Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Aquaculture Affirmative – Table of Contents (1/2)
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Glossary......................................................................................................................................... 4
1AC ........................................................................................................................................... 5-10
Advantages
Overfishing Advantage:
Answers to: US fisheries are recovering ...................................................................................... 11
Answers to: Other countries exploit fisheries ............................................................................... 12
Answers to: Other factors kill fish ............................................................................................ 13-14
Answers to: Aquaculture hurts oceans – technology makes it safe ............................................. 15
Answers to: Aquaculture hurts oceans – regulations make it safe .......................................... 16-17
Answers to: Aquaculture hurts oceans – overfishing is worse ..................................................... 18
Answers to: Aquaculture hurts oceans – saves endangered species .......................................... 19
Food Security Advantage:
Answers to: Aquaculture doesn't address the root cause of food insecurity ................................ 20
Answers to: Aquaculture drives small fishers out of business................................................. 21-22
Answers to: Aquaculture operations compete for wild caught fish ............................................... 23
Answers to: Aquaculture increases fish prices ............................................................................. 24
Trade Deficit Advantage:
Trade Deficit Advantage Add-On ............................................................................................ 25-26
Answers to: the US will still import most of its seafood ................................................................ 27
Answers to: Trade deficits don’t hurt the economy ...................................................................... 28
Answers to: Trade deficits are good for the economy .................................................................. 29
Solvency
Answers to: Multiple barriers to development .............................................................................. 30
Answers to: Investors aren’t interested in aquaculture ........................................................... 31-32
Answers to: Offshore farms aren’t feasible .................................................................................. 33
Answers to Off Case Arguments
Answers to: Urban Aquaculture Counterplan
Offshore aquaculture can support urban aquaculture .................................................................. 34
Urban aquaculture alone will fail .................................................................................................. 35
Government incentives won’t work .............................................................................................. 36
Urban aquaculture risks disease spread ...................................................................................... 37
Urban aquaculture increases carbon emissions .......................................................................... 38
Urban aquaculture is too unstable ............................................................................................... 39
Pg. 1
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Aquaculture Affirmative – Table of Contents (2/2)
Answers to: Fishmeal Disadvantage
Expanded aquaculture solves overfishing.................................................................................... 40
Aquaculture doesn’t use much fishmeal ................................................................................. 41-42
Aquaculture can farm non-carnivorous fish.................................................................................. 43
Aquaculture industry is switching to non-fishmeal options ...................................................... 44-46
Answers to: Operations won’t use vegetable substitutes ............................................................. 47
Businesses will switch from fish-meal to avoid collapse .............................................................. 48
Answers to: Employment Disadvantage
Fishing communites are struggling now ....................................................................................... 49
Aquaculture strengthens coastal economies ............................................................................... 50
Reducing overfishing key to coastal economies .......................................................................... 51
Aquaculture creates job opportunities ..................................................................................... 52-53
Aquaculture replaces lost fishing jobs .......................................................................................... 54
Aquaculture prevents outsourcing ............................................................................................... 55
Aquaculture reduces impacts of income inequality ...................................................................... 56
Pg. 2
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Summary
This affirmative argues that the United States should increase the size and number of large
fish-farming operations (known as “aquaculture” operations) off of its coasts. When debating
on the affirmative, you will argue that the best way to nudge the industry along is to
concentrate the authority to permit and regulate these operations in an organization known as
the “National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).” Essentially, this means the
NOAA would be the only agency with the power to allow aquaculture operations to start up
and to make sure they comply with environmental regulations afterwards.
The evidence in this packet argues that if we made the system that regulates aquaculture
simpler, the industry would have an easier time securing investors and getting started
because they wouldn’t have to work with authorities with conflicting rules at the national,
state, and local level.
This file contains 3 main reasons to defend this policy:
First, overfishing – as fish populations decline, fishers have turned to increasingly destructive
methods of catching fish – most famously, “deep-sea trawling” – where boats drag nets along
the ocean floor, destroying entire ecosystems. A successful aquaculture industry would help
these ecosystems recover.
Second, food security – as the global human population increases, more and more people will
need food. As global fish stocks decline, we need to secure a stable source of food –
aquaculture is best prepared to produce massive amounts of fish for human consumption.
Third, trade deficits – currently, the US imports around $10 billion of seafood each year –
meaning we pay other countries to produce our seafood for us. Aquaculture would keep those
jobs and profits here in the United States, boosting our economy.
Pg. 3
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Glossary
NOAA (“National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration”) – is a United States federal
government agency that oversees policies and trends that affect the ocean and atmosphere.
Aquaculture – is the farming of aquatic organisms, including fish, mollusks, crustaceans, and
plants.
Overfishing – the process by which global fish populations are reduced to dangerously low
levels by fishing.
Fisheries – is an entity that makes the growth and harvesting of fish possible – it describes
the people, fish, area of water, method of fishing, etc. involved in fishing.
Sustainable – able to be maintained over the long term – in the context of fisheries, it
describes a fishing practice that sustains global fish population growth.
Food security – is a condition that describes the availability of food. Without food security,
hunger is common.
Trade deficit – when a country imports more goods than it exports. For example, the United
States imports more oil than it exports – thus, it has an oil trade deficit.
Regulation – a government practice of monitoring and preventing potentially dangerous
business practices.
Exclusive Economic Zone – the area of the Ocean that the United States has the right to
economically develop – it extends 200 miles off the coastline.
Pg. 4
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
1AC (1/6)
Contention 1 is Inherency:
Regulations governing offshore fish farms are vague and don’t establish a clear authority to
oversee operations – this deters investors and prevents the growth of the aquacutlure
industry.
Buck, MA in Marine Affairs at University of Washington, 2012
(Lisa, “U.S. Development of Offshore Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors,”
Online:
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1773/21752/Buck_washington_0250O_107
41.pdf?sequence=1)
The most commonly cited barrier to development of the industry by the people I interviewed is
the lack of a clear, comprehensive federal regulatory framework, and the lack of a lead federal
agency with adequate resources to guide and regulate offshore aquaculture. In lieu of a
federal regulatory framework, there is a piecemeal system of applicable laws and regulations.
However none of these was designed with offshore aquaculture in mind. With the enactment of
the NAA in 1980 the Department of Agriculture was designated as the lead federal agency for
promotion of aquaculture, and the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture was established within the
Congress to effectively coordinate aquaculture research and assistance (NAA, 1980). While the NAA
granted the authority to coordinate aquaculture research and assistance efforts, it did not create a
specific mandate for aquaculture development in the offshore. The NAA mandated that a National
Aquaculture Development Plan be created to outline development of the aquaculture industry in the
United States, however at the time of enactment of the NAA in 1980, aquaculture activities consisted
of mainly freshwater and coastal activities. Offshore aquaculture was not on the horizon. The DOA
has promoted traditional types of aquaculture in the United States, however it has not been effective
in the promotion of expansion of aquaculture in the United States into federal waters due to its lack of
expertise and perhaps interest in the management of marine resources. As a result, no guidance
documents have been created which would assist a prospective developer in navigating
through the piecemeal framework of regulations that currently exists. Moreover, most of the
regulatory, economic and political challenges to the development of offshore aquaculture
have been left unaddressed by federal authorities. It is for this reason that the majority of
stakeholders believe that NOAA should be the lead federal agency responsible for
development and regulation of offshore aquaculture in the United States. NMFS has extensive
experience regulating marine fisheries in the United States EEZ. However attempts by the agency
to develop a federal framework for offshore aquaculture have been met with resistance from
opponents of the industry. Finally, Congress has not come to agreement on what types of guidance
should be offered in a federal regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture.
Pg. 5
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
1AC (2/6)
Contention 2 is Overfishing:
Overfishing is a growing problem – only expanded aquaculture can reduce strains on fish
populations.
Smith, Assistant Attorney General at Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, 2012
(Turner Smith, "Greening the blue revolution: how history can inform a sustainable aquaculture
movement," April 19, Online: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11938741)
The potential environmental benefits of aquaculture are substantial, and account in large part for the
surge in popularity of the industry, as delineated above. The most obvious benefit is that sustainably
farmed aquaculture product can reduce demand for product from capture fisheries. In the
United States, as discussed above, overfishing has become a large problem; according to the
Pew Commission in 2001 30.6 percent of known wild fish stocks are experiencing overfishing
or are overfished.222 To the extent that aquaculture is performed in a sustainable manner, as
discussed below, it can ease pressure on wild fish stocks by continuing to supply product to
satisfy a large percentage of U.S. demand for fish. Moreover, aquaculture can help natural fish
populations by providing habitat for natural species in artificial wetlands created by
aquaculture activities, by producing eggs, fry, and juveniles to enhance fish stocks, and by
preserving biodiversity through stock-raising programs. 223 Aquaculture production also has
several other substantial environmental benefits relative to other food sources. Aquaculture
wastes, if handled properly, can be recycled as nutrient-dense fertilizer for agricultural
products, hydroponic operations, or natural or constructed wetlands, thereby reducing the need for
petroleum-based fertilizer.224 Aquaculture operations can recycle wastes from other industries,
like the agriculture and capture fisheries, by using those wastes in their feeds.225 Aquaculture
can benefit from heat waste from industrial plants226 and can even feed off of and cleanse
human wastes. For example, fish farms in Calcutta “feed on the 600 million litres of raw sewage that
spews from [the city] every day, turning a health risk into a valuable urban crop.”227 According to the
World Watch Institute, “[t]he restorative potential of fish farming is vast and . . . can be harnessed to
multiply eelgrass beds, mangrove seedlings, and other lost ecosystems.”228 Moreover, some
nutrient effluent is actually beneficial to benthic communities, and excessive nutrient effluent
can be counteracted if the fish farm facilities coexist with shellfish or seaweed culture operations,
which remove nutrients from surrounding waters. 229 These substantial environmental benefits
make aquaculture seem like an obvious choice, especially when the alternative source of protein
would be from overfished wild stocks or poorly treated, environmentally harmful livestock.230
However, nearly all of the benefits delineated above require good faith planning, monitoring, and
operation on the part of facility owners and operators with an eye toward maintaining sustainable,
environmentally friendly facilities; as the next section describes, though, environmentally conscious
aquaculture operation is far from the norm.
Pg. 6
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
1AC (3/6)
Existing fishing practices destroy ocean habitats, interrupt food chains, create emissions, and
lead to waste runoff – they devastate ocean biodiversity.
Oliver and Metzner, Food and Agriculture Organization, 2005
(World inventory of fisheries. Impacts on fishery activities, Issues Fact Sheets, FAO Fisheries and
Agriculture Department, online, http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/12273/en)
Some of the more well-documented fishing activities that can have potentially negative
impacts on the environment include: Overfishing and excessive fishing can reduce the
spawning biomass of a fishery below desired levels such as maximum sustainable or
economic yields. When there is sustained overfishing, changes in species composition and
biodiversity can occur with progressive reduction of large, long-lived, and high value predator species
and the increase in small, short-lived, and lower value pelagic and demersal prey species, a process
described as 'fishing down the food chain'. Important macroscopic changes have been observed in
many ecosystems such as the North Sea, Yellow Sea, North Atlantic (e.g. George's Bank and
Barents Sea), Gulf of Thailand, and southeastern Australia. Intensive fishing can also reduce genetic
diversity of wild populations (e.g. rapidly depressing the proportion of fast growing and late spawning
individuals) and changes in species composition or dominance can also be provoked through
competition for food between fisheries and marine apical predators. Non-selective fishing gear that
is not modified to exclude or otherwise deter the entanglement of fish, turtles, or seabirds,
and as a result, may take a significant bycatch of juvenile fish, benthic animals, marine
mammals, marine birds, vulnerable or endangered species, etc. that are often discarded dead.
While bycatch and discard problems are usually measured in the potential loss of human food, the
increased risk of depletion for particularly vulnerable or endangered species (e.g. small cetaceans,
turtles) can be significant. In the North Sea, for example, the impact of discarded fish on the
food chain and species composition is consequential because the discards can represent up
to 30% of what some birds' would otherwise consume. Ghost fishing can occur when certain gear
such as pots or gillnets have either been lost or abandoned at sea and, although untended, continue
to catch and kill fish until the gear falls apart. Impacts on the bottom can result from the intense
use of trawls and other mobile bottom gear (e.g. dredges) can change bottom structure,
microhabitats, and benthic fauna. The effect is particularly obvious when these gears are used in
sensitive environments where there are sea grass and algal beds, coral reefs, sponges, and tube
worms. Where fishers work the same area year after year much like a farmer's fields, the long-term
impacts of such repeated activities are less obvious on soft bottoms, although the scraping or
ploughing the bottom to depths of as much as 30 cm can seriously disturb the substratum habitat and
productivity. Fishing entailing the use of dynamite and poisons can have severe and broadreaching impacts, particularly on coral reefs. There are also other less conspicuous or debated
environmental impacts of fisheries-related activities. Some relate to the direct dumping of debris
(gear, twine, food containers, plastic bands, etc.) or the unintentional dumping and accidental
introduction of unwanted organisms, pathogens, and non-indigenous/foreign/alien species by
fishing vessels. Other impacts include the organic pollution from at-sea processing and the
pollution caused by unregulated wastes and effluents from coastal processing plants. Finally,
fishing vessels and processing plants also have the potential to contribute to global warming
through exhaust fumes and refrigerant gases.
Pg. 7
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
1AC (4/6)
Contention 3 is Food Security:
Human population growth will quickly outpace the availability of fish, which is a key food
source for those in poverty – only support from large-scale aquaculture can prevent billions of
people from experiencing malnutrition and hunger.
Lehane, analyst at Future Directions International, 2013
(Sinead, “Fish for the Future: Aquaculture and Food Security,” Future Directions International,
August, Online: http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publications/food-and-water-crises/1269-fish-forthe-future-aquaculture-and-food-security.html)
Long-term mismanagement of the world’s fisheries has led to the over-exploitation of wild fish
resources, reducing available stocks and creating further dependence on aquaculture to meet
demand. Over the last two decades, the annual growth rate of aquaculture has reached as
much as 8 per cent. With captured fisheries unlikely to meet future demand, it will be a
challenge for the sector to maintain current growth rates without significant structural and
governance reform. Role of Aquaculture for Food Security and Nutrition Nutritional Benefits
According to the FAO, over one billion people worldwide rely on fish as their primary source of
animal protein. Around the world, average annual fish consumption is 16.1 kg per capita. In SouthEast Asia most major species of fish produced are primarily for local consumption, with
Thailand and Vietnam deriving over a third of their fish production from aquaculture. In the last 30
years, animal protein consumption per capita in developing countries has more than doubled,
as a direct result of technology advancement in aquaculture. Those living in poverty and in lower
socio-economic households are unable to access sufficient nutritional food to ensure their
health and wellbeing. Often the food produced or purchased consists of cereals or low-cost
staple ingredients; budgets are unable to stretch to include meat or fruit and vegetables. Fish,
particularly produced through aquaculture, is commonly cheaper than other animal meat. It also
contains much higher protein levels, as well as other important minerals and vitamins. As a
means of providing greater nutrition for many poorer households, increased availability of fish
can mean better health and a more diverse diet. Indirectly, commercial aquaculture leads to
increased food security by providing opportunities for employment and income generation for
local communities. More than 500 million people in developing states reportedly depend on
fisheries and aquaculture for their livelihood. As a majority of aquaculture production occurs in
developing states, a rise in income leads to an increase in food purchasing power and, more
importantly, diversification. The consumption of non-staple foods, including fish and vegetables,
has a positive correlation with income growth, supporting food security and greater nutritional
content in diets.
Pg. 8
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
1AC (5/6)
Food security is a fundamental human right – millions of people die exclusively from hunger
each year.
Golay, UN advisor on food security issues, 2005
(Christophe, “The Right to Food,” CETIM Publication, Online: http://www.cetim.ch/en/documents/Bralim-A4-ang.pdf)
The right to food is a human right. It is universal, acknowledged at the national, regional and
international level, and applies to every per- son and group of persons. Currently, however, some
852 million persons throughout the world are seriously -and permanently- undernourished,
815 million of whom are in developing countries, 28 million in countries in transition and 9 million in
developed ("industrialized") countries. Furthermore, every five seconds, a child under ten years of
age dies of hunger or malnutrition' - more than 5 million per year! Out of these 852 million
persons, 50% are small farmers, 20% are landless rural dwellers, 10% are nomadic herders, or
small-scale fishermen, and l0% live in urban poverty. Barely 5% are affected by food emergency
situations arising from armed conflicts, by exceptional climatic conditions (mainly drought or
floods) or by violent economic transitions. Of the 5 million children dying each year from hunger
and the side effects of malnutrition, only I0"/o are victims of armed conflict or famine. Thus, the
causes of undernourishment and of death from hunger and malnutrition are immensely complex,
and they cannot be simply attributed to war or natural catastrophe. They are primarily due to
social injustice, to political and economic exclusion and to discrimination. Hundreds of
millions of undernourished persons suffer from political and social exclusion while their right
to food is violated. Political and Social Exclusion These hundreds of millions of persons are
effectively excluded from all decision-making processes, even when their lives are directly
affected by the decisions. They have no political power, nobody represents them, and nobody
asks them their opinion. They are equally excluded from all access to those resources that
would enable them to lead a dignified life, free from hunger.
Thus, we present the following plan:
The United States federal government should create a streamlined national framework for
offshore aquaculture that consolidates regulatory and permitting authority to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Pg. 9
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
1AC (6/6)
Contention 4 is Solvency:
Federal action to streamline and standardize aquaculture regulation is key to the long-term
survival of the aquaculture industry.
Spruill, President of Ocean Conservancy, 2011
(Vikki, “Right from the Start: OPEN-OCEAN AQUACULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES,” March,
Online:
http://www.aces.edu/dept/fisheries/education/documents/Open_Ocean_Aquculture_Right_from_the_
Start_bytheOceanConservancyorganization.pdf)
“Now is the time for strong federal leadership on the future of open-ocean aquaculture in the
United States. The world is changing rapidly, and it is impossible to precisely predict what new
developments will emerge in open-ocean aquaculture. A national framework, including new
federal legislation, is needed to prevent haphazard development lacking standardized
protections. With bold action, we can ensure the protection of US federal waters while
ensuring an environmentally and economically responsible industry. The United States has a
unique opportunity to craft a national vision that will foster “a race to the top,” precisely at a time when
past missteps by other countries have created a “race to the bottom” that they have come to regret.
This is nowhere more evident than in Chile, a country that until recently was the world’s largest
producer of farmed salmon (Mardones et al., 2009; Vike et al., 2009). Without a sufficiently
precautionary national plan, Chile massively expanded its production of farmed Atlantic
salmon over the past two decades. Disease has begun to ravage the oversized industry; in the
last two years there has been a 50% decline in salmon production and over 7,500 direct jobs
have been lost, with untold consequences for the marine environment. This boom-and-bust
cycle of development, where industry needs come before environmental protection, must be
avoided at all costs if the United States is to move forward responsibly with open-ocean
aquaculture. Here in the United States, we must adopt a precautionary national framework, including
new federal legislation, to ensure protection of the ocean, ocean users, and the industry. Marine
aquaculture may have a responsible role to play in meeting our future seafood needs if it
develops in the right way. But if it proceeds without appropriate safeguards, it may ultimately do
more harm than
Pg. 10
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: US fisheries are recovering
[
]
[
] The current fishing industry harms the environment and is not sustainable. New
regulations are needed to save the fishing industry from its own success.
Pauly, professor at the Fisheries Centre of the University of British Columbia, 2009
(Daniel, “Aquacalypse Now,” New Republic, September 29, Online:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/environment-energy/aquacalypse-now)
The jig, however, is nearly up. In 1950, the newly constituted Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) of the United Nations estimated that, globally, we were catching about 20 million metric
tons of fish (cod, mackerel, tuna, etc.) and invertebrates (lobster, squid, clams, etc.). That catch
peaked at 90 million tons per year in the late 1980s, and it has been declining ever since. Much
like Madoff’s infamous operation, which required a constant influx of new investments to generate
“revenue” for past investors, the global fishing-industrial complex has required a constant influx of
new stocks to continue operation. Instead of restricting its catches so that fish can reproduce and
maintain their populations, the industry has simply fished until a stock is depleted and then
moved on to new or deeper waters, and to smaller and stranger fish. And, just as a Ponzi
scheme will collapse once the pool of potential investors has been drained, so too will the
fishing industry collapse as the oceans are drained of life. Unfortunately, it is not just the future
of the fishing industry that is at stake, but also the continued health of the world’s largest
ecosystem. While the climate crisis gathers front-page attention on a regular basis, people--even
those who profess great environmental consciousness--continue to eat fish as if it were a sustainable
practice. But eating a tuna roll at a sushi restaurant should be considered no more
environmentally benign than driving a Hummer or harpooning a manatee. In the past 50 years,
we have reduced the populations of large commercial fish, such as bluefin tuna, cod, and other
favorites, by a staggering 90 percent. One study, published in the prestigious journal Science,
forecast that, by 2048, all commercial fish stocks will have “collapsed,” meaning that they will
be generating 10 percent or less of their peak catches. Whether or not that particular year, or even
decade, is correct, one thing is clear: Fish are in dire peril, and, if they are, then so are we.
Pg. 11
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Other countries exploit fisheries
[
]
[
] US adoption of aquaculture would have a massive global impact – it would be a model
for other nations and the US could produce hundreds of thousands of tons of safe seafood
each year.
Rubino, representative for the Department of Commerce on the U.S. Subcommittee on
Aquaculture, 2008
(Michael, “Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications &
Opportunities,” July,
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/economics_report/econ_report_all.pdf)
Offshore aquaculture is one of the new frontiers for marine aquaculture production that could
supply this growing demand. The others include raising marine species in closed systems (tanks),
in ponds with low salinity water, and with new or improved methods of culturing seafood in coastal
areas. All of these methods have their opportunities and challenges. Aquaculture is being pushed to
offshore and land-based locations in the United States and elsewhere due to competition for uses of
coastal waters, high coastal land values, and poor water quality in many coastal areas due to runoff
from human activities on land (Cicin-Sain et. al. 2005). As for the offshore, the U.S. EEZ is huge. It
covers 3.5 million square miles or 9 million km²—20% more than U.S. lands—and spans Arctic to
tropical marine habitats. Though not all of the space in the EEZ can be used for aquaculture,
conservative estimates show that less than 500 km² (less than 0.01% of the U.S. EEZ) would be
enough to produce up to 600,000 metric tons or more of additional farmed seafood per year
(Nash 2004). From the Atlantic and Caribbean to Alaska, the West Coast, Hawaii and the U.S. Trust
Territories, this area spans a wide range of ocean conditions and habitats, making it feasible to farm
an equally wide range of different aquatic species. Culture of finfish, shellfish, and seaweeds in
offshore waters is now technically feasible as shown by the dozens of commercial operations around
the world using offshore aquaculture technologies. The United States is a leader in this type of
aquaculture and in many related tecnologies. Currently, most of the emphasis worldwide is on the
offshore farming of finfish because of market demand. However, shellfish, especially filter feeding
bivalves such as mussels and scallops, can also be farmed offshore, as can seaweeds. Polyculture of
finfish, shellfish, and algae in open ocean situations is also being pioneered in Canada, Spain, and
elsewhere. As in all new businesses, those who practice offshore aquaculture will learn by
experience and will adapt through technical advances to the selective pressures of commerce
and regulations. However, offshore aquaculture can only be established in the United States if
operators are allowed to try it.
Pg. 12
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Other factors kill fish
[
]
[
] Overfishing weakens food chains and fish populations, making them especially weak
to global warming and pollution – preventing overfishing is the first priority to save the ocean.
Rader, ocean scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, 2014
(Douglas, “Trending: Concern for ocean health and the resources to help,” Environmental Defense
Fund, February 26, Online: http://www.edf.org/blog/2014/02/26/trending-concern-ocean-health-andresources-help)
While great strides have been made in the eight years since the study was written, overall oceans'
health continues to decline. Globally, nearly two-thirds of fisheries are in trouble with pollution,
overfishing, and habitat loss all continuing to pose a very real threat to oceans and their
resilience in the face of new threats, including climate change and ocean acidification.¶
Overfishing: The root cause of oceans decline¶ During our talk, Dr. Worm and I discussed these
issues and took a deeper dive into the root cause of oceans decline—overfishing. The world’s
population is rising steadily and is estimated to reach about 8 billion people by 2024 and 9 billion
by 2040. As the population increases, so too does the world’s appetite for seafood. As a result,
fish are taken out of the ocean faster than they can reproduce. This can cause obvious problems
up to and including extinction of especially vulnerable species (thus the catchy but grim headline
on the HuffPo story, “Scientists Predict Salt-Water Fish Extinction”).¶ Frankly, extinction is not the
biggest problem. Overfishing reduces the abundance of vulnerable species, but it also alters
ecosystem structure and function, as other species react to the reduced abundance through
what ecologists call “ecological cascades.” Valuable large fish that help maintain stable ocean
ecosystems can be replaced by more opportunistic, “weedy” species. Under severe fishing
pressure, the ability of marine food webs to sustain themselves can be compromised – a real
problem with the challenges that lie ahead from climate change.¶ When our oceans suffer, we do too.
Overfishing affects the three billion people around the world who rely on seafood as a source of
protein and millions more that depend on healthy fisheries for their livelihoods. Furthermore, poor
management costs the world’s fisheries $50 billion annually
Pg. 13
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Other factors kill fish
[
]
[
] We shouldn’t overlook the impact that overfishing has on ocean biodiversity – it is by
far the biggest contributor to ocean species extinction and affects entire food chains.
Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, 2012
(“The Threats of Overfishing: Consequences at the Commercial Level,” DUJS, March 11, Online:
http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/winter-2012/the-threats-of-overfishing-consequences-at-the-commerciallevel#.U6yUsF60Zg1)
Overfishing impacts not just the particular species that is exploited, but also damages other
species of fish and disrupts local ecosystems. The stability of ecological communities depends
largely on the interactions between predators and prey (12). Thereby, the balance of the food chain is
disturbed when certain species are removed. As a result, many ocean species are disappearing
and losing their habitats. The evolutionary process of marine species is also being altered,
causing cycles of premature reproduction and relative decreases in the size of fish across
generations. As predators diminish, the populations of smaller fish escalate because they were
previously the food source of the bigger fish. In addition, the disappearance of these species
affects many other species, like seabirds and sea mammals, which are vulnerable to the lack
of food (2). A recent study found that overfishing is also decreasing the genetic diversity of fish
worldwide. Diversity is projected to be reduced further if overfishing continues at the same
rate (13). This has serious effects on nutrient recycling in marine ecosystems because fish
species vary widely in their rates of nitrogen and phosphorus excretion. As such, altering fish
communities creates divergent nutrient recycling patterns and disrupts the functioning of the
ecosystem. Recently conducted studies in lakes affected by overfishing show that loss of
species contributes to a decline in nutrient recycling and destabilizes the ecosystem (14).
While it is often overlooked for other environmental issues, overfishing has historically
caused more ecological extinction than any other human influence on coastal ecosystems,
including water pollution (5). Unfortunately, due to a lack of data, the extent of this damage has
only recently been recognized (15).
Pg. 14
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Aquaculture hurts oceans – technology makes it safe
[
]
[
] The aquaculture industry is steadily perfecting technologies to improve the safety of
its operations – it just needs clear oversight from the government to succeed.
Smith, Assistant Attorney General at Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, 2012
(Turner Smith, "Greening the blue revolution: how history can inform a sustainable aquaculture
movement," April 19, Online: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11938741)
Luckily, the rapid development of technology accompanying the “blue revolution” has ensured
that sustainable aquaculture production is available and feasible. For example, in addition to the
possibility of moving offshore to dilute coastal pollution, researchers have developed closed systems
that require minimal disease and pest control and produce virtually no pollution.349 Aquaculturalists
are also perfecting integrated systems, also called polyculture systems that combine culture of
fish aquaculture with culture of mollusks or seaweed so “the wastes from one organism are
used as inputs to another, resulting in the optimal use of resources and less pollution overall.”
350 These systems have the potential to be both more environmentally sound operations and
more economically efficient.351 Moreover, the use of fishmeal in aquaculture feed can be
reduced and researchers are using developing more sustainable plant-based feeds for use on fish
farms.352 Thus, the technology exists to guide aquaculture onto a sustainable path.
Aquaculture’s recent boom and the rapid technological development have made it the obvious choice
going forward for satisfying the world’s growing appetite for protein.353 It is a choice that has
potential to be more sustainable, as an alternative to exploitative overfishing and as a lower-impact
source of protein than many industrially raised terrestrial livestock, if done correctly. 354 But we
have a long way to go. As stated by James Connaughton, former Chairman of the White House
Council on Environmental Quality, Now is the time, not to have a national conversation about
aquaculture, now is the time to have a national system of sound management of aquaculture to
provide the certainty that’s necessary to do it right, to assure that we have the ecological
integrity to the process [sic], and, again, to set a beacon for the world.355 Without institution of
“[m]utual coercion mutually agreed upon,” the United States aquaculture industry is causing,
rather than solving, tragedies of the commons.
Pg. 15
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Aquaculture hurts oceans – regulations make it safe
[
]
[
] Support for aquaculture must be combined with national regulations to ensure that
sustainable growth that protects the environment while providing food can occur.
Smith, Assistant Attorney General at Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, 2012
(Turner Smith, "Greening the blue revolution: how history can inform a sustainable aquaculture
movement," April 19, Online: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11938741)
Thus, despite the salient negative environmental effects the modern aquaculture industry has had,
the United States lacks a strong national aquaculture policy and supporting federal presence.344 The
current patchwork regulatory structure is ineffectual at preventing the tragedies of the
commons that have arisen by aquaculture’s pollution and exploitation of inland aquatic and
coastal marine environments. While attempts have been made to address the problems
aquaculture has begun to cause, to aid the industry in realizing its full potential as a solution to a
tragedy of the commons, these attempts have not been strong enough to guide the industry
onto a sustainable path. Industry is not the only group with a responsibility here, as indicated in
the National Aquaculture Act of 1980.345 Rather, the United States, which has played a large role
in subsidizing and encouraging development of aquaculture throughout the industry’s history,
has a duty to ensure that the industry does not come to be characterized by tragedies of
pollution and exploitation like the tragedy well underway in the context of wild capture
fisheries. The U.S. government must instead condition its support on, or plainly mandate,
environmentally and socially responsible industry behavior. The World Bank explained the
dilemma well: “[t]he vision of sustainable aquaculture demands not only a favorable business
climate, but also a governance framework that embraces social objectives and enforces
environmental standards.”346 Furthermore, it has become clear that the success of aquaculture in
the coming years will also depend on the extent to which coastal areas are polluted by other causes,
like inland nonpoint source pollution. 347 Thus, state and federal regulators must also regulate
sources of coastal pollution to give adequate support to a sustainable aquaculture industry.
Pg. 16
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Aquaculture hurts oceans – regulations make it safe
[
]
[
] Aquaculture is inevitable – consolidating authority to regulate operations is an
important step to preventing environmental devastation when fish farms become more
common.
Spruill, President of Ocean Conservancy, 2011
(Vikki, “RIGHT FROM THE START: OPEN-OCEAN AQUACULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES,”
Ocean Conservancy, March, Online:
http://www.aces.edu/dept/fisheries/education/documents/Open_Ocean_Aquculture_Right_from_the_
Start_bytheOceanConservancyorganization.pdf)
As technological breakthroughs and innovation continue to occur, most industry experts
believe that open-ocean aquaculture will become economically feasible and therefore more
attractive to US companies. When that occurs, open- ocean aquaculture could become a
lucrative industry. To that end, the Department of Commerce’s 1999 “Aquaculture Policy” promotes
open-ocean aquaculture as a partial solution to the US’s $9 billion seafood trade deficit (Bridger,
2004; Halvorson and Duff, 2008). The DOC’s goals include quintupling total US aquaculture
production to $5 billion per year by 2020. In the same vein, the Secretary of Commerce recently
allowed to take effect a Gulf of Mexico Aquaculture Fishery Management Plan that would permit up to
65 million pounds of offshore fish production in the Gulf.2 Independently, several entrepreneurs
continue to push for permits for new ventures offshore. At present, however, there is no
comprehensive regulatory framework or consistent set of rigorous environmental standards to
guide aquaculture development in the US. This regulatory environment satisfies no one: it is
an enormous challenge for aquaculture entrepreneurs, and it provides little comfort to a
public concerned about the health of marine ecosystems. The worst possible scenario is a
continuation of the current approach, with inadequate environmental standards and piecemeal
oversight. At this moment, America has a window of opportunity other nations missed. We can
develop a proactive and considered approach to the industry before it begins to grow,
drawing on the lessons and insights of aquaculture’s expansion in other regions of the globe. If
we get it right, we will establish a clear, scientifically robust national policy with
environmental, socio- economic, and liability standards built in. The result would be a policy
that supports responsible businesses, while protecting the marine environment. If we fail,
however, there could be serious and long-lasting impacts for our fisheries, our ocean
ecosystems, and our coastal communities.
Pg. 17
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Aquaculture hurts oceans – overfishing is worse
[
]
[
] Aquaculture can reduce pressure on fish populations – overfishing of wild fish stocks
is comparatively worse.
Nguyen, 2010
(Nguyen, Viet H. "Overfishing: A Global Perspective," Fresh Voices: Composition at Cal Poly: Vol. 2:
Iss. 1, Article 18, 2010, online:
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1048&context=freshvoices)
In the past, the bountiful ocean appeared to be a ceaseless supplier of food around the world.
However, today, what seemed to be an unending supply of fish can no longer keep up with an
exploding human population of almost seven billion. As the demand for fish exponentially
increases, the fishing industry has to keep up; wild fish populations have become severely
diminished. Not only does overfishing threaten the marine ecosystem, it has an almost direct
adverse impact on land animals, extinction of some aquatic species, and daunting enough—global
warming. Fortunately, humans’ innovations aren’t always about depleting Earth’s resources;
attempts to remedy the situation are becoming the main concern of some people, and one of the
results is fish farming. The cultivation of aquatic organisms—aquaculture—represents a favorable
approach to lighten the pressure on the wild fish stock today. Ocean Farm Technologies Inc.
(OFT) has developed a unique containment system for marine aquaculture—AquaPods—suited for
rough open ocean conditions and a diversity of species (“AquaPod”). Although aquaculture has
been under constant scrutiny and criticism, AquaPods are a pioneering new way of saving wild
fish while feeding the ever growing human population, and they will revolutionize the fish farming
industry to meet the current fish-meat quality standards at lower costs.
Pg. 18
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Aquaculture hurts oceans – saves endangered species
[
]
[
] Aquaculture can be used to raise and replace species on the verge of extinction,
restoring biodiversity.
Pittenger et al, 2007
(Richard - chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, Bruce Anderson - president of the
Oceanic Institute, Daniel Benetti - Associate Professor and the Director of Aquaculture at the
University of Miami, “Sustainable Marine Aquaculture: Fulfilling the Promise; Managing the Risks,”
January, Online:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/Sustainable
_Marine_Aquaculture_final_1_07.pdf)
In addition to the food fish production that has been described, the aquaculture industry in the U.S.
includes several other segments, including restoration programs and the production of
ornamental fish. Aquaculture can play an important role in restoration efforts for marine fish
species, especially those that have declined from overfishing and habitat destruction. While it
does not address the root causes of the decline of wild stocks, aquaculture can assist in restoration
efforts by supplying hatchery raised individuals to supplement wild populations. Efforts to
restore endangered stocks of salmon rely heavily on hatchery programs, although these programs
have been costly, controversial and have met with only mixed success. Aquaculture has been an
important part of the restoration efforts for many other species of finfish and shellfish, such
as striped bass, sturgeon, and oysters.
Pg. 19
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Aquaculture doesn’t address the root cause of food insecurity
[
]
[
] There may be other causes for food insecurity – but the inability to produce enough
food is a real threat and will only get worse as fish populations decline and humans grow.
Tiller, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, et al. 2013
(Rachel Tiller, Rebecca Gentry, Russell Richards, “Stakeholder driven future scenarios as an element
of interdisciplinary management tools; the case of future offshore aquaculture development and the
potential effects on fishermen in Santa Barbara, California,” Ocean & Coastal Management 73, 5
January 2013, online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.12.011)
In light of this, the following paper discusses these challenges looking at the case of future offshore
aquaculture development in the US. The perceived effects of this industry are explored from the
vantage point of the stakeholders affected. This is important given that some research suggests that
24–36% of wild fish stocks have collapsed worldwide and that 68–72% of global fish stocks are
overexploited or collapsed (Worm et al., 2006; Pauly, 2007, 2008; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department, 2010). This global concern has provided researchers and resource managers with a
common understanding that capture fisheries have a strong impact on the ecosystem in which they
operate. If ‘business as usual’ is continued, serious threats to global food security could be
imminent given the downward trend of the capture fishing industry’s access to wild fish
coupled with an increased global reliance on seafood for protein, largely driven by big
emerging economies like India and China (Antunes Zappes et al.). Global fisheries policies have for
decades mitigated commercial fishing efforts in an attempt to reduce the rate of fishing pressure on
wild stocks. Several solutions have been suggested to stop this down- ward trend of fish supply,
including no-take Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and moving from single species fisheries
management to that of EBFM (Ray, 2011). There has been, however, increased attention on more
direct adaptation possibilities for ameliorating the juxtaposition between the increased demand for
seafood and declining wild supply, and the necessity to find more efficient means of food
production to feed a growing population. The pri- mary method has been by aquaculture
expansion during the last few decades in the US and beyond (Abdallah and Sumaila, 2007; Olin et
al., 2012). Aquaculture already accounted for 46 percent of total global food fish supply in 2008
and is the fastest-growing animal-food-producing sector globally, even outpacing human population
growth (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2010). The per capita supply of animal protein
from aquaculture has also increased, from 0.7 kg in 1970 to 7.8 kg in 2008, reflecting an average
annual growth rate of 6.6 percent although this growth rate is beginning to slow. This adaptation
process, thus, has now taken a step further by moving out beyond the sheltered coves, fjords, ponds
and lakes where aquaculture has historically occur- red. Currently, industry is looking further
offshore for future development, which is reflected in the explicit consideration of policy makers
to opening up US federal waters to offshore aqua- culture in recent years (Varmer et al., 2005;
Welp et al., 2006; Abreu et al., 2011; Impson, 2011; Oosterveer and Spaargaren, 2011; Boyd, 2012).
This mitigation path by policy makers could be con- sidered a de facto realization that the attempts to
mitigate capture fishing efforts to reduce pressure on wild stocks is failing (Kalikoski et al., 2010).
Pg. 20
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Aquaculture drives small fishers out of business
[
]
[
] Aquaculture helps small food producers by providing employment, trade revenues,
and fish that are more nutritious than wild-caught species.
Allison, scientist at the Worldfish Center, 2011
(Edward H Allison, “Aquaculture, Fisheries, Poverty and Food Security,” The WorldFish Center, 2011,
http://www.worldfishcenter.org/resource_centre/WF_2971.pdf)
The global aggregate wealth generated from both aquaculture and fisheries in marine and
freshwater environments is unquantified but, based on an estimate of US$ 225 to 240 billion for
marine capture fisheries alone, is likely to be of the order of US$ 500 billion per year. The sector’s
economic output provides important contributions to poverty and food security through three
main, interlinked pathways: (1) nutritional benefits from the consumption of fish; (2) income to
those employed in the sector and multiplier and spillover effects in fishery-dependent regions; and
(3) through generation of revenues from exports, taxation, license fees and from payment for
access to resources by foreign fleets or foreign investment in aquaculture. 1. nutritional benefits from
fish The harvest, sale and processing of fish contribute indirectly to food security by increasing
purchasing power at individual or household level and also regionally, and nationally. Demand
for fish is expected to increase substantially, at least in line with other animal-based foods,
particularly in South and South-east Asia. Current global per-capita supply of fish is 17 kg per year;
nearly half comes from aquaculture. The availability of fish is unevenly distributed, with supply
constraints faced by some undernourished populations in developing countries with high
dependence on fish, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, the least developed countries of South and
South East Asia, and small island states in the Pacific Ocean. Developed and developing country
perspectives on the links between fish and health differ considerably. In developed countries the
major focus has been on fish safety and the health benefits of poly-unsaturated fatty acids from fish
and fish oil, which are thought to lower blood pressure and reduce risk of heart disease. In
developing countries, the focus has been on the role of fish in tacking undernutrition, maternal and
child health. Although fish is usually linked to food security concerns through analysis of its
contributions to protein supply, it is much more important as a source of micronutrients and
lipids. More than two billion people in the world are undernourished through deficiency in essential
vitamins and minerals, especially in vitamin A, iron and zinc. These deficiencies are especially
important at key stages of human life (pregnancy, breastfeeding, childhood) and can have severe
and often irreversible impacts for health and physical and mental development. This is the so-called
‘hidden hunger’. Fish can potentially contribute to reducing micronutrient deficiencies and
reducing this health burden. Some fish species – in particular the small fish important in the diets of
the poor – have high nutrient content,
Pg. 21
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Aquaculture drives small fishers out of business
[
]
[
] Small-scale fishers can’t keep up with population growth - large-scale aquaculture is
essential to provide food over the upcoming decades.
Mathiesen, Asst Director General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, 2010
(Arni, “THE STATE OF WORLD FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE,” FAO Report, Online:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1820e/i1820e.pdf)
Notwithstanding the growth in the consumption of fish and food in general and the positive long-term
trends in nutritional standards, undernutrition (including inadequate levels of consumption of proteinrich food of animal origin) remains a huge and persistent problem. This is especially the case in
many developing countries, with the bulk of undernourished people living in rural areas. The
number of undernourished people declined significantly in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, in spite
of rapid population growth. The proportion of undernourished people in the developing countries fell
from one-third in 1970 to less than 20 percent in the 1990s and to 13 percent in 2004–06. However,
the incidence of hunger and undernourishment in the world has been dramatically affected by
the two successive crises – the food crisis first, with basic food prices beyond the reach of
millions of poor, and then the economic recession. These crises have had very severe
consequences for millions of people, pushing them into hunger and undernourishment. For
the first time in decades, there has been an increase in both the absolute number and in the
proportion of undernourished people. FAO’s current estimate of the number of undernourished
people in the world in 2008 is 1.02 billion people, which represents more hungry people than at any
time since 1970. At the same time, many people in countries around the world, including developing
countries, suffer from obesity and diet-related diseases. This problem is caused by excessive
consumption of high-fat and processed products, as well as by inappropriate dietary and lifestyle
choices. The outlook for the global food sector remains uncertain. It is facing various
challenges related to the recovering economy and demographic issues, including growing
urbanization. Since 2008, demand for food, including fish products, has remained sluggish
compared with past years, but the long-term forecast for demand for food remains positive, also
driven by population growth and urbanization. In particular, demand for fish products is
expected to continue to rise in the coming decades. However, future increases in per capita
fish consumption will depend on the availability of fishery products. With capture fisheries
production stagnating, major increases in fish food production are forecast to come from
aquaculture. Taking into account the population forecast, an additional 27 million tonnes of
production will be needed to maintain the present level of per capita consumption in 2030.
Pg. 22
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Aquaculture operations compete for wild caught fish
[
]
[
] Fish supplies are already declining – there’s only a risk that aquaculture improves fish
availability.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 2012
(Canadian Government Agency, “Overfishing and Food Security,” Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, June, Online: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/international/media/bk_food-eng.htm)
The impact of global overfishing is typically measured in environmental and economic terms,
but often overlooked is the threat depleted fish stocks pose to the millions of people around
the world who depend on fish for food. According to the World Resources Institute, about 1
billion people – largely in developing countries – rely on fish as their primary animal protein
source. Fish is highly nutritious, and it serves as a valuable supplement in diets lacking essential
vitamins and minerals. During much of the last half-century, the growth in demand for animal
protein was satisfied in part by the rising output of oceanic fisheries. Between 1950 and 1990,
the oceanic fish catch increased roughly fivefold, from 19 million to 85 million tonnes. During this
period, seafood consumption per person nearly doubled, climbing from 8 to 15 kilograms.[1]
Unfortunately, the human appetite for seafood is outgrowing the sustainable yield of oceanic
fisheries. Today, more than 70 per cent of the world’s fisheries are either fully exploited or
depleted. Production levels in many fishing nations have fallen to historically low levels,
confirming that some fish stocks are in a fragile state.
Pg. 23
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Aquaculture increases fish prices
[
]
[
] Aquaculture increases fish stocks, making fish more affordable for families in need –
it’s historically proven.
Arthur and Sheriff, 2008
(Robert of WorldFish Center and Natasja Sheriff of WorldFish Center, “Fish and the Poor” in “Poverty
Reduction through Sustainable Fisheries: Emerging Policy and Governance Issues in Southeast
Asia,” ed Roehlano M Briones, Arnulfo G Garcia, 26-27, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008,
googlebooks)
Looking at the poor’s demand for fish and its availability to them, it is apparent that it is affected not
just by availability of, and preferences for, fish. Where fish stocks are in decline and demand is
high, the price of fish, particularly wild fish, has increased to the extent that the poor can no
longer afford to eat what they have caught and will sell what once they would have eaten (e.g.,
Mitza and Ericksen 1996). In such cases, they may eat cultured fish instead or not eat fish at all,
substituting it with other foodstuffs e.g., pork. The availability of nutritious alternatives to fish then
becomes a vital consideration. Fish supply also has an important role to play in the availability of
fish to the poor. In Dey et al.’s study, (2005), increased supply of fish from aquaculture has led
to a decrease in the price of farmed fish in all the countries studied, with the exception of the
Philippines. This increased supply of affordable fish has particular significance for food
security and increased access to fish by the poor. Although it has been argued that fish culture
increases the supply of fish, thereby reducing the cost and increasing the availability of fish to poorer
households, this may not always be the case. In studies in India, a trend towards increased culture of
high value fish aimed at supplying wealthier households and ‘farming up the value chain’ was noted
by Arthur et al. (2005).
Pg. 24
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Trade Deficit Advantage Add-On (1/2)
A. The US has fallen behind on the fish market – slow growth of the aquaculture industry
means the $9 billion seafood trade gap will only expand.
Walsh, reporter for Time Magazine, 2011
(Bryan, “Can the U.S. Close Its Seafood Trade Deficit?,” TIME Magazine, July 8, Online:
http://science.time.com/2011/07/08/can-the-u-s-close-its-seafood-trade-deficit/)
American consumption of farmed seafood is right in line with global norms. Half our fish
comes from farms as well—but not from American farms. 84% of the seafood consumed by
Americans is imported, and just 5% of the farmed seafood we eat is domestic. Here’s an
amazing stat: our “seafood trade deficit” is $9 billion, which as trade deficits in natural
resources go is second only to crude oil. More than just about anything else on our plate, our
seafood has likely traveled a long way before it arrives at our table. “It’s true that we live in a global
market place, but we are concerned about the U.S. and U.S. aquaculture,” says Michael Rubino,
manager of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) aquaculture program.
Why are Americans so dependent on foreigners for their fish? Once-productive waters in
regions like New England have been hit hard by over-fishing, often followed by lengthy and
controversial moratoriums to allow commercial species to recover. In 2009 American fisherman
hauled in 3.5 million tons worth of seafood. That’s the lightest catch since 1988, but U.S. seafood
consumption keeps rising, as the taste for sushi and shrimp cocktail spreads and more of us follow
medical advice to eat at least 8 oz of seafood a week for cardiovascular health. (Right now Americans
eat less than half as much seafood as the government recommends—if we all ate what we’re
supposed to, we’d need at least twice as much seafood have now.) American fishermen are hard
pressed to keep up with domestic demand—and it wouldn’t be ecologically sustainable for
long if they tried. That leaves aquaculture, but the reality is, the U.S. doesn’t have much of a
domestic fish farming industry. The bulk of U.S. aquaculture comes from freshwater farms,
involving relatively low-value species like catfish and carp. Marine aquaculture—think salmon,
shrimp, oysters—provides just 1.5% of U.S. seafood consumption. On a global level—where
countries like China, Norway and Chile dominate—the U.S. barely registers. “You just don’t
see much development in the U.S.,” says Richard Langan, director of the Atlantic Marine
Aquaculture Center at the University of New Hampshire.
Pg. 25
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Trade Deficit Advantage Add-On (2/2)
B. Trade deficits create massive unemployment and slow economic growth – it takes
money out of the US economy.
Moreland, staff writer for Economy in Crisis, 2014
(James, “US Trade Deficit Fosters Unemployment,” Economy in Crisis, February 2, Online:
http://economyincrisis.org/content/lack-jobs-due-our-massive-trade-deficit)
While many politicians blame the lack of jobs on the federal budget deficit, it is actually America’s
trade deficit that is the root of many of our problems. The U.S. is still millions of jobs behind
where it was when the Great Recession started. The economy has been unable to create jobs
due to America’s massive trade deficit caused by our failed economic policy.¶ Since 1975, the
U.S. has imported more goods than it has exported. In 2010 alone, the U.S. had a deficit of
$478 billion in global trade. A large portion of this was oil imports, but consumer goods are another
area in which the U.S. imports virtually everything.¶ Trade policy that encourages businesses to
relocate production of goods to other nations without penalizing them for selling those goods
back to this nation has resulted in millions of lost jobs. White House estimates show that for
every $1 billion in goods exported, the economy creates 5,000 jobs. Unfortunately, that street
goes both ways — data from the Economic Policy Institute shows that for every $1 billion in
goods imported, the economy loses 9,000 jobs.¶ Making it possible for American businesses
to sell products to the American people would open up a market long denied to them. This
would help create American jobs and help protect our national security (the decline of American
manufacturing has forced the military to increasingly rely on foreign suppliers).
Pg. 26
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: the US will still import most of its seafood
[
]
[
] Fish farming would help reduce the growing US seafood trade deficit.
Rice, 2011
(Michael A., “Ocean Fish Farms Are a Pretty Good Deal,” Fishery News, Oct 22, 2013 originally May
4, 2011, online: http://usfishlaw.com/ocean-fish-farms-are-a-pretty-good-deal/)
Our American aversion to fully embrace coastal aquatic farms does not come without a real
cost. The shortfall in seafood in our markets caused by increasing market demand is in fact
being met by massive importation of seafood from foreign countries. And increasingly the amount
of seafood sold is being sourced from fish farms in these countries. According to the U.S.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, we already import more than three quarters of our seafood and
run an annual seafood trade deficits of about $9 billion per year and these annual deficits have
been growing. American fish farms could potentially cut into this deficit and better assure
seafood safety and freedom from contaminants because our environmental and public health
laws are much more stringent that in many of the source countries of our farmed and captured
seafood.
Pg. 27
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Trade deficits don’t hurt the economy
[
]
[
] Trade deficits cut local jobs, hurts economic growth, and prevents government
stimulus from being effective.
Sherter, 2012
(Alain Sherter, “How the U.S. trade gaps hurts the economy,” CBS Money Watch, May 10, 2012,
online: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-the-us-trade-gaps-hurts-the-economy/)
As the trade deficit has grown, meanwhile, U.S. businesses have moved a lot more jobs abroad
in recent years than they've created at home. Between 1999 and 2008 U.S. multinationals slashed
their domestic workforce by 1.9 million, while increasing overseas employment by 2.4 million,
economist Martin Sullivan has shown. And it's not only about wages. The U.S. has lost more
manufacturing jobs since 2000 than several countries that pay their workers more, including Australia,
France, Germany, and Sweden. Nor is it only about manufacturing. The number of financial services,
IT, HR, and other white-collar jobs lost to offshoring has risen since the financial crisis. How does
offshoring relate to America's growing trade deficit? Both stifle job-creation, which in turn is
affected by U.S. trade policy. Since 2001, for example, the U.S. trade gap with China has resulted in
a loss of 2.8 million jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think-tank. More
broadly, a widening deficit can act as a drag on the economy by muting the job-creating effects
of consumer spending. Why? Because when people hit their local mall or big-box retailer, what they
buy is mostly made abroad. That creates more jobs overseas than it does here. It also weakens the
impact of government stimulus by reducing the "multiplier" effect you get when formerly
unemployed workers in the U.S. suddenly have a job and money in their pockets. (Again, the
idea there is that higher consumer spending drives hiring, which continues the virtuous circle by
pushing up spending.)
Pg. 28
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Trade deficits are good for the economy
[
]
[
] Decreasing the trade deficit is vital to overall economic growth.
Yerasi, 2012
(Raj, “Analysis: Cutting US trade deficit the 'one big solution' to reducing debt,” March 16, 2012,
online: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/US-economy-solutionthe-trade-deficit-stupid)
BOSTON — The biggest challenge facing the US economy today is job creation. Despite massive
fiscal stimulus and unprecedented liquidity injections, unemployment remains stubbornly high.
Policymakers are now groping for solutions that won’t take our national debt further into the red
zone, debating the effectiveness of tax cuts versus spending increases. However, they seem to have
missed one big solution that wouldn’t increase our debt and in fact would likely reduce it:
cutting the trade deficit. It’s surprising that people aren’t up in arms over the trade deficit the way
they used to be. Perhaps we simply got used to it; it’s old news and it didn’t seem to hurt our growth
before (despite the hysteria over Japan in the ‘80s), so there may be skepticism that it’s hurting our
growth now. However, what’s missing from this view is that we are in a fundamentally different
economic environment today, and unlike before, every dollar of trade deficit is now like a dollar of
negative stimulus. To understand why, one must look at the trade deficit from a flow-of-funds
perspective. When the US runs a trade deficit, money spent by Americans on goods and services
flows out of the US rather than to other Americans. If that money had flowed to other Americans,
it would have increased employment of those Americans, and they in turn would have saved a
portion of that money and spent the rest (helping even more Americans). But when there is a trade
deficit and the money flows out of the US, there is no spending or savings that accrues to
Americans. So far, the trade deficit looks destimulative. However, the money sent abroad finds its
way back into our banking system. This is because foreign governments buy those dollars from their
exporters in exchange for local currency and invest those dollars into dollar-denominated assets,
primarily US Treasuries. During normal times, our banking system lends out this money for
consumption and investment by Americans, largely replacing the direct spending that was lost due to
the money flowing out of the country. This is credit-financed spending, not direct spending, but it is
spending nonetheless and also puts Americans to work. When credit is expanding, therefore, the
trade deficit does not seem destimulative. More from GlobalPost: Obama: "The economy is getting
stronger" The issue with today’s environment is that our banking system isn’t working the way it
normally does. During normal times, banks want to lend and consumers and businesses want to
borrow. Today, after the bursting of the credit bubble, banks are wary of lending, consumers are still
deleveraging, and businesses don’t have the confidence to borrow for investment. The trade deficit
is causing a drop in direct spending that is no longer being offset by credit-financed spending.
The result is simply lost spending.
Pg. 29
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Multiple barriers to development
[
]
[
] The lack of coherent regulatory standards is by far the biggest factor undermining the
development of offshore aquaculture – interviews with industry leaders confirm.
Buck, MA in Marine Affairs at University of Washington, 2012
(Lisa, “U.S. Development of Offshore Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors,”
Online:
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1773/21752/Buck_washington_0250O_107
41.pdf?sequence=1)
Many freshwater and coastal aquaculture facilities are currently operating in the United States
and contributing seafood products to domestic and global markets. These types of
aquaculture have become successful industries, however that success has not yet expanded
into United States federal waters. Regulatory, economic, and political factors that might explain
the lack of development of an aquaculture industry in the United States Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ) beyond state waters were examined through available literature, semi-structured interviews,
and case examples of offshore aquaculture development projects. Analysis showed that while
economic and political factors have a definite influence on the development of offshore
aquaculture, the greatest barriers to the growth of the industry in the United States are the
lack of a rational and comprehensive federal regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture,
and lack of explicit regulatory authority naming NOAA as the lead federal agency. Until these
regulatory factors are addressed, development of offshore aquaculture in the United States
will continue to be on a project-by-project and permit-by-permit basis. This case-by-case
approach, by failing to address systematically important economic, political, jurisdictional,
and ethical issues concerning the use of offshore waters for commercial aquaculture, is likely
to continue to inhibit development of offshore aquaculture in the future. I conclude with a
discussion of possible root causes for the lack of clear federal guidance with regard to offshore
aquaculture, and I make recommendations for addressing the regulatory, economic and political
factors that are inhibiting the development of offshore aquaculture in the United States.!
Pg. 30
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Investors aren’t interested in aquaculture
[
]
[
] Investors are interested, but deterred by the unclear regulations – it creates a
perception that their investment will get shut down.
Buck, MA in Marine Affairs at University of Washington, 2012
(Lisa, “U.S. Development of Offshore Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors,”
Online:
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1773/21752/Buck_washington_0250O_107
41.pdf?sequence=1)
While there are numerous laws and regulations with aspects that are applicable to offshore
aquaculture regulation, none was designed with offshore aquaculture specifically in mind. The
lack of action by congress to name a lead federal agency for offshore aquaculture regulation
has also had a strong influence on the ability of the industry to develop. This has led to an
unstable regulatory environment that presents disincentives to potential entrants to the
industry. It also serves as a disincentive to potential investors who are unwilling to risk their
return on an investment due to an uncertain permit and lease tenure for a facility. Use conflicts
and siting issues are commonly viewed as potentially influencing the development of offshore
aquaculture. Because there is still no federal regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture in
the United States however they are most commonly viewed by interviewees as potential future
threats. The idea that use conflicts are perceived rather than real was a common theme among
interviewees a result of misinformation from opponents of the industry. Those who believed that use
conflicts were real generally also felt that with proper planning and implementation conflicts
could be avoided, leading to the conclusion that use conflicts are not a major impediment to
the development of offshore aquaculture in the United States.
Pg. 31
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Investors aren’t interested in aquaculture
[
]
[
] Investors are funding aquaculture projects in other countries – most indicate the
unclear permitting and regulation process is what makes them go elsewhere with their money.
Johns, J.D. Candidate at USC Law, 2013
(Kristen, “FARM FISHING HOLES: GAPS IN FEDERAL REGULATION OF OFFSHORE
AQUACULTURE,” Southern California Law Review, 86 S. Cal. L. Rev. 681, March)
Without a comprehensive regulatory framework in place to guide the offshore industry, the
attacks on aquaculture projects in federal waters such as those proposed in the Gulf of
Mexico or launched by Kona Blue will not stop. Aquaculturists must be given the incentives
and legal assurances needed to expand offshore, or else they will move their operations
abroad. Indeed, frustrated by the lack of any clear or predictable regulatory or permitting
framework, companies such as Kona Blue are already starting to take their offshore operations
overseas. Although most express their wish to stay in U.S. waters, they admit it makes more
sense to move to an area that has clear and predictable management. n61 Indeed, would-be
investors and lenders interested in offshore operations are suspicious of investing in
activities in the United States given the industry's uncertain future, and would rather finance
foreign operations: U.S. investors have already contributed to offshore operations in areas off
the Caribbean and Latin America. n62 Kona Blue recently chose to expand its operations from
waters [*694] off Hawaii to Mexico; n63 another offshore aquaculturist recently moved his business
from U.S. waters off the coast of Puerto Rico to Panama. n64 As Kona Blue's CEO explained, The
concern going forward is the permit pathway ... . If you make it available, [entrepreneurs] will
come and make investments. American entrepreneurs realize an opportunity when they see one.
The biggest constraint we hear from them is, "Will we be allowed to scale this [up]? How can we be
sure that we can build an industry here?" n65 Thus, if the U.S. government wishes to keep its
domestic offshore aquaculture industry afloat, it must focus on revising its current regulatory
regime.
Pg. 32
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Offshore farms aren’t feasible
[
]
[
] Offshore aquaculture is a new industry so there are hurdles – but technology is rapidly
catching up to harsh ocean conditions.
Upton and Buck, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy & Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
for the Congressional Research Service, 2010
(Harold & Eugene, “Open Ocean Aquaculture,” National Ag Law Center, August 9, Online:
http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RL32694.pdf)
Since open water aquaculture is a relatively new industry, many potential operators are
inexperienced with the technical requirements for open ocean facilities. Historically, development
has been limited by technology that requires water depths of 100-150 feet; this narrow band of
acceptable depth exists from ¼ mile to about 50 miles offshore, depending on location. Open ocean
aquaculture facilities, moored or floating miles off the coast in a high-energy environment,
experience numerous environmental conditions that differ from nearshore aquaculture
operations, including exposure to wind and wave action from all directions, short and steep wave
patterns, strong currents, seasonal anoxic (oxygen-lacking) conditions, and other severe ocean
conditions that can prevent operators from being able to access their cages for days to weeks.7
Systems have been developed to overcome these obstacles, including cage designs that do
not deform under strong current and wave loads, submersible cages, and single-point
moorings. Cage-mounted autonomous feeding systems have been developed that can operate
both at the surface and submerged. Others have developed closed containment systems for
open ocean use to address environmental concerns. Universities and private-sector research
interests are developing automated buoys that can monitor the condition of stock and feed
fish on a regular basis for weeks at a time. Other research groups are working on automated,
floating cages that would travel with the currents and be tracked by satellite.8 These ship-like
structures could float on favorable oceanic currents or be held in the same location with lowenergy thrusters.
Pg. 33
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Offshore aquaculture can support urban aquaculture
[
]
[
] Permutation: do both – offshore aquaculture can be used to support local urban
fisheries.
Brader, 2008
(James D., “Aquaculture’s Role in Providing Fish for Urban Fisheries Programs,” American Fisheries
Society Symposium 67, American Fisheries Society, 2008, Online:
http://ww.fisheries.org/proofs/urb/brader.pdf)
The need for urban fishing continues to grow because the urban constituency desires areas that
provide opportunity for an outdoor experience. Travel and other associated costs have risen, preventing many people in the urban popu- lation from traveling to more rural areas for recreation. Some
people simply pre- fer not to leave the urban environment for more rural areas for that outdoor
experience. If this demand continues to increase, urban fishery managers will be challenged to
develop new urban fisheries or rehabilitate existing ones. Urban fisheries can consist of
traditional man- agement of native species and habitats, management of native species and habi- tats
with incorporation of additional fish stocking, or just put and take fish stock- ing into a suitable habitat.
In many loca- tions of the United States, aquaculture is already providing fish suitable for urban
fisheries programs. Although the costs of fish provided by aquaculture are sig- nificant, public
demand for urban fishing and the mission of fish and wildlife agen- cies that includes soliciting and
retaining anglers will continue to make utilization of fish from aquaculture attractive in most
areas. Urban fishery managers need to make decisions on species, sizes, and sources of fish for
stocking that opti- mize the equilibrium between benefits to anglers and overall program costs.
Pg. 34
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Urban aquaculture alone will fail
[
]
[
] Incentivizing offshore aquaculture is essential to ensure wide-spread take-off of fish
farming – focusing on urban aquaculture alone will fail.
Heck et al., 2006
(Dr Simon Heck, WorldFish Centre, Cairo, Egypt; Dr Krishen Rana, Institute of Aquaculture,
University of Stirling, UK. Report compiled by Giorgia Monti, AFGRP Research Assistant, Institute of
Aquaculture, University of Stirling, UK, “Resource, market development and poverty targeting issues
associated with emerging Peri-urban and Urban Aquaculture in Sub-Saharan Africa,” UK Department
for International Development, March, Online:
http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/Aquaculture/R8287_FTR.pdf)
The significant impacts of market incentives on the scale and intensity of aquaculture
demonstrated from the research suggest that extending those incentives beyond the peri-urban
domain will be critical to the takeoff of aquaculture and improving the welfare of rural
producers as well. The study recommends future strategies not focusing aquaculture
development efforts only within the peri-urban domain, but as well in those areas with a
comparative advantage in production, facilitating the access of small producers to urban markets.
Pg. 35
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Government incentives won’t work
[
]
[
] Grants and small-scale urban experiments are inadequate to launch widespread
aquaculture adoption.
Future of Fish, 2014
(Future of Fish, “Breakthrough Aquaculture,” report for Commune, LP, January 15, 2014, online:
http://www.futureoffish.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/Aquaculture_Report_FoF_2014.pdf)
Government grants and small experimental fish farms can take an idea only so far. Eventually,
researchers need to test their ideas on a larger, more commercial scale. But often the
companies that would realize the most gain from such projects are the least likely to
participate. With small margins and already high- risk operations, these companies cannot
afford to spend time or funds engaging in experimentation. The mutual need for commercialscale pilot projects to demonstrate proof-of-concept in aquaculture offers fertile ground for
collaborative models that can address industry limitations while exploiting the facilities and permitting
structure that industry brings to the research table.
Pg. 36
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Urban aquaculture risks disease spread
[
]
[
] Urban aquaculture increases the risk of pathogen harboring and disease spread –
there’s a closer proximity to human workers and consumers.
Smith et al., 2001
(Jac, Joe Nasr, Annu Ratta, “Problems Related to Urban Agriculture,” Urban Agriculture Network,
2001, online: http://jacsmit.com/book/Chap08.pdf
Aquaculture is useful for fish and vegetable production, waste management, and habitat
management. It can reduce mosquito breeding in low-lying and marshy areas if the correct range of
fish species is included. But urban aquaculture may increase the habitat of some pathogens and
provide a transmission route through the fish to humans, as well as putting farmers and
workers at risk. Aquatic snails in aquaculture ponds using sewage can also serve as host for
pathogens that cause schistosomiasis or bilharzia.33
Pg. 37
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Urban aquaculture increases carbon emissions
[
]
[
] Urban aquaculture has a huge carbon footprint – it takes tons of electricity to power an
urban fish farm.
Chopin et al, 2010
(Dr. Thierry, Doctorate from the University of Western Brittany, President of the International
Seaweed Association, advisor to the International Foundation for Science, Dr. Max Troell, Associate
Professor, Systems Ecologist, and Researcher at the Beijer Institute and Stockholm University, Dr.
Gregor K. Reid, University of New Brunswick, “Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture: Part II.
Increasing IMTA Adoption,” Online: http://research.rem.sfu.ca/papers/knowler/GAANovDec2010pp17-20.pdf)
Moving to land-based or closed containment operations is one approach that may help address
some sustainability issues but is not without its problems. Large amounts of energy, often diesel
or electric power, are required to pump and aerate water. Nutrients are either pumped back
into the water or settled somewhere and “trucked” off site. All of these processes leave a
‘carbon footprint’, and only partly solve the issue of excess nutrients. IMTA, or its variations
called “aquaponics” or “hydroponics”, will have to be added to closed-containment or land-based
systems to treat the effluents. One ‘impact’ may simply be traded for another. Ayer and Tyedmers
(2009), in their life cycle assessment of alternative aquaculture technologies, warned that we could
be in a case of environmental problem shifting, not solving, where, while reducing local
ecological impacts, the increase in material and energy demands may result in significant
increased contributions to several environmental impacts of global concern, including global
warming, non-renewable resource depletion, and acidification.
Pg. 38
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Urban aquaculture is too unstable
[
]
[
] Urban aquaculture operations will fail – they require too much energy and it’s too
difficult to maintain the exact environmental conditions fish require to grow.
Howell, Research Director for Future of Fish, 2014
(Colleen,“Breakthrough Aquaculture: Uncovering solutions that drive ecologically sound and
commercially viable models for farm-raised seafood,” Future of Fish, January, Online:
http://www.futureoffish.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/Aquaculture_Report_FoF_2014.pdf)
While discussion in the marine science world focuses on the negative impacts of fish farming, in truth,
farmed fish actually have a lighter environmental toll compared with beef, pork, or even chicken. Fish
convert energy into edible protein far more efficiently than mammals. But growing fish on land
requires extremely high-energy inputs that can offset those gains. Further, land-based fish
farming is risky. With other forms of husbandry, animals are relatively resilient to changes in their
surrounding environments. Fish, on the other hand, live and die based on the water conditions in
their tanks. A slight variation in temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, or any number of other
factors can be catastrophic. Thus, not only does land-based aquaculture require sophisticated
technology to provide constant aeration, filtration, and monitoring, but back-up systems must
also be in place.
Pg. 39
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Expanded aquaculture solves overfishing
[
]
[
] Aquaculture can help alleviate overfishing concerns – avoids commercial techniques
WorldWide Aquaculture, 2014
(WorldWide Aquaculture, “Economic Benefits Of Aquacultured Fish Farming,” WorldWide
Aquaculture, March 18, 2014, online: http://worldwideaquaculture.com/economic-benefits-ofaquacultured-fish-farming/)
Fish and seafood are delicious sources of protein and other nutrients that many people consider to be
an essential part of a healthy diet, and therefore, enjoy regularly. Unfortunately, its popularity is also
its demise. Wild fish are being over fished to the extent that extinction is a realistic concern!
Aquaculture fish farming, which takes pressure off of wild fish, is being considered to help
alleviate this issue. Although it does not solve the current problems associated with overfishing
around the world, it is continuously gaining popularity in the United States. Benefits of sustainable
aquaculture Aquaculture fish farming can be an easy solution to address the global demands
for fish protein and nutrition. Considering the fact that there is going to be an increase in population
in the next few years, and by 2050, we expect the world population to rise by 3 billion people. Many of
the families will become solvent and move to middle class income, and there will be a huge trend
towards urbanization. By the end of this decade, aquaculture could become a key food
producing sector in the world. We are going to discuss some of the major benefits of aquaculture
fish farming. Meeting global demands for protein Recently, the World Fish Center has reported that
the wild fish stock around the world is being depleted constantly from modern commercial
fishing techniques. Aquaculture, which produces about half the seafood available in the market
today is, could become a major tool for meeting global fish demands. As the world population
increases at exponential rates and wild fish populations decrease, it is inevitable that the demands for
aquaculture farming will increase rapidly in the future. Aquaculture can also help regenerate the
wild seafood stock by providing a consistent supply of seafood all year round. Preserving the
population of wild fish species While preserving the wild fish stock in the oceans around the
world, it would also preserve other marine species that are harmed by overfishing. Keeping
ecosystem and biodiversity intact It is possible to keep the ecosystem and biodiversity intact in
an aquaculture fish farm by following the sustainable methods of fish farming. Some fish farms
tend to overpopulate the ponds, which may increase the amount of organic waste produced and
growth of some harmful algae. Fish farming in this process is not recommendable. Furthermore, if no
GMO food or cross genetic techniques are used, it is possible to keep biodiversity and ecosystem at
its natural states, and still make a good profit from fish farming through sustainable methods of fish
farming.
Pg. 40
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Aquaculture doesn’t use much fishmeal
[
]
[
] Aquaculture is not driving the exploitation of oceans for fishmeal – it is sustainable
Turchini, Professor at the School of Life and Environmental Sciences at Deakin University,
2013
(Giovanni M., Fish Oils, Misconceptions and the Environment. American Journal of Public Health:
November 2013, Vol. 103, No. 11, pp. e4-e4. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301510)
Nevertheless, the actual impact of aquaculture on seafood supply has been questioned on the
grounds that wild fish are used (as fishmeal and fish oil) in feed for farmed fish.5 Accordingly,
Greene et al.1 suggested that “because most fish farms raise carnivorous fish … fish farming likely
exacerbates the problem.” Unfortunately, this is not entirely accurate. Firstly, the farming of
carnivorous fish (such as salmon), though common in western societies, is a very small part of
global aquaculture ( six percent of total production).3 However, it must be reported that fishmeal
and fish oil are also used for noncarnivorous species (such as shrimp and tilapia).6 Nevertheless, the
volume of seafood cultured with the use of fishmeal and fish oil has been estimated to be 39% of total
aquaculture production.3,6 The remaining 60% is composed of species that are low in the trophic
chain (i.e., filtering feeding mollusks), farmed without the use of any wild fish-derived resource.3,6
Secondly, there are other major elements that are often forgotten: (1) aquaculture consumes 25%
of global fisheries production but contributes 50% of global seafood availability,3 (2) the
fisheries of species intended for fishmeal and fish oil production is well regulated and
sustainably managed,7 and (3) the annual global production of fishmeal and fish oil has
remained constant over the last five decades.3,4,6 The latter is clearly indicating that the
expansion of aquaculture, and the consequent increasing demand for feed, has not impacted on
global fishery pressure (Figure 1). In reality, the expansion of aquaculture has only been
responsible for a shift in the use of fish meal and fish oil; from industrial or nonedible uses to fish
nutrition. This way aquaculture is actually responsible for increased availability of the omega-3 fatty
acids EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) for humans.
Pg. 41
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Aquaculture doesn’t use much fishmeal
[
]
[
] Fishmeal use has declined in the aquaculture sector – other industries like chicken
farming use more fishmeal.
Lazaroff, 2001
(Cat Lazaroff, “Aquaculture May Be Fishing for Trouble,” Environment News Service, February 21,
2001,
http://www.usc.edu/dept/polsci/sellers/Links/Assets/Environmental%20stories/Aquaculture%20May%
20be%20Fishing%20for%20Trouble.htm)
Hardy argues that the AAAS studies use out of date information concerning the amount of fish
meal used in feed formulations for salmon and other farmed fish, citing a 2000 study in "The Global
Aquaculture Advocate." farm At Fish Breeders of Idaho, sustainable fish - white tilapia - are raised
with the help of sustainable power - geothermal energy (Photo courtesy Geo-Heat Center) The AAAS
studies also use out of date feed conversion ratios, "which lead them to exaggerated
conclusions concerning the amount of wild caught fish (used to make fish meal) that is needed to
produce farmed fish," Hardy said in a release timed to counter the AAAS symposium. "Economics
and consumer preferences dictate aquaculture production and the use of fishmeal," said Hardy. "At
present, fish meal is abundant and inexpensive, but this will inevitably change in the future." Hardy
noted that ingredients such as soybean meal, corn gluten meal, wheat gluten meal, and other
byproducts of grains and oilseeds can easily replace between a third and a half of the fish meal
in feeds for the primary aquaculture species - salmon and trout, shrimp and marine fish. Hardy also
noted that fish meal made from wild fish is important to many other industries, such as the pet
food market and some livestock operations. Chicken farms are the largest consumers of fish
meal, Hardy said. "If aquaculture ceased using fish meal in feeds tomorrow, there would be
absolutely no impact on landings of fish to make fish meal, because other agriculture production
sectors would buy it all," Hardy said. "The fact that a higher proportion of world fish meal
production is used in feeds for fish today than a decade ago does not mean that aquaculture is
responsible for overfishing of stocks, fishing down trophic levels, or lowering global supplies of
seafood for humans."
Pg. 42
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Aquaculture can farm non-carnivorous fish
[
]
[
] Aquaculture could switch to raising non-carnivorous fish, decreasing demand for
fishmeal
Nordahl, Master of Science in Economics and Business Administration, 2011
(Per Gunnar, Is the Aquaculture Industry Caught In a Fishmeal Trap?, Master Thesis in Economic
Analysis (ECO), NORWEGIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,
Bergen, spring 2011)
One way to increase aquaculture production irrespective of research progress could be to
cultivate more non-carnivorous fish species. Carnivorous fish production in 2007 made up about
31 percent of total aquaculture production and the remaining 69 percent was non-carnivorous fish (cf.
figure 1.3 and 6.2), where carp and molluscs (e.g. squid) are the most important non-carnivorous
species. Aquaculture production could therefore be increased by focusing the growth on noncarnivorous species. However, market forces and governmental policies in many countries favor
rapid expansion of carnivorous species such as salmon and shrimp (Naylor et al. 2000). 89
All in all, is there any validity to the fishmeal trap? In the short-run I would argue that there is, as the
statistical analysis shows that the fishmeal and soybean meal markets are becoming increasingly
disconnected. In the long-run however, research initiatives are likely to provide substances which are
near complete substitutes to fishmeal. Also, increased cultivation of non-carnivorous species and
reduction of the fishmeal used in their diets could stimulate further growth. I would therefore
say that there is little validity to the fishmeal trap in the long-term, and I find it probable that
the aquaculture sector will continue to adapt to technological development and play a more
important role in feeding the world‟s population in the future.
Pg. 43
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Aquaculture industry is switching to non-fishmeal options
[
]
[
] New advances in feed is substituting fishmeal with plant material – their evidence is
outdated
Olsen and Hasan, researchers for the Aquaculture Service of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, 2012
(Ragnar L. and Mohammad R., A limited supply of fishmeal: Impact on future increases in global
aquaculture production, Trends in Food Science & Technology, Volume 27, Issue 2, October 2012,
Pages 120–128)
The global farming of fish and shellfish has been the fastest growing food producing sector in the last
few decades and has become an important industry in many countries. Fishmeal made from pelagic
fish used to be the major dietary protein source in compounded feed for many important farmed
species, but the limited amount available has resulted in massive research to identify
alternative protein sources. The average levels of pelagic fishmeal in aquaculture feed have
decreased substantially in the last decade and recent published results in the scientific
literature show that it is possible to replace even more in diets both for carnivorous and
herbivorous/omnivorous species. If the predicted low inclusion levels are reached in the next decade,
there may be room for a relatively large increase in the total production of farmed fish and
shellfish without any increased use of fishmeal.
Pg. 44
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Aquaculture industry is switching to non-fishmeal options
[
]
[
] Alternatives to fishmeal are coming now
Nordahl, Master of Science in Economics and Business Administration, 2011
(Per Gunnar, Is the Aquaculture Industry Caught In a Fishmeal Trap?, Master Thesis in Economic
Analysis (ECO), NORWEGIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,
Bergen, spring 2011)
In chapter 6 an introduction to some of the main research efforts on fish feed diets were given.
Several projects aimed at reducing the inclusion level of fishmeal have been ongoing for some time
now and many of them show promising preliminary results. The programs are not concentrated
around one approach, but research is performed on several frontiers. The European research
program PEPPA has targeted inclusion rates 65 to 100 percent less than today‟s rates for various
carnivorous species, and if successful it will have a significant impact on aquaculture production
possibilities. Scientists at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) claim that
exploitation of zooplankton could be the fastest and most sustainable way to enhance marine
harvest of bio-resources for fish feed. Other promising approaches are feed production from
earth worms and increasing the use of animal by-products. Considering the number of
research programs and money being devoted to find alternatives for fishmeal, it is likely that
fishmeal inclusion rates in fish feed diets could be substantially reduced in the future. This
argues against the validity of the fishmeal trap. So the statistical analysis and the qualitative
discussion of research efforts might be somewhat contradictory when it comes to exploring the
validity of the fishmeal-trap. It is likely that there will be a downward trend in the fishmeal inclusion
level over time, but as aquaculture production grows at a rapid rate (cf. figure 1.3) the demand for
fishmeal is not expected to decrease. The statistical analysis points out that soybean meal is not a
perfect substitute for fishmeal, and this implies that it will continue to be a strained fishmeal
supply/demand balance in the short term. Long- term it does however seem that research
initiatives will come up with solutions that enables production with minimal inclusions of
fishmeal, thus allowing increased aquaculture production of carnivorous fish. However, if
commercially viable solutions from research programs are delayed, then aquaculture production of
carnivorous fish could be restrained for some time.
Pg. 45
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Aquaculture industry is switching to non-fishmeal options
[
]
[
] We won’t need fishmeal in the long-term
Nordahl, Master of Science in Economics and Business Administration, 2011
(Per Gunnar, Is the Aquaculture Industry Caught In a Fishmeal Trap?, Master Thesis in Economic
Analysis (ECO), NORWEGIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,
Bergen, spring 2011)
The world hunger crisis is growing larger and increased aquaculture production could be a way to
ease the situation. However, carnivorous aquaculture production does currently require
fishmeal which only exists at a limited supply and this has led some to believe that the future
growth of the aquaculture sector will be restrained – caught in a fishmeal trap. Cointegration
analysis on the fishmeal and soybean meal price show that these raw materials have historically
been considered as substitutes, but that this relationship has weakened as the aquaculture
industry has expanded. Research programs aimed at reducing the fishmeal inclusion rate in
fish feed diets have already come a long way, and it is likely that an aquaculture feed pellet
containing minimal amounts of fishmeal one day will be possible. The growth of the
aquaculture sector will therefore in the short-term be influenced by the availability of
fishmeal, but it is not likely that the industry will be locked in a fishmeal trap in the long-run.
Pg. 46
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Answers to: Operations won’t use vegetable substitutes
[
]
[
] Fish farmers will switch to plant based sources of feed because it is the most cost
effective
Hardy, Aquaculture Research Institute, University of Idaho, 2010
(Ronald, Utilization of plant proteins in fish diets: effects of global demand and supplies of fishmeal.
Aquaculture Research, 41: 770–776.)
Aquafeeds for both carnivores and omnivores fish species have always contained fishmeal because
until 2005, fishmeal protein was the most cost-effective protein source available. Over the
previous 30+ years, the price of fishmeal remained within a trading range of US$400 to US$900 per
mt, varying in price in relation to global supply and demand. However, in 2006, the price of
fishmeal increased significantly to over US$1500 per mt and since then, prices have remained
above US$1100, suggesting that a new trading range has been established. This has increased
pressure to replace fishmeal with plant protein ingredients.
Pg. 47
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Businesses will switch from fish-meal to avoid collapse
[
]
[
] Fishmeal use is leveling off – aquaculture industry is finding alternatives and using it
more efficiently.
IFFO 2013
(IFFO, “Is aquaculture growth putting pressure on feed fish stocks? And is the growth of aquaculture
being restricted by finite supplies of fishmeal and fish?” Feb 2013, online:
http://www.iffo.net/system/files/Is%20aquaculture%20growth%20putting%20pressure%20on%20feed
%20fish%20stocks%20FINAL%20Feb%202013%20formatted_1.pdf)
So the concern that expanding aquaculture is currently using more and more fishmeal and fish
oil is misplaced. While fishmeal and fish oil's exceptional qualities including high levels of
healthy omega- 3s, vitamins and trace elements and lack of anti-nutritional factors are highly valued producers of aquafeeds had recognised by early this century that supplies of these
ingredients were finite. Sustainable production from well managed fisheries had a ceiling of about 5
million tonnes of fishmeal and 1 million tonnes of fish oil per annum. The result is that fishmeal and
fish oil are being used more efficiently, more strategically at lower levels (i.e. in fry and brood
stock diets) and, in part, substituted by alternative ingredients. The total amount required has
levelled off. Diagram 5 shows how fishmeal and fish oil have been substituted with alternative
vegetable oils, proteins and starches.
Pg. 48
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Fishing communites are struggling now
[
]
[
] Local fishers are facing massive issues with their fisheries now – natural disasters and
overfishing have had huge impacts on local markets.
Stucker, 2014
(Kyle, “Local fishermen critical of NOAA reports on industry,” Seacoast online, May 04, 2014, online:
http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20140504-NEWS-405040352)
Goethel argues that these revenues aren't sustainable long term. She said without the scallop and
lobster revenues, the numbers released in the NOAA economic impact statement back up local
claims that New Hampshire fisheries have "steadily decreased in value, the number of vessels
have steadily decreased and the infrastructure to support that (industry) has decreased." "It's not
inaccurate," Goethel said. "What really bothers me and the rest of the fishermen going bankrupt,
especially fishermen in New Hampshire and New England, is we are really hurting here. It's not
because there aren't fish out there." New England politicians have secured federal disaster relief
funds to help local fisherman facing sizable economic challenges due to natural environmental
causes. At some point this year, $32.8 million is expected to be divided among the states, although it
isn't yet known how much New Hampshire will receive. NOAA economist Dr. Rita Curtis said in a
media conference call earlier in the week that NOAA does recognize that New England's
groundfish industry is struggling, and that the two stocks rebuilt in 2013 — Southern Atlantic
Coast black sea bass and Sacramento River fall Chinook salmon — don't directly affect the local
industry.
Pg. 49
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Aquaculture strengthens coastal economies
[
]
[
] Increased aquaculture operations would prevent fish stock collapse and create
thousands of secure jobs that can’t be outsourced – it’s the key to rebuilding coastal
economies.
Conathan and Kroh, Director of Ocean Policy at American Progress and Co-Editor of
ClimateProgress, 2012
(Michael and Kiley,“The Foundations of a Blue Economy,” June 27, Online:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/06/27/11794/the-foundations-of-a-blueeconomy/)
Meanwhile, U.S. seafood consumption has dipped slightly, down from 16 pounds per person in 2008
to 15.8 pounds in 2009, while global seafood consumption has doubled in the last 40 years. At the
same time, the percentage of fish we import has skyrocketed. Today, roughly 85 percent of the fish
we eat is caught, grown, or processed in other countries. The U.S. trade deficit in seafood
products is a staggering $9 billion, ranking second among natural resources only to crude oil.
This is bad news not just for our economy but for the environment as well. The United States
is home to some of the most sustainably managed fisheries on the planet. Each fish we buy
from a country with less stringent standards not only takes a bite out of American fishermen’s
bottom lines, but also contributes to the decline of global fisheries. Aquaculture, or fish
farming, is increasingly playing a greater role in putting fish on our plates. Fully half the fish
imported in 2010 was a farmed product. Given the escalating dietary needs of a booming world
population, aquaculture will have to be a part of the future of fish. Yet aquaculture, which can be
carried out either in the ocean or at land-based fresh or salt water facilities, comes with its own set of
environmental concerns, including high concentrations of waste, the need to catch wild fish to feed
farmed fish, and potential for corruption of wild populations’ gene pools. But in this sector, too, the
United States has far more stringent environmental and human health regulations than virtually any of
our trade partners. Given the clear differences between domestic and imported seafood in
terms of sustainability, product quality, and local sourcing, consumer education and market
forces can provide a springboard for increasing the value of U.S.-caught fish. This will return
more dollars to our fishermen and allow them to make a living without increasing their harvest
and compromising the future availability of a finite yet renewable natural resource. Rebuilt
fisheries will pay dividends for recreational fishermen and local economies as well. Anglers
spent $18 billion on equipment and for-hire vessels in 2006 alone, according to the NOAA’s most
recent figures. These contributions rippled through coastal economies, ultimately contributing
$49 billion and creating nearly 400,000 jobs. Further, these figures don’t account for revenues
earned by support industries that provide hotel rooms, meals, travel, and other services of
which recreational fishermen avail themselves in their quest to land the big one.
Pg. 50
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Reducing overfishing key to coastal economies
[
]
[
] Aquaculture prevents overfishing, which is essential to secure a long term future for
commercial fishers and fishing communities.
Safina, president of the Blue Ocean Institute, 2013
(Carl, “he Continued Danger of Overfishing,” Online: http://issues.org/19-4/safina-2/)
The trend in recovery efforts is generally upward. The number of fish populations with sustainable
catch rates and healthy numbers has been increasing, and the number that are overfished declining.
And rebuilding programs are now finally in place or being developed for nearly all overfished species.
Maintaining healthy fish populations is not just good for the ocean, of course, but also for
commerce: Fish are worth money. Ocean fishing contributes $50 billion to the U.S. gross
domestic product annually, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But
because fish are worth money only after they are caught, not everyone is pleased with aggressive
efforts to ensure that there will be more fish tomorrow. Some people want more fish today.
Restrictions designed to rebuild depleted stocks are costing them money in the short term. For that
reason, various amendments have been introduced in Congress that would weaken the gains of the
Sustainable Fisheries Act and jeopardize fisheries. In particular, industry interests have sought to
lengthen recovery times. Currently, the law requires plans for rebuilding most fish populations within a
decade, with exceptions for slow-growing species. (Many fish could recover twice as fast if fishing
was severely limited, but a decade was deemed a reasonable amount of time: It is practical
biologically, meaningful within the working lifetime of individual fishers, and yet rapid enough to allow
trends to be perceived and adjustments made if necessary.) Longer rebuilding schedules make it
harder to assess whether a fish population is growing or shrinking in response to management
efforts. The danger is that overfishing will continue in the short term, leading to tighter restrictions and
greater hardship later on. Recovered fish populations would contribute substantially to the U.S.
economy and to the welfare of fishing communities. In just five years since the Sustainable
Fisheries Act went into effect, the outlook for U.S. fisheries has improved noticeably, for the first time
in decades. The only sensible course is to move forward: to eliminate overfishing, reduce
bycatch, and protect and improve habitat. It would be foolish to move backward and allow
hard-gotten gains to unravel just when they are gaining traction. Yet the debate continues.
Pg. 51
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Aquaculture creates job opportunities
[
]
[
] Aquaculture operations would replace any jobs lost – fish production still requires
workers.
Knapp, Professor of Economics at University of Alaska, 2008
(Gunnar, “Chapter 8 Potential Economic Impacts of U.S. Offshore Aquaculture,” Offshore Aquaculture
in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, July 2008, online:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/economics_report/econ_report_all.pdf)
An important difference between aquaculture and wild fisheries is that employment in wild
fisheries is more seasonal. For example, peak monthly employment in Alaska salmon fisheries,
which occur primarily in the summer, is more than four times as high as average annual employment.
This means that wild fisheries tend to provide jobs for relatively more workers, working
relatively less of the year, to produce a given volume of fish. In comparing wild fisheries and
aquaculture, such as comparing the employment estimates in Tables 8.6 and 8.4, it is important to
keep in mind that the policy choice faced by the United States is not between harvesting fish
in wild fisheries or growing fish in farms. With most United States wild fisheries fully
exploited, is not an option for the United States to produce significantly more fish in wild
fisheries. Rather, the policy choice is how much fish the United States will grow in fish farms.
Even if commercial fishing tended to employ far more workers than aquaculture—which available
data suggest is not the case—we would not have the option of creating more jobs by increasing
commercial fish harvests. In contrast, aquaculture does provide an opportunity to create more
jobs in fish production. What Kinds of Jobs Will Offshore Aquaculture Create? On average, the
jobs created in offshore aquaculture are likely to be higher-skilled and higher-paying than the
jobs in onshore and inshore aquaculture for similar species. These jobs will include, for example,
operation and maintenance of vessels and remote monitoring and feeding facilities and fish
nutrition and fish health specialists. As with other higher-skilled and higher paying jobs, not all of
the new jobs created by U.S. offshore aquaculture will necessarily be taken by current residents of
those communities nearest offshore aquaculture facilities. The industry is likely to seek the most
qualified employees it can find from a broader regional or national pool of workers with the requisite
skills. However, local communities may be able to influence local hiring through training
programs or tax incentives. Local training or hiring requirements could potentially be
incorporated in enabling regulations for offshore aquaculture.
Pg. 52
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Aquaculture creates job opportunities
[
]
[
] Sustainable aquaculture boosts employment in seafood industry – fishers can work in
both industries at the same time.
Kite-Powell, aquaculture policy specialist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 2011
(Hauke, ”Where Will We Get Our Seafood? Unlike the rest of the world, the U.S. has not embraced
aquaculture,” September 21, Online: http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/where-will-we-get-ourseafood)
Do you think the growth of fish aquaculture is bad for the fishing industry or for environmental
groups? Kite-Powell: No, I don't. Wild fisheries are exploited so heavily today that there really
isn't room for more production or economic value from “capture fisheries.” So if we want to
increase employment in the seafood industry and increase the whole fisheries value chain in
the U.S., it will have to come from farmed seafood. Many environmental groups understand
the value of seafood in the human diet, and there's a strong argument for farming seafood in a
sustainable way. We had fishermen at our meeting comment on this. They see their future and
the future of their colleagues as being a mix of wild-capture fishing, maybe six months out of
the year, and fish farming the other six months, probably shifting more to farming over time.
Historically, that's how it's gone with land-based food production.
Pg. 53
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Aquaculture replaces lost fishing jobs
[
]
[
] Aquaculture would offer sustainable jobs for outdated fishing economies – fishers
could repurpose their boats and work in the new field.
Frezza, fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2012
(Bill, “Regulatory Uncertainty Drives Fish Farmer to Foreign Waters,” Real Clear Markets, November
26, Online:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/11/26/regulatory_uncertainty_drives_fish_farmer_to_fo
reign_waters_100008.html)
NOAA made several attempts a decade ago to promote a national aquatic farming initiative
that would cut through the red tape and set up a one-stop-shop for deep-water fish farming
permits. Bills were introduced in Congress twice but were shot down due to opposition from
entrenched fishing interests. While this sort of short-term protectionism is always politically popular,
the reality is that domestic fisheries continue to shrink due to catch limitations. A thriving deep
water aquaculture industry could provide sustainable jobs for old fishing communities,
repurposing much of the fishing fleet and dockside infrastructure to handle the new business.
Pg. 54
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Aquaculture prevents outsourcing
[
]
[
] The US currently sustains a massive seafood trade deficit – domestic aquaculture
would keep fishing jobs from going overseas.
Environmental News Service, 2011
(ENS, “Obama Administration Promotes Aquaculture in U.S. Waters,” Environmental News Service,
June 13, 2011, online: http://ens-newswire.com/2011/06/13/obama-administration-promotesaquaculture-in-u-s-waters/)
The United States needs to stop buying so much farm-raised fish from other countries and start
producing its own, the Obama administration officials said Friday, releasing the first set of national
sustainable marine aquaculture policies. Foreign aquaculture accounts for about half of the 84
percent of seafood imported by the United States, contributing to the $9 billion trade deficit in
seafood, said Commerce Secretary Gary Locke. “Our current trade deficit in seafood is
approximately $9 billion,” said Locke. “Encouraging and developing the U.S. 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.” “Sustainable
domestic aquaculture can help us meet the increasing demand for seafood and create jobs in
our coastal communities,” said NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, PhD. “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.”
Pg. 55
Offshore Aquaculture Affirmative
DUDA 2014-2015
JV Division
Aquaculture reduces impacts of income inequality
[
]
[
] Aquaculture reduces the impact of unemployment by creating quality jobs and
reducing food prices.
Hishamunda, Fishery Planning Officer at UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 2009
(Nathaniel, “Commercial aquaculture and economic growth, poverty alleviation and food security,”
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2009, online:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0974e/i0974e.pdf)
The existing and potential contributions of aquaculture to food security have been well
recognized. Tidwell and Allan (2001) provided some statistics as to the contribution of fish products
to food supply: around one billion people worldwide rely on fish as their primary source of animal
protein; fish supplies 17 percent of animal protein in Africa; over 36 million people are employed
directly through fishing and aquaculture; consumption of food fish has increased from 40 million
tonnes in 1970 to 86 million tonnes in 1998 (FAO, 1999); and fish consumption is expected to reach
110 million tonnes by 2010 (FAO, 2001). As pointed out by Tacon (2001, p. 63), aquaculture is “an
important domestic provider of much needed high-quality animal protein and other essential
nutrition (generally at affordable prices to the poorer segments of the community)”. Ahmed and
Lorica (2002, p. 125) found “clear evidence of positive income and consumption effects of
aquaculture on households” in Asia’s experience. From the perspective of fish farmers, Edwards
(1999a, 1999b, 2000) summarized aquaculture’s contribution to the livelihoods of the rural poor
into “direct” and “indirect” benefits, with the former including the provision of high-quality food,
(self) employment, and incomes; and the latter including food supply to local markets,
employment opportunities for local communities, efficient resource utilization, and
enhancement of farm sustainability through infrastructure construction and (farming) technology
innovations. Brummett and Williams (2000, p. 197) pointed out that high population growth, low
elasticity of demand for fish and static fishery production make aquaculture an important supply
source for fish products.
Pg. 56