animals. Replacement of fish meal is always a hot subject to study. Feed cost is the main cost in finfish
aquaculture and account for around 50% of the total cost (Guo, et al., 2005). Feed Cost is mainly decided by feed price and feed
conversation ratio. The price of feed in mainly determined by the protein sources, of which, fishmeal is the essential and traditional
one. Recently many researches have been conducted to find the substitute of fishmeal. Following cheap protein feedstuffs, poultry by
product meal, meat and bone meal, feather meal, blood meal, soybean meal, cottonseed meal and rapeseed meal, have been used as
part of protein source in feed recently. In China, fish vaccines had been researched around 30 years before, they went
through a rapid development period and now are
at a new age. Though fish vaccines is mainly stay
on research stage, they began to used in commercial production more and more
recently. Fish vaccines can play an important role in control of fish diseases,
especially in the control of some malignant infectious diseases.
AT no lead agency
The Fisheries Bureau coordinates regulation efforts
FAO, 3
(Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, “Aquaculture Development in
China: The Role of Public Sector Policies”,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4762e/y4762e06.htm, amp)
The Fisheries Bureau is the functional department in the Ministry of Agriculture which deals with
the administration of the fishery sector including aquaculture. Its main functions in
aquaculture management are to: supervise the implementation of the state’s
general principles, policies and plans for fishery sector; study and put forth measures for
technological advances in fishery development; protect and rationally utilize fishery
resources; promote fishery development; organize and supervise the construction of infrastructure in the fishery sector.
There are some other national government agencies that have direct or indirect
responsibilities for regulating aquaculture. All their regulation efforts must be
coordinated with the Fisheries Bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture . There are also
specific authorities of the province and county level who are responsible for the administration of the local
fishery sector. Their work is carried out in accordance with the Central Government’s
policies. In practice, generally, the Fisheries Bureau studies and initiates the
establishment of general policies and regulations. These are then submitted to the Ministry of
Agriculture, the State Council, or the People’s Congress for approval. Once general policies and regulations
are promulgated, the Fisheries Bureau supervises their implementation. The
Bureau can also set up some specific policies according to its jurisdiction. The fishery
authorities at the province level will initiate the implementation of the policies/regulations by themselves or after the approval of the
provincial government depending on provinces.
Lawsuits deficit
US aquaculture faces lawsuits
Wheeler, 13 --- J.D. Candidate 2013, Golden Gate University School of Law (Spring 2013,
Garrett Wheeler, Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, “COMMENT: A
FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE: THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF AQUACULTURE IN THE
UNITED STATES AND THE PROMISE OF SUSTAINABLE URBAN AQUACULTURE
SYSTEMS,” 6 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. 295, JMP)
In addition to limiting regulation to "navigable waters," courts may also be reluctant to apply the
CWA definition of "pollutants" to aquaculture facilities. The CWA defines pollutants as "dredged
spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical
wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock,
sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into the water."
n125 However, the CWA list of pollutants does not contain a catch-all phrase and "the list has
been construed as suggestive rather than exclusive." n126
In Association to Protect Hammersley, Eld, & Totten Inlets v. Taylor Resources, Inc., the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision interpreting the term "pollutant" in the
context of an aquaculture facility. n127 The plaintiff, a landowners' advocacy organization,
brought suit under the CWA against a mussel facility growing mussels attached to suspension
ropes anchored to the sea floor of Washington's Puget Sound. n128 The mussels matured on the
ropes, feeding exclusively on the nutrients found naturally in the water. n129 The facility
operator held no permit. The Ninth Circuit struck down the plaintiff's argument that a discharge
of mussel feces and shell material into navigable waters constituted a "pollutant," holding
instead that the emissions were not "pollutants" subject to permitting requirements. n130 The
court based its analysis on a distinction between materials "altered by a human or industrial
process" and those that were the result of "natural biological processes." n131
Although the Ninth Circuit held that shell and feces discharges were [*311] not "pollutants"
under the CWA, a district court within the First Circuit was willing to subject similar discharges
to CWA regulation. n132 In U.S. Public Interest Research Group v. Atlantic Salmon of Maine,
L.L.C., the district court held that aquaculture facilities discharging salmon feces and urine into
the ocean were subject to the CWA since they were discharging "pollutants" and the salmon net
pens were "point sources." n133 The court reasoned that escaped salmon, as well as salmon
feces and urine, were "pollutants" under the CWA because they constituted "biological
materials" or "agricultural wastes," both of which are explicitly mentioned in the statutory
definition. In addition, antibiotics added to the feed qualified as "pollutants" under the
"chemical waste" part of the statutory definition. n134
The disparate results in Association to Protect Hammersley and Atlantic Salmon represent a
split with potentially profound impacts on aquaculture facilities located in the ocean and on
land. Taken as a whole, these judicial interpretations indicate some willingness by the
courts to qualify fish feces, escaped fish, and other organic discharges as
"pollutants." This definition has particularly serious implications for aquaculture
facilities that are not self-contained and are thus highly susceptible to escapement
and fecal matter discharge. n135 Moreover, while the Ninth Circuit's limited
definition excludes fecal matter, it still leaves escapement and the discharge of other
potentially hazardous materials open to a "pollutant" determination. Although it is
difficult to predict whether this split will be resolved, either by the Supreme Court or additional
legislation, it is certain that a self-contained, highly adjustable aquaculture facility
such as an RAS, will significantly decrease CWA liability in the "pollutant"
context .
Meanwhile, compliance with CWA requirements are is extremely difficult for
ocean and traditional land-based facilities because they are often located directly
in navigable waters and can easily be subjected to "point source" NPDES
permitting requirements. Although the "territorial seas" defined as "navigable waters" only
extend three nautical miles seaward, courts have held that the federal EPA may issue permits
and regulate discharges that occur in "all ocean waters," which includes the EEZ. n136
Ocean net-pens are particularly prone to pollution discharge from [*312] fish in
the form of waste, escapement, disease transference, or from additives such as
antibiotics and feed. n137 Therefore, even the most well-intentioned ocean
operator may find itself in violation of the CWA , a law that imposes both civil and
criminal penalties for "knowing" or "willful" violations. n138 Moreover, as the recent closure
of an oyster farm that had operated for over forty years in an estuary in Northern
California illustrates, even seafood production free of CWA liability may be subject
to closure if it is located in a government-protected wilderness area. n139
China avoids lawsuits
FAO, 3
(Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, “Aquaculture Development in
China: The Role of Public Sector Policies”,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4762e/y4762e06.htm, amp)
The Chinese Government always attaches great importance to the legal system for
the fishery sector. The basic law in fisheries and aquaculture is "The fisheries law of
People’s Republic of China" which was promulgated by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in
1986, and was revised in 2000. It first set up the guiding principle in the fishery sector, which consists
of simultaneously developing aquaculture, fishing, and processing, with special emphasis on aquaculture. It also
regulated specially the for-not-fishing species, fishing areas, fishing methods and
fishing periods. The goal was to protect the fishery resources. Some regulations, rules, or
directive notices are also important parts of the legal system regulating aquaculture
development. All these provide safeguards for sustainable aquaculture development in
China, taking account of the following points: 1. Protect fishery resources After the "Regulation on breeding and
protection of aquatic resources" was put into effect in 1979, several regulations or laws were promulgated for protection of the
fishery resources. Besides the "The fisheries law of the People’s Republic of China" in 1986, there were the
"Implement regulation on protection of aquatic wild animal", in 1993, on the protection and
breeding of aquatic wild animal. In 1999, the Government established the policy of zero growth
on fishing, enhanced policy of fishing ban period to protect fishery resources. To some
extent these policies encouraged the farmers to take up aquaculture industry. 2. Provide access to water areas and
management Water areas and aquaculture lands in China are either state-owned or
collective. Producers can get user rights through contracts. The laws providing user
rights for water areas and lands are "The Agriculture law of the People’s Republic of
China" and "The fisheries law of the People’s Republic of China". Chapter II of the "Fisheries
law" defines the provisions on water use. The following passages extracted from the chapter illustrate some of the important points
on the use and access to water. In particular, Article 10 states: "The State encourages units owned by the
whole people, units owned by the collective and individuals to make full use of water areas and tidal flats
that are united to aquaculture department". Article 11: "The State makes unified plans for the use of water areas and
designates water areas and tidal flats that can be used for aquaculture. Any unit and/or individual that wishes to use the water areas
or tidal flats owned by the whole people and designated for aquaculture according to national plans shall apply to the administrative
department for fisheries under the local people’s government at or above the county level. An aquaculture permit
shall be issued after examination by the people’s government concerned, allowing
the applicant to use certain water areas or tidal for aquaculture. Specific measures for
examining and issuing aquaculture permits shall be formulated by the State Council. The water areas and
tidal flats owned by the collective or by the whole people but used by agricultural collective economic organizations may be
contracted out to individuals or collectives for aquaculture". Article 13: "Where a dispute arises between
the
parties over the use of the water areas or tidal flats designated for aquaculture according to national plans, it
shall be handled in accordance with the procedures prescribed by relevant laws. Pending settlement of the
dispute, no party to the dispute may disrupt aquacultural production". Producers are
provided the rights for the use and management of water areas or tidal flats. They can make decisions as to
what and when to produce based on their knowledge of the market. These regulations greatly strengthened
farmers’ confidence and encouraged investments in aquaculture.
AT no private investment now
90% of investments now are by the private sector
FAO, 3
(Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, “Aquaculture Development in
China: The Role of Public Sector Policies”,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4762e/y4762e06.htm, amp)
Realizing the crucial importance of high quality seed production in sustainable
development of the aquaculture industry, the Government took the following steps: 1.
Encouragement of private investment in hatcheries Before 1978, nearly all hatcheries were in the
Government’s hands. Currently, most are owned and operated by the private sector
(individuals or families), cooperatives and corporations, although cooperative ownership is gradually
changing into corporate ownership[11]. Most of the investments are made in species
with high commercial value and in high demand by the consuming public. These species
are frequently new species which are not yet available in the Chinese market. They include a wide range of species from shellfish
(scallop and abalone) to crustacean (Litopenaeus vannamei), from amphibians (American frog) to reptiles (turtle and crocodile) as
well as from endangered (sturgeon) to exotic species (turbot). About 90 percent of the investors are
private, some coming from abroad.
Chinese R&D incentives are attracting private aquaculture
FAO, 3
(Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, “Aquaculture Development in
China: The Role of Public Sector Policies”,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4762e/y4762e06.htm, amp)
The role of private sector in the culture technology development was not significant in the past,
except in aquaculture feed technology development. The Government has called upon this sector to
contribute more in technological development. As a result, an increasing number of private
enterprises are entering aquaculture sector and many large-scale private fish farms are
being established in China. The private sector might play a more important role in
aquaculture technology development, especially in the areas such as breeding of high valued species and enclosed
running water systems. There are already some private aquaculture research institutes in
China.
AT no regulatory certainty / permits
China provides permits and regulatory certainty—spurs investment
FAO, 3
(Fisheries and Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, “Aquaculture Development in
China: The Role of Public Sector Policies”,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4762e/y4762e06.htm, amp)
The Chinese Government always attaches great importance to the legal system for
the fishery sector. The basic law in fisheries and aquaculture is "The fisheries law of
People’s Republic of China" which was promulgated by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in
1986, and was revised in 2000. It first set up the guiding principle in the fishery sector, which consists
of simultaneously developing aquaculture, fishing, and processing, with special emphasis on aquaculture. It also
regulated specially the for-not-fishing species, fishing areas, fishing methods and
fishing periods. The goal was to protect the fishery resources. Some regulations, rules, or
directive notices are also important parts of the legal system regulating aquaculture
development. All these provide safeguards for sustainable aquaculture development in
China, taking account of the following points: 1. Protect fishery resources After the "Regulation on breeding and
protection of aquatic resources" was put into effect in 1979, several regulations or laws were promulgated for protection of the
fishery resources. Besides the "The fisheries law of the People’s Republic of China" in 1986, there were the
"Implement regulation on protection of aquatic wild animal", in 1993, on the protection and
breeding of aquatic wild animal. In 1999, the Government established the policy of zero growth
on fishing, enhanced policy of fishing ban period to protect fishery resources. To some
extent these policies encouraged the farmers to take up aquaculture industry. 2. Provide access to water areas and
management Water areas and aquaculture lands in China are either state-owned or
collective. Producers can get user rights through contracts. The laws providing user
rights for water areas and lands are "The Agriculture law of the People’s Republic of
China" and "The fisheries law of the People’s Republic of China". Chapter II of the "Fisheries
law" defines the provisions on water use. The following passages extracted from the chapter illustrate some of the important points
on the use and access to water. In particular, Article 10 states: "The State encourages units owned by the
whole people, units owned by the collective and individuals to make full use of water areas and tidal flats
that are united to aquaculture department". Article 11: "The State makes unified plans for the use of water areas and
designates water areas and tidal flats that can be used for aquaculture. Any unit and/or individual that wishes to use the water areas
or tidal flats owned by the whole people and designated for aquaculture according to national plans shall apply to the administrative
department for fisheries under the local people’s government at or above the county level. An aquaculture permit
shall be issued after examination by the people’s government concerned, allowing
the applicant to use certain water areas or tidal for aquaculture. Specific measures for
examining and issuing aquaculture permits shall be formulated by the State Council. The water areas and
tidal flats owned by the collective or by the whole people but used by agricultural collective economic organizations may be
contracted out to individuals or collectives for aquaculture". Article 13: "Where a dispute arises between
the
parties over the use of the water areas or tidal flats designated for aquaculture according to national plans, it
shall be handled in accordance with the procedures prescribed by relevant laws. Pending settlement of the
dispute, no party to the dispute may disrupt aquacultural production". Producers are
provided the rights for the use and management of water areas or tidal flats. They can make decisions as to
what and when to produce based on their knowledge of the market. These regulations greatly strengthened
farmers’ confidence and encouraged investments in aquaculture.
Solve Disease CP Plank
1NC
Text: the People’s Republic of China should implement the Asia
Regional Technical Guidelines on Health Management for the
Responsible Movement of Live Aquatic Animals and the Beijing
Consensus and Implementation Strategy.
International codes and regional guidelines exist and need to be
implemented nationally
Bondad-Reantoso et al, 5
(Melba, Rohana P. Subasinghe, J. Richard Arthur, Kazuo Ogawa, Supranee Chinabut, Robert
Adlard, Zilong Tan, Mohamed Shariff, *Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the UN, **Department of Aquatic Bioscience, Graduate School of Agricultural
and Life Sciences - The University of Tokyo, ***Department of Fisheries, Kasetsart University
Campus, ****Queensland Museum, Biodiversity Program, *****Intervet Norbio Singapore Pte
Ltd, ******Universiti Putra Malaysia, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia,
“Disease and health management in Asian aquaculture”, Elsevier, Science Direct, amp)
Strategies for combating diseases in Asian aquaculture Most of the strategies listed below have been previously highlighted in a
number of publications (e.g. Bondad-Reantaso et al., 2001a,b; Subasinghe et al., 2001; Bondad-Reantaso, 2004b; BondadReantaso
and Subasinghe, in press). These are general strategies currently being implemented in the Asia Pacific region (but having
applicability to other regions of the world), and apply to all infectious diseases. 6.1. International codes In order to
minimize the risks of pathogens/ diseases associated with aquatic animal movements,
there are a number of existing global instruments, agreements, codes of practice and guidelines
(either voluntary or obligatory) that, if implemented, provide certain levels of protection. These
include: OIE’s Aquatic Animal Health Code (OIE, 2003a); the Code of Practice on the
Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms (ICES, 1995) of the International
Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES); the Codes of Practice and Manual of
Procedures for Consideration of Introductions and Transfers of Marine and Freshwater
Organisms (Turner, 1988) of the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (EIFAC).
There are also relevant articles included in the Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries (CCRF) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (FAO, 1995), the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992) and the Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary
(SPS) Agreement (Chilaud, 1996) of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Countries are trying their best to fulfill their
responsibilities to implement the provisions of these international codes despite limited capacities and resources. It is essential to
assist governments, particularly those of developing countries, in improving their ability to comply with these international
obligations. 6.2. Regional guidelines Because many countries in the Asian region share
common social, economic, industrial, environmental, biological and geographical
characteristics, a regionally adopted health management programme is
considered a practical approach. Some of the provisions in the current international
protocols are not always practically applicable to the diseases of concern to the Asian region.
Therefore, it was deemed important to focus on the species and diseases affecting those
species. The Asia Regional Technical Guidelines on Health Management for the
Responsible Movement of Live Aquatic Animals and the Beijing Consensus and
Implementation Strategy(or the ‘‘Technical Guidelines’’)(FAO/NACA, 2000, 2001) was based on a set of
guiding principles developed through a regional project of FAO and implemented by the
Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA) using a consultative process
that involved representatives from 21 participating governments and technical
assistance from regional and international experts on aquatic animal health. The
Technical Guidelines describe a number of health management considerations aimed at
minimizing the risk of disease spread via aquatic animal movements and were developed to: assist
countries in the Asia-Pacific to move live aquatic animals in a way that minimizes
the disease risks associated with pathogen transfer and disease spread, both within and
across boundaries; enhance protection of the aquatic environment and biodiversity, as well
as the interests of aquaculture and capturefisheries; provide a mechanism to facilitate trade in live aquatic species and avoid
unjustifiable trade barriers based on aquatic animal health issues; implement relevant provisions of FAO’s
CCRF and other international treaties and agreements (e.g. WTO’s SPS agreement) applicable to
the Asian region. The development of the Technical Guidelines took into account the different socioeconomic and environmental circumstances of the participating countries in the
Asia-Pacific region, the diversity of infrastructures (in terms of expertise and
institutional capability), the wide range of aquatic species being moved, the different reasons for such movements and
the diversity of pathogens currently known. 6.3. National strategies on aquatic animal health
management National strategies contain the action plans of government at the short, medium
and long-term, following the concept of ‘‘phased implementation based on national
needs’’ for the implementation of the Asia Regional Technical Guidelines (FAO/NACA,
2001). The National Strategy framework includes elements such as national coordination,
legislation and policy, list of pathogens, institutional resources, diagnostics, health
certification and quarantine, surveillance and reporting, disease zoning,
contingency planning, import risk analysis, capacity building, awareness building
and communication, farmer/ private sector involvement, financial resources,
monitoring and evaluation and regional cooperation. The various processes and examples of
national strategies are provided by Bondad-Reantaso (2004b); one specific example is
Australia’s AQUAPLAN (AFFA, 1999). Asian governments have agreed to implement the
Technical Guidelines at the national level through the National Strategy
framework.
2NC solvency
CP solves via cooperation
Bondad-Reantoso et al, 5
(Melba, Rohana P. Subasinghe, J. Richard Arthur, Kazuo Ogawa, Supranee Chinabut, Robert
Adlard, Zilong Tan, Mohamed Shariff, *Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the UN, **Department of Aquatic Bioscience, Graduate School of Agricultural
and Life Sciences - The University of Tokyo, ***Department of Fisheries, Kasetsart University
Campus, ****Queensland Museum, Biodiversity Program, *****Intervet Norbio Singapore Pte
Ltd, ******Universiti Putra Malaysia, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia,
“Disease and health management in Asian aquaculture”, Elsevier, Science Direct, amp)
Addressing health questions with both pro-active and reactive programmes has
become a primary requirement for sustaining aquaculture production and product trade.
The current strategy in the Asia-Pacific region emphasizes responsible health management to
minimize the risks of disease incursions brought about by the movement of live aquatic
animals and their products. The regional Technical Guidelines provide valuable
guidance for national and regional efforts in reducing these risks and a strong
platform for mutual M.G. Bondad-Reantaso et al. / Veterinary Parasitology xxx (2005) xxx–xxx 17 DTD 5
cooperation at the national, regional and international levels. There is strong support at various
levels to implement the Technical Guidelines and National Strategies. The aquaculture sector will continue to intensify; trade in live
aquatic animals will also persist because it is a necessity for aquaculture development at both the
subsistence and commercial levels. The risk of major disease incursions and newly
emerging diseases will keep on threatening the sector, and unless appropriate
health management measures are maintained and effectively implemented, the
government and private sectors will be faced with more costs in terms of
production losses and the efforts needed to contain and eradicate diseases, funds
that would have been better spent in preventing their entry into the system.
Focusing efforts on prevention, on better management practices and on maintaining healthy fish may
be more important than focusing on why fish get sick. Health management is a
shared responsibility, and each stakeholder’s contribution is essential to the health management
process.
Recommendations successfully diagnose diseases
Bondad-Reantoso et al, 5
(Melba, Rohana P. Subasinghe, J. Richard Arthur, Kazuo Ogawa, Supranee Chinabut, Robert
Adlard, Zilong Tan, Mohamed Shariff, *Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the UN, **Department of Aquatic Bioscience, Graduate School of Agricultural
and Life Sciences - The University of Tokyo, ***Department of Fisheries, Kasetsart University
Campus, ****Queensland Museum, Biodiversity Program, *****Intervet Norbio Singapore Pte
Ltd, ******Universiti Putra Malaysia, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia,
“Disease and health management in Asian aquaculture”, Elsevier, Science Direct, amp)
6.4. Diagnostics, therapy and information technology Because of the scale of resource expertise and infrastructure required (e.g.
training, facilities, resources) for disease diagnostics, FAO/NACA (2000) recommended the use of three levels
of
diagnostics: (a) Level I: field observation of the animal and the environment, clinical examination; (b)
Level II: laboratory observations using parasitology, bacteriology, mycology and histopathology; (c)
Level III: laboratory observations using virology, electron microscopy, molecular biology and
immunology. The three levels have broad-scale application to disease detection and
diagnostics. Therefore, countries are encouraged to move from one level to the next as capacities are improved and as resources
become available (Bondad-Reantaso et al., 2001a,b). The application of molecular-based technologies (Level III) in aquaculture
health has advanced rapidly (e.g. the use of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in shrimp and molluscan disease diagnostics).
Walker and Subasinghe (2000) reported the findings of an expert consultation on ‘‘Research needs for the
standardization and validation of the detection of aquatic animal pathogens and diseases’’ that recognized that these
tools
provide quick results, with high sensitivity and specificity, and are particularly
valuable for infections that are difficult to detect using standard histology and
tissue-culture techniques.
Vaccines solve
Bondad-Reantoso et al, 5
(Melba, Rohana P. Subasinghe, J. Richard Arthur, Kazuo Ogawa, Supranee Chinabut, Robert
Adlard, Zilong Tan, Mohamed Shariff, *Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the UN, **Department of Aquatic Bioscience, Graduate School of Agricultural
and Life Sciences - The University of Tokyo, ***Department of Fisheries, Kasetsart University
Campus, ****Queensland Museum, Biodiversity Program, *****Intervet Norbio Singapore Pte
Ltd, ******Universiti Putra Malaysia, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia,
“Disease and health management in Asian aquaculture”, Elsevier, Science Direct, amp)
Vaccination is another established, proven and cost-effective method for controlling
certain infectious diseases in cultured animals. Vaccines reduce the severity of
disease losses, reduce the need for antibiotic use, leave no residues in the product and do
not induce pathogen resistance. There are currently many commercially available
vaccines for finfish diseases, and a few more are under development (see Subasinghe et al., 2001). In
Japan, for example, the use of injection vaccines is now widespread among
maricultured animals, proved effective against bacterial (e.g.Lactococcus garvieaeinfection of
yellowtail) and viral infections (e.g. iridoviral infection of red sea bream) and has changed the patterns of
disease occurrences. In conjunction with good health management and good husbandry practices, there is great
potential for the use of vaccine technology for specific use in Asian aquaculture (Grisez and Tan, 2005).
Case Turn – Native Aquaculture
Expanding aquaculture destroys traditional fishing
Food and Water Watch, 10
(2010, “The Empty Promise of Ocean Aquaculture in Hawai`I”
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Hawaiiaquaculture.pdf#_ga=1.263747020.1737412318.1406060704, amp)
*Gender modified
Ocean fish farms can disrupt ko`a, traditional fishing grounds which have been
cultivated by Native Hawaiians for centuries. For example, KBWF is located
directly off of the coast of Kailua-Kona in a ko`a. 172 Oversight agencies have not
sufficiently documented the cultural knowledge of traditional ko`a sites before approving the
use of these areas for some aquaculture operations. 173 It is well-known that offshore
aquaculture cages can act as fish aggregating devices (FADS), disrupting the usual
patterns of fish and drawing them to the new stationary objects. This is a major
concern for local fishers.
Native Hawaiians have the most sustainable aquaculture model
Wilcox, 12
(Christie, Ph.D. in Cell and Molecular Biology, “Native Hawaiians Provide Lessons In Fisheries
Management”, Scientific American, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sciencesushi/2012/03/23/native-hawaiians-provide-lessons-in-fisheries-management/, amp)
What we need are better management strategies. Now, researchers from the Center for
Ocean Solutions at Stanford University are turning to the past for advice. Loren
McClenachan and Jack Kittinger used historical records to reconstruct fish catches
for the past seven hundred years to see if earlier civilizations did a better job than
we are at managing their fisheries. The authors were able to characterize historical catch
rates in the Florida Keys and Hawaii by reviewing a variety of historical sources, including
species-specific catch records from the 1800s and archaeological reconstructions
of population densities and per-capita fish consumption. “Seven hundred years of
history clearly demonstrate that management matters,” said Loren McClenachan, co-author of the study
and assistant professor of environmental studies at Colby College. In Florida, fisheries were
characterized by years of boom and bust through sequential collapse of high-value species, many which are still endangered or
extinct today. The Keys fisheries were set up for failure – unlike other historical island communities, the Keys were highly connected
to other markets, increasing fisheries demand. Furthermore, they have historically lacked a centralized management system. But,
while fisheries in the Florida Keys have always been poorly supervised, fisheries in Hawaii were once far
better than they are today. “Before European contact, Native Hawaiians were
catching fish at rates that far exceed what reefs currently provide society,” said
Kittinger, co-author and early career fellow at the Center for Ocean Solutions.
Native Hawaiians pulled in over 15,000 metric tons of fish per year, and these high
yields were sustained over several hundred years, despite a dense Hawaiian
population. “These results show us that fisheries can be both highly productive
and sustainable, if they’re managed effectively.” Much of the management system in Hawaii was tied to class
and gender. For example, most offshore fishing was done by a professional fishing class who
were familiar with their local environment. If they wanted to fish, they had to ask
their chiefs, who regulated the fishing gear and canoes. The most valuable (and vulnerable) species
like turtles and sharks were reserved for high chiefs and priests, reducing fishing pressure. The key to the Hawaiian’s
success lay in using a diverse suite of management measures. Many of the methods they used are similar
to strategies employed in fisheries management today, including protected areas, community-based management, regulation of gear
and effort, aquaculture, and restrictions on vulnerable species. Perhaps the greatest difference between management then and now,
however is that in native Hawaiian society, rules were strictly enforced. “Rules were accompanied by robust sociocultural
institutions,” the authors write. The ancient Hawaiians did not hesitate, and punished transgressors with corporal punishment.
“Clearly, we don’t recommend this,” said Kittinger, “but it’s easy to see there’s room to tighten up today’s enforcement efforts.”
Other differences exist as well. For example, while aquaculture was used by the native
Hawaiians, these fishponds were maintained for different reasons than we farm
fish today. Fishponds did not contribute substantially to total fish production, but
instead served as food security during tough times. As such, Hawaiians stocked
fishponds with very different species than modern farms. Fishponds contained
small, algae-eating species, requiring little from the sea to support them. Modern
aquaculture, in contrast, relies heavily on wild-caught feeder species to support
lucrative, luxury species like salmon. Five pounds of wild-caught fish are needed to
produce one pound of farmed salmon, and instead of acting as a backup for when
wild fish are scarce, fish farms make up a whopping 50% of our consumed fish
production. Kittinger and McClenachan hope that understanding successful management
strategies by historical societies will lead to better management of our current
resources. “The evidence we present from historical reconstructions shows that reef
fishery sustainability has been achieved in the past,” they write, “which can guide
actions for a more sustainable future for reefs and the communities that depend
on them.”
Communicative Rationality K
Long 1NC
Federal aquaculture efforts ignore and devalue Native Hawaiians
Food and Water Watch, 10
(2010, “The Empty Promise of Ocean Aquaculture in Hawai`I”
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Hawaiiaquaculture.pdf#_ga=1.263747020.1737412318.1406060704, amp)
For the past 10 years, Hawaii’s state-controlled waters have been a testing ground for the
industrial ocean fish farming industry. After a decade, and an investment of millions in taxpayers’ dollars, it
is clear that the industry has not lived up to its promises of both economic and environmental sustainability. Instead,
industrial fish farming damaged ocean ecosystems, infuriated Native Hawaiian rights groups
and contributed little to the local economy. Similar to concentrated animal feedlots on land for hogs and chickens, open-water
aquaculture is the mass production of fish using floating net pens or cages in ocean waters. It is also referred to as open-ocean
aquaculture (OOA), ocean fish farming, mariculture and other, similar terms. These factory fish farms can pose real threats to the
environment as well as human health. They can cause damage to fragile habitats through use of heavy anchors; spread of disease and
parasites from farmed fish to wild fish; entangle or alter behavior in whales, dolphins, sharks, monk seals and other ocean wildlife;
release concentrated amounts of fish food, wastes, and any chemicals or antibiotics used in the farms directly into ocean waters; and
more. The use of antibiotics may lead to the growth of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and residues from chemical treatments may
remain in the fish and be consumed by unknowing diners. Hawaii currently hosts two commercial factory fish farms in its oceans,
and the industry is on course to expand production by 900 percent in the next five years. 1,2 Before the state allows
such a
drastic increase, it should take time to evaluate whether existing operators
have been good stewards of the public’s natural resources. Government documents recently
obtained through a public information request suggest that this is not at all the case. Especially troubling are the business and
environmental practices at Kona Blue Water Farms Inc. (KBWF), an open-water aquaculture site. The company touts itself as
sustainable, but has had many documented problems, including interference with marine mammals, use of antibiotics and failure to
provide complete and accurate information to the state in a timely manner. The company has also been sued for alleged unsafe
working conditions and challenged
by Native Hawaiians as being disrespectful of their
cultural and traditional practices. As the federal government promotes this
industrial experiment, Hawaii is bearing the burden of the environmental,
economic and social impacts.
Turns case—natives have a more sustainable model of aquaculture
Wilcox, 12
(Christie, Ph.D. in Cell and Molecular Biology, “Native Hawaiians Provide Lessons In Fisheries
Management”, Scientific American, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sciencesushi/2012/03/23/native-hawaiians-provide-lessons-in-fisheries-management/, amp)
What we need are better management strategies. Now, researchers from the Center for
Ocean Solutions at Stanford University are turning to the past for advice. Loren
McClenachan and Jack Kittinger used historical records to reconstruct fish catches
for the past seven hundred years to see if earlier civilizations did a better job than
we are at managing their fisheries. The authors were able to characterize historical catch
rates in the Florida Keys and Hawaii by reviewing a variety of historical sources, including
species-specific catch records from the 1800s and archaeological reconstructions
of population densities and per-capita fish consumption. “Seven hundred years of
history clearly demonstrate that management matters,” said Loren McClenachan, co-author of the study
and assistant professor of environmental studies at Colby College. In Florida, fisheries were
characterized by years of boom and bust through sequential collapse of high-value species, many which are still endangered or
extinct today. The Keys fisheries were set up for failure – unlike other historical island communities, the Keys were highly connected
to other markets, increasing fisheries demand. Furthermore, they have historically lacked a centralized management system. But,
while fisheries in the Florida Keys have always been poorly supervised, fisheries in Hawaii were once far
better than they are today. “Before European contact, Native Hawaiians were
catching fish at rates that far exceed what reefs currently provide society,” said
Kittinger, co-author and early career fellow at the Center for Ocean Solutions.
Native Hawaiians pulled in over 15,000 metric tons of fish per year, and these high
yields were sustained over several hundred years, despite a dense Hawaiian
population. “These results show us that fisheries can be both highly productive
and sustainable, if they’re managed effectively.” Much of the management system in Hawaii was tied to class
and gender. For example, most offshore fishing was done by a professional fishing class who
were familiar with their local environment. If they wanted to fish, they had to ask
their chiefs, who regulated the fishing gear and canoes. The most valuable (and vulnerable) species
like turtles and sharks were reserved for high chiefs and priests, reducing fishing pressure. The key to the Hawaiian’s
success lay in using a diverse suite of management measures. Many of the methods they used are similar
to strategies employed in fisheries management today, including protected areas, community-based management, regulation of gear
and effort, aquaculture, and restrictions on vulnerable species. Perhaps the greatest difference between management then and now,
however is that in native Hawaiian society, rules were strictly enforced. “Rules were accompanied by robust sociocultural
institutions,” the authors write. The ancient Hawaiians did not hesitate, and punished transgressors with corporal punishment.
“Clearly, we don’t recommend this,” said Kittinger, “but it’s easy to see there’s room to tighten up today’s enforcement efforts.”
Other differences exist as well. For example, while aquaculture was used by the native
Hawaiians, these fishponds were maintained for different reasons than we farm
fish today. Fishponds did not contribute substantially to total fish production, but
instead served as food security during tough times. As such, Hawaiians stocked
fishponds with very different species than modern farms. Fishponds contained
small, algae-eating species, requiring little from the sea to support them. Modern
aquaculture, in contrast, relies heavily on wild-caught feeder species to support
lucrative, luxury species like salmon. Five pounds of wild-caught fish are needed to
produce one pound of farmed salmon, and instead of acting as a backup for when
wild fish are scarce, fish farms make up a whopping 50% of our consumed fish
production. Kittinger and McClenachan hope that understanding successful management
strategies by historical societies will lead to better management of our current
resources. “The evidence we present from historical reconstructions shows that reef
fishery sustainability has been achieved in the past,” they write, “which can guide
actions for a more sustainable future for reefs and the communities that depend
on them.”
The alt is PRIOR public deliberation
Skladany et al 7
(Michael, Rebecca Clausen, Ben Belton, *Professor and Researcher at University of Tennessee,
**Professor and Researcher at University of Oregon, ***Professor and Researcher at Institute of
Aquaculture, University of Sterling, 2007, “Offshore Aquaculture: The Frontier of Redefining
Oceanic Property”, Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, Taylor and Francis,
amp)
The recent U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy endorses the development of a NOAAled sustainable marine aquaculture industry in the United States while also
acknowledging the need for a coordinated and consistent policy, regulatory, and
management framework (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 2004). As this brief review demonstrates, there are
a number of obstacles, including property rights and compensation, that will
require careful public deliberation. In redefining oceanic property to pursue open ocean aquaculture, a number
of agency jurisdictions, statutes, regulations, and laws are likely to act as opposition to the further development of commercial
operations in the U.S. EEZ. The jurisdiction between federal and state authority regarding
the public trust and other pertinent laws such as NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) will require
further definition. In concluding this brief review of offshore aquaculture, we provide
examples where public deliberation has begun to surface in the United States. In
Alaska, the Alaska Marine Conservation Council has taken the lead in proposing state sponsored legislation banning offshore
aquaculture in federal waters. In April 2005, the state legislature unanimously passed House Joint Resolution 15 opposing offshore
aquaculture in federal waters to ensure the biological and economic health of Alaska’s wild fisheries. Moreover, Alaska Senator Ted
Stevens recently introduced an amendment to the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005 that allows states to opt out of the
national offshore aquaculture production in bordering federal waters. He reiterated this need for state sovereignty at the recent
Senate hearing on offshore aquaculture (U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology 2006). Local
opposition to aquaculture is documented in Native Hawaiian resistance to
offshore farming (Suryanata and Umemoto 2005). Suryanata and Umemoto (2005) demonstrate
how local communities express ‘‘intangible’’ social consequences resulting from
the privatization of marine resources, such as loss of cultural identity as fishers
and collective anxiety over unknown future effects. Testimonies given by Native
Hawaiians drew parallels between the legacy of colonization and the parceling out
of ocean resources by offshore aquaculture operations. As a result, some Hawaiian
aquaculture leases were denied based on the lack of community support. Other
Hawaiian communities supported aquaculture due to in-depth stakeholder
involvement in the development process. These mixed results demonstrate the
significant influence of public deliberation on issues of property rights and
cultural values. Scientists, environmentalists, and industry and agency representatives recently testified at a Senate
hearing, held April 6, 2006, regarding the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005. A review of their testimonies reveals the
potential impacts that expanded offshore aquaculture production would have on the environment, investors, fishermen, and
consumers. There is still much debate within political and legal circles regarding the
potential impacts and obstacles to offshore aquaculture. Broader public
deliberation is required to address the myriad social dynamics that may be
affected by this new seafood production regime, with focused attention on the
changing property relations of the oceans.
Without more-direct democracy, extinction is inevitable. Only the alt
can spillover and ensure transition
Gare ‘3
Arran, Swinburne University social sciences professor, Swinburne University, Melbourne, Australia, Ph.D. from Murdoch
University, "Beyond Social Democracy? Beyond Social Democracy?" Democracy and Nature, 9(3), Nov 2003, via EBSCO database
In the new order, the state’s role, along with a range of new institutional structures ranging from the local to the international level,
is exclusively to create the stable framework for the efficient functioning of the market. Although this phase extends the market into
the Third World, power is concentrated as never before with the elites of the core zones. Civil society has dissolved
almost completely, people have been brutalized, and politics and democracy rendered superfluous. Only a small minority
of the world population, mostly in a few affluent regions in North America, Western Europe and East Asia are benefiting from these
developments. And the consequence of the internationalization of the market economy and the concentration of economic
power it engenders, is
‘an ecological crisis that threatens to develop into an eco-
catastrophe , the destruction of the countryside, the creation of monstrous mega-cities and the uprooting of local
communities and cultures’ (p. 116). Fotopoulos argues that with liberalized commodity and capital markets, the internationalization
of the market economy with an over-riding commitment to economic growth, it is impossible to regulate the market to control its
destructive imperatives. Any country that attempts to do so (for instance Sweden), will lose its international competitiveness (p.
86ff). Market efficiency in an internationalized economy and social control of the market are irreconcilable. This argument
provides the background for the defence of inclusive democracy . Going beyond efforts to democratize
industrial production and focusing on the community rather than merely the economy, the project of inclusive
democracy encompasses the political, economic, social and ecological realms; that is,
any area of human activity where decisions can be taken collectively and democratically.
Democracy is defined as the ‘institutional framework that aims at the equal distribution of political, economic and social power. . . in
other words, as the system which aims at the effective elimination of the domination of human beings over human being’ (p. 206f).
Ecological democracy is defined as the institutional framework that aims to reintegrate humans and nature. The original example of
genuine democracy (although it was confined to a small proportion of the total population) is taken to be ancient Athens of Pericles.
The liberal ‘democracies’ of the modern world, social democratic models and Marxist socialism that reduce politics to the scientific
management of production, are dismissed as various forms of oligarchy. Fotopoulos traces the history of these social forms, claiming
them to be perversions of the democratic ideal. Fotopoulos offers an historical, social and economic analysis of ancient Greek
democracy to show what true democracy is and the conditions for its success. The basis of democracy must be the choice of people
for individual and collective autonomy. Political decisions should be made by citizens collectively
in community assemblies, not through representatives.
Positions to which authority is delegated
should be filled by lot on a rotation basis. All residents in a particular geographical area should be directly involved in decisiontaking processes and should be educated to enable them to do so. Political rights should be accompanied by social and economic
rights and, to ensure this, productive resources should be owned by the demos (the people). In one of the most important sections of
the book, Fotopoulos provides a detailed model of a production and distribution system simulating and gaining the benefits of a
market economy while avoiding the destructive effects of real markets. This involves a combination of democratic planning and a
voucher system, securing the satisfaction of basic needs for everyone while enabling individuals to maintain their sovereignty as
consumers. Satisfaction of basic needs involving more than one community should be coordinated through a confederal plan
formulated in regional and confederal assemblies made up of delegates. Fotopoulos shows how such a system could be made
workable economically and politically. The point of offering such a model is not to prescribe how people should organize themselves
but to demonstrate that direct democracy is feasible. Fotopoulos argues we do not have to wait for
the conditions for inclusive democracies to evolve . They can be created at almost
any time, although it is easier at some times rather than others. Fotopoulos argues that to escape the destructive imperatives
and brutalizing effects of the present order, ‘The immediate objective should. . . be the creation, frombelow, of “popular bases of
political and economic power”, that is, the establishment of local and public realms of direct and economic
democracy which, at some stage, will confederate in order to create the conditions for the
establishment of a new society’ (p. 284). This struggle must be undertaken simultaneously at the political, economic, social
and cultural levels. The final part of the book is devoted to the philosophical justification of inclusive democracy. Essentially,
Fotopoulos develops Castoriadis’ arguments that the core of democracy is autonomy—the freedom of people to be
self-instituting, that is, to be able to put into question and transform
their
existing institutions and
their dominant social paradigm
(beliefs, ideas and values).1 Any philosophy that denies the possibility of such
autonomy is criticised. In particular, Fotopoulos attacks those who see democracy as the outcome of something other than the free
choice of people, whether this be the truths of religion, the laws of nature, the cunning of reason or the evolution of society. The
question then is whether people are prepared to struggle for democracy now, given
that their failure to do so not only means accepting their subjugation and brutalization, but also the
destruction of the ecological conditions of their existence.
Independently, social justice should be the debate’s top priority – it’s
an obligation.
Nieutvenhuis ‘10
Prof Jan Nieutvenhuis, Dept of Education Management and Policy Studies, Faculty of Education, University of Pretoria, Acta
Academica 2011: 43(1) – available at: http://upza.academia.edu/JanNieuwenhuis/Papers/882363/Social_justice_in_education_today
Accept the geo-historical context of the struggle as something that must be reconciled with attempts to create social justice. This
implies that the state must work with communities to repair damaged solidarities by
reconciling autonomy and interdependence (Giddens 1991)- This also implies the abolishment of
structural forms of oppression that restrict peoples' access to resources and opportunities for developing and
exercising their capacities or capabilities for living a decent human life (Young 2002). In doing so care must be
taken not to create new forms of exclusion that will, in turn, create new forms of
social injustice. Similarly, it must ensure fairness in terms of rewards. One cannot reward state officials with considerable
bonuses when they are failing to deliver the social services intended to create a just society. Justice is done when each member of an
organisation receives a reward equivalent to the contribution s/he makes (Rawls 1971, Miller 1999). This also applies to education.
One cannot reward a child if no contribution was forthcoming. For example, One cannot promote a child to the next grade
automatically if s/he did not participate in the educational process on an equal basis with others. A theory of social justice in
education is essential. Brighouse (2002: 181) states that until recently there was no theory of justice in education and that one
cannot simply read a theory off from Rawls, Young, Giddens, or any other author. This article critically reviewed a number of
theories that could inform such a theory of social justice in education. It argued that social justice is an ideal — a
vision that must become a way of life that permeates all aspects of being human .
For this reason it cannot be legislated or achieved by means of international conventions or declarations — albeit important
instruments to promote social justice; social justice must be lived. It requires that every citizen must take
the
responsibility to protect, advance and promote the values, principles and ideals of social justice.
The road to achieving this is, however, obstructed by geo-historical and scarcity challenges confronting developing countries. These
challenges and their negative impact on achieving social justice in education must be addressed in an ordered and well-structured
manner without creating new forms of social injustice. As long as poverty, unemployment and high levels of violence exist, there
cannot be social justice. This is the real challenge and it is a journey on which all developing countries and their people must
embark. In Long walk to freedom Nelson Mandela (1994a: 751) asserts: Some say that (the liberation of the oppressed and the
oppressor) has now been achieved. But I know that that is not the case. The truth is that we are not yet free: we have merely achieved
the freedom to be free, the right not to be oppressed. We have not taken the final step of our journey, but the first step on a longer
and even more difficult road. For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a
way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.
2NC Link
Aquaculture clashes with and ignores Native Hawaiian interests
Food and Water Watch, 10
(2010, “The Empty Promise of Ocean Aquaculture in Hawai`I”
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Hawaiiaquaculture.pdf#_ga=1.263747020.1737412318.1406060704, amp)
“The ocean has enormous historical, cultural and religious importance for Native
Hawaiian communities, which could be infringed upon by this new type of ocean
use.”– Mike Kumukauoha Lee, Cultural Practitioner 164 Many in the Native Hawaiian
community have opposed the ocean factory fish farming industry where these farms’
practices clash with cultural traditions. Native groups have brought contested cases
against new operations and challenged proposals for the expansion of existing
operations. Concerns include killing animals revered as aumakua, the misappropriation of cultural terms,
alterations to natural resources needed for cultural and medicinal uses, and
impacts on traditional fishing grounds.
2NC Natives Key to Solvency
Expanding aquaculture destroys traditional fishing
Food and Water Watch, 10
(2010, “The Empty Promise of Ocean Aquaculture in Hawai`I”
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Hawaiiaquaculture.pdf#_ga=1.263747020.1737412318.1406060704, amp)
*Gender modified
Ocean fish farms can disrupt ko`a, traditional fishing grounds which have been
cultivated by Native Hawaiians for centuries. For example, KBWF is located
directly off of the coast of Kailua-Kona in a ko`a. 172 Oversight agencies have not
sufficiently documented the cultural knowledge of traditional ko`a sites before approving the
use of these areas for some aquaculture operations. 173 It is well-known that offshore
aquaculture cages can act as fish aggregating devices (FADS), disrupting the usual
patterns of fish and drawing them to the new stationary objects. This is a major
concern for local fishers.
Native Hawaiians have the most sustainable aquaculture model
Wilcox, 12
(Christie, Ph.D. in Cell and Molecular Biology, “Native Hawaiians Provide Lessons In Fisheries
Management”, Scientific American, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sciencesushi/2012/03/23/native-hawaiians-provide-lessons-in-fisheries-management/, amp)
What we need are better management strategies. Now, researchers from the Center for
Ocean Solutions at Stanford University are turning to the past for advice. Loren
McClenachan and Jack Kittinger used historical records to reconstruct fish catches
for the past seven hundred years to see if earlier civilizations did a better job than
we are at managing their fisheries. The authors were able to characterize historical catch
rates in the Florida Keys and Hawaii by reviewing a variety of historical sources, including
species-specific catch records from the 1800s and archaeological reconstructions
of population densities and per-capita fish consumption. “Seven hundred years of
history clearly demonstrate that management matters,” said Loren McClenachan, co-author of the study
and assistant professor of environmental studies at Colby College. In Florida, fisheries were
characterized by years of boom and bust through sequential collapse of high-value species, many which are still endangered or
extinct today. The Keys fisheries were set up for failure – unlike other historical island communities, the Keys were highly connected
to other markets, increasing fisheries demand. Furthermore, they have historically lacked a centralized management system. But,
while fisheries in the Florida Keys have always been poorly supervised, fisheries in Hawaii were once far
better than they are today. “Before European contact, Native Hawaiians were
catching fish at rates that far exceed what reefs currently provide society,” said
Kittinger, co-author and early career fellow at the Center for Ocean Solutions.
Native Hawaiians pulled in over 15,000 metric tons of fish per year, and these high
yields were sustained over several hundred years, despite a dense Hawaiian
population. “These results show us that fisheries can be both highly productive
and sustainable, if they’re managed effectively.” Much of the management system in Hawaii was tied to class
and gender. For example, most offshore fishing was done by a professional fishing class who
were familiar with their local environment. If they wanted to fish, they had to ask
their chiefs, who regulated the fishing gear and canoes. The most valuable (and vulnerable) species
like turtles and sharks were reserved for high chiefs and priests, reducing fishing pressure. The key to the Hawaiian’s
success lay in using a diverse suite of management measures. Many of the methods they used are similar
to strategies employed in fisheries management today, including protected areas, community-based management, regulation of gear
and effort, aquaculture, and restrictions on vulnerable species. Perhaps the greatest difference between management then and now,
however is that in native Hawaiian society, rules were strictly enforced. “Rules were accompanied by robust sociocultural
institutions,” the authors write. The ancient Hawaiians did not hesitate, and punished transgressors with corporal punishment.
“Clearly, we don’t recommend this,” said Kittinger, “but it’s easy to see there’s room to tighten up today’s enforcement efforts.”
Other differences exist as well. For example, while aquaculture was used by the native
Hawaiians, these fishponds were maintained for different reasons than we farm
fish today. Fishponds did not contribute substantially to total fish production, but
instead served as food security during tough times. As such, Hawaiians stocked
fishponds with very different species than modern farms. Fishponds contained
small, algae-eating species, requiring little from the sea to support them. Modern
aquaculture, in contrast, relies heavily on wild-caught feeder species to support
lucrative, luxury species like salmon. Five pounds of wild-caught fish are needed to
produce one pound of farmed salmon, and instead of acting as a backup for when
wild fish are scarce, fish farms make up a whopping 50% of our consumed fish
production. Kittinger and McClenachan hope that understanding successful management
strategies by historical societies will lead to better management of our current
resources. “The evidence we present from historical reconstructions shows that reef
fishery sustainability has been achieved in the past,” they write, “which can guide
actions for a more sustainable future for reefs and the communities that depend
on them.”
--Global-Local Mini K
Experts monopolization of “solving the environment” perpetuate
specious ideals of universal understanding and deny individuals
agency.
Esteva and Prakash 98 President of the 5th World Congress on Rural
Sociology and Professor of Educational Theory at the University of
Pennsylvania State (Gustavo and Madhu Suri, “Grassroots Post-Modernism
– Remaking the Soil of Cultures” Pg.23)
Once environmental “problems” are reduced to the ozone layer or to global warming, to
planetary “sources” and “sinks”, faith in the futility of local efforts is fueled by global experts ;
while their conferences, campaigns, and institutions present the fabulous apparition of solutions
“scientifically” pulled out of the “global hat.” Both a global consciousness and a global
government (such as the Global Environmental Facility “masterminded” at the Earth Summit) appear as badly
needed to manage the planet’s “scarce resources” and “the masses” irresponsibly chopping
“green sinks” for their daily tortillas or chappatis, threatening the “experts” planetary designs for the ecodevelopment. The “ozone layer” or “global warming” are abstract hypothesis, offered by some scientists as
an explanation of recent phenomena. Even in that condition, they could prove to be very useful for
fostering critical awareness of the folly of the “social minorities.” But they are
promoted as “a fact,” reality itself; and all the socio-political and ecological dangers
inherent in the illusion of the “Global Management” of plant Earth are hidden
from “the people.” Excluded, for example, from critical scrutiny is the reflection that in
order for “global thinking” to be feasible, we should be able to “think “ from within every culture on Earth and come away from this
excursion critical de-mythologized. For it requires the supra-cultural criteria of “thinking”—implying the dissolution of the subject
who “thinks”; or assuming it is possible to “think outside of the culture in which every man
and woman on Earth is immersed. The human condition does not allow such
operations. We celebrate the hopefulness of common men and women, saved from the hubris of “scientific man,” unchastened
by all his failures at playing God.
2NC Moral obligation
Moral obligation
Lukensmeyer and Torres, 6
(Carolyn and Lars, *President of AmericaSpeaks, **Researcher, IBM Center for the Business of
Government, “Public Deliberation: A Manager’s Guide to Citizen Engagement”,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ostp/opengov_inbox/ibmpubdelib.pdf, amp)
Citizen involvement in decision making is something governments should do. This is the normative rationale, and is grounded in
something of a republican reading of liberal democratic theory. Such a view holds that citizens, as members of a
political community, have certain rights to self-government, among them the right to
a say in the decisions that impact their lives. “It’s the right thing to do,” one official
responded, “to involve the community that you are doing research on and for” (Siskind
interview, 2005).
2NC Epistemology
Communicative Rationality uses a different epistemology and is
driven by prior public participation
Willson ‘1
(Richard Willson is a professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, California State Polytechnic University,
Transportation 28: 1–31, 2001 – http://www.uvm.edu/~transctr/pdf/willson_article.pdf)
What is the theory of communicative rationality? This section provides an overview that is further developed
for transportation planning in the rest of the paper. As previously mentioned, communicative rationality is concerned with creating a
rational basis for constructing ends and means in a democratic society – an approach that integrates scientific and
interpretive/social learning approaches. A precise definition of communicative rationality is elusive because it is a theory “in action”
that can result in different formulations depending on the circumstances of a planning problem. In practice, however,
communicative rationality has clearly distinguishing features – a focus on discourse, interpretation and design of deliberative
processes. It is distinguished by its attention to participation and learning, particularly through the reconciliation of different
problem frames. The communicative rationality perspective enriches public and political
discourse by reorienting planning to a form of reason based on consensual discussion
(the theorists call it “intersubjective communication”). The basis for knowledge (or epistemology) and method
of planning shifts from a predominantly analytical basis to a communicative basis. Communicative
rationality integrates traditional notions of science with communicative rationality’s critical social theory origins. The
communicative model argues that reason derives from a communicative practice that is
specific to people, time and place. It maintains that reason is a process that creates both means and ends and constitutes
both subject and object. Yet communicative rationality is not relativism or purely an individual
interpretive activity. Knowledge is derived through discourse in which the participants
proceed according to consensual principles of validity and communication, in which they seek a rational
basis for unifying dualisms such as subject and object, knowledge and practice, and so on. It is the communicative
process, then, that is the universal. The communicative model assumes that consensual understanding is sought
and can be approached.
AT Perm “do both”
First – Deliberative democracy demands the public be able to modify
and completely revise. This is more than a typical “sever certainty
arg” – we must listen to voices that want inaction. The alt can’t coexist without the Aff severing its very design.
Severance is a voter – makes Aff a moving target and means neg could
never win.
Perm just makes no sense – a top-down and bottom-up, openedended approach can’t logically co-exist in this instance.
Serial policy failure – perm insists on action without genuine
community dialogue – that kills public trust and turns solvency
Lukensmeyer and Torres, 6
(Carolyn and Lars, *President of AmericaSpeaks, **Researcher, IBM Center for the Business of Government, “Public Deliberation: A
Manager’s Guide to Citizen Engagement”, http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ostp/opengov_inbox/ibmpubdelib.pdf,
amp) Citizen participation in policy formulation and decision making can reduce conflict.
This instrumental rationale argues that, by involving all the perspectives of
community members who will be impacted by the policy outcome—and the competing
interests—in governance processes, consensus develops around politically reasonable outcomes
and lays the groundwork for successful implementation. Several senior managers
interviewed for this report noted the connection between reducing conflict and reducing costs
that came as a result of good citizen engagement practice. In the case of a major, multi-year
highway project in Australia, an excellent citizen engagement process costing upwards
of $500,000 yielded $2.5 million in overall project savings that came from the
elimination of costs associated with delays and litigation (Broderick interview, 2005). A
critical factor in reducing conflict is raising trust among the parties involved; without trust
it can be extremely difficult and costly to get work done. In the case of government-funded
clinical research, for example, one health sciences specialist at the national institutes of Health (NIH)
observed, “our role is to build and retain trust so that people can understand and enroll in
clinical trials, and involving the community in the research process helps build that trust
(Siskind interview, 2005). Another official interviewed, a senior scientist at the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, reflected, “In the case of a highly polarized conflict over a
government science policy, I knew that doing more research was not going to solve the
problem. I saw that this was a relationship issue, a trust problem, and not a missing data
problem. We in government needed to do work together with citizens and stakeholders that would
be trust building. I picked the subset of science policy, which involves values, as the place to engage the public and do work together,
because citizens are the experts on our values and they should be at the table when both science and values
are under consideration” (Bernier interview, 2005). Deliberative citizen participation can
lead to better, longer lasting, and wiser policy choices. The substantive rationale holds
that, given the multiple dimensions of policy outcomes, relying solely upon expert and/or
elite perspectives is limiting. Citizens have a good sense of their own needs, and
uncovering their knowledge through deliberation can contribute valuable policy
information that would otherwise be overlooked. To illustrate the point, one Federal
Highway Administration planner noted how, in the case of a light-rail project in san
Francisco, a community engagement process uncovered a disconnect between
agency assumptions and the actual priorities of impacted communities. The agency
had prioritized
commuter time saving (speed) while the community had greater
concerns for pedestrian traffic and children at play (safety). As a result of a carefully planned community
engagement process, the “solution” was designed as a slower-speed light rail that was better
integrated with street life (Kuehn interview, 2005).
AT “perm – do the Alt”
Perm severs for three reasons:
First – Deliberative democracy demands the public be able to modify
and completely revise. This is more than a typical “sever certainty
arg” – the communicative model must listen to voices that want
inaction. The alt can’t co-exist without the Aff severing its very design.
Second – Aff must defend certainty, or it severs topicality burdens:
Resolved means “unconditional”
American Heritage, 9
(American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition "resolved," 2009, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Resolved)
re•solve (rĭ-zŏlv') v. tr. 1. To make a firm decision about.
“Should” means Aff can’t sever certainty
Compact Oxford English Dictionary ‘5
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/should?view=uk)
should • modal verb (3rd sing. should) 1 used to indicate
obligation, duty, or correctness.
Severance is a voter – makes Aff a moving target and means neg could
never win.
AT “no mechanism to carry out the alt”
Mechanisms presently exist to carry-out communicative participation
Lupia ‘4
(et al, Arthur – Assistant Prof at the University of Michigan – “Direct Democracy: A New Approach to old Questions” – via google
scholar)
For better or worse, the
institutions of direct democracy—initiative and referendum—
have become an integral part of American democracy. At present, more than half of the
states and cities in the United States provide for the initiative and referendum, and upwards of
70 percent of the population lives in a state or city where direct democracy is
available (Matsusaka, 2004). These institutions have been a part of American government
for more than 100 years now, making them older than universal women's suffrage and direct election of U.S.
senators, and there is reason to believe that they will become increasingly important in the future. No state with the initiative or
referendum has ever chosen to do away with the procedure, and states without the
procedures are gradually adopting them (at a rate of about one state per decade since the end of World War
II).
AT “Alt gets manipulated by stakeholders”
Alt won’t get high-jacked by stakeholders – the Aff underestimates the
public.
Talisse ‘5
(Robert B. Talisse, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt. 2005. Democracy After Liberalism: Pragmatism and Deliberative
Politics)
A pragmatic
deliberativism can steer clear of both the liberal hyperindividualism that
makes community impossible and the antiliberal commu-nitarianism that makes
community oppressive; the pragmatist view, hence, can generate a plausible conception of democratic citizenship. The
pragmatic deliberativist view does this by emphasizing that citizens are neither encumbered selves helplessly
ensconced within fixed historical or moral traditions and communities, nor atomic and autonomous agents of ex ni-hilo selfcreation. We rather are, for better or worse, sharers in a common social-political world and the joint inheritors of
political institutions, historical traditions, ideas, principles, conflicts, and problems. This social-political world is
dynamic and fluctuating, it requires that we respond to it —indifference, nonparticipation, and self-absorption are responses. The
pragmatist maintains with the antiliberals that democratic self-government requires a sense of community and shared purpose
among citizens; it accordingly rejects the liberal aspiration to a neutral politics and accepts the antiliberal claim that the state must
play a formative role in the lives of citizens. Yet the pragmatist also affirms, with the liberals, the need for individual protections
against majority tyranny and oppression*