Aquaculture Affirmative fyi



Download 0.81 Mb.
Page10/19
Date28.05.2018
Size0.81 Mb.
#51726
1   ...   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   ...   19

Food Security



Aquaculture solves

Offshore expansion is key to food security- status quo is inefficient


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

Aquaculture can solve global food security, but sustainable approaches are key


Stawecka ’13 [Gosia, Université libre de Bolzano, writer for Food Tank, a think-tank specializing in food security issues, “Does Aquaculture Have the Potential to Feed the World’s Hungry?” 10-9-13, http://foodtank.com/news/2013/10/does-aquaculture-have-the-potential-to-feed-the-worlds-hungry]
Over one billion people worldwide depend on fish as a source of animal protein in their diets. According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) flagship publication The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012, global per capita seafood consumption stands at 18.1 kilograms (39.8 pounds) on average, and that number is expected to increase over the next decades. Aquaculture is considered one of the fastest growing animal food production sectors, and accounts for nearly half of the supply of fish for consumption around the world. FAO estimates that total fish production from aquaculture reached more than 63 million tonnes in 2011, in comparison to 47 million tonnes in 2006. World aquaculture is concentrated in Asia, where approximately 90 percent of global production takes place. China has emerged as the world's leading producer in aquaculture, followed by India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Thailand. ¶ The global fisheries sector employs an estimated 35 million people, 20 percent of them in the aquaculture industry, according to Sinéad Lehane, research analyst at Future Directions International (FDI) and the author of a recent strategic analysis paper Fish for the Future: Aquaculture and Food Security. Today, aquaculture holds the potential to improve the livelihoods of people living in developing countries, and can deliver a wide range of benefits, including higher nutritional value through increased protein consumption, improved food security, and higher household incomes. ¶ Lehane points out that many countries are successfully employing aquaculture to improve local incomes and food security. For example, the implementation of new technologies and practices, such as artificial propagation – a fish reproduction method where mature eggs are expelled from female fish and artificially fertilized with milt from male fish under controlled conditions – enabled increased catfish production in Vietnam, and helped to build the incomes of people living in the Mekong Delta.¶ But as fish farming continues to expand, concerns are growing about aquaculture's negative impacts on the environment and global biodiversity, including the degradation of water quality, fish diseases, and overexploitation of wild fish used as feed for farmed fish. Lehane emphasizes the need to move toward a more efficient and sustainable aquaculture industry.

Sustainable aquaculture is key to alleviate future food crises- resource crunches are coming


Diana et al ’13 [James S. Diana, Professor of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, Research Scientist, Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences, UM, Chairman, Resource Ecology and Management Concentration, SNRE, Hillary S. Egna, Research Center Director at Oregon State University and Director of the Aquaculture & Fisheries Collaborative Research Support Program, Dr. Thierry Chopin, Scientific Director at the Canadian Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture Network, “Responsible Aquaculture in 2050: Valuing Local Conditions and Human Innovations Will Be Key to Success,” BioScience 63: 255–262, http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/4/255.full.pdf]
Aquaculture is an ancient method of food production; ¶ early examples are in murals depicted on tombs in Egypt ¶ 4000 years ago, books written 2300 years ago in China, and ¶ coastal aquaculture from the Roman Empire (Costa-Pierce ¶ 2010). However, most of its growth and intensification has ¶ occurred within the last 30 years, so the aquaculture of today ¶ is quite different from historic systems. Aquaculture has ¶ grown three times faster than agriculture has, at an amazing ¶ rate of 8.3% per year since 1970 (Diana 2009). Aquaculture ¶ provided for 48.4% of the world’s seafood consumption in ¶ 2009 (FAO 2009).¶ Given current trends, the world will be vastly different in 2050. Not only will the global population likely increase to nine billion, but that population will be increasingly urban and denser in developing countries (Cohen 2003). Climate ¶ change is likely to increase temperatures by 1–2 degrees ¶ Celsius by 2055, to increase sea levels by about 0.88 meters ¶ by 2100, and to dramatically change precipitation patterns ¶ (Carter et al. 2007). Water will be an even more precious ¶ resource, whereas new lands for agriculture expansion will be limited. About 50% more food (3 billion tons [all tons ¶ referenced are metric] of cereal crops and 200 million tons ¶ of meat) will be needed to sustain the quality of human life (FAO 2009). Given the limits on agriculture (Foley et al. ¶ 2011), novel production systems that have limited demands ¶ of land, freshwater, and nutrients; that require less energy; ¶ and that entail reduced impacts on the quality of receiving ¶ waters will become even more critical (FAO 2009). Fitting ¶ aquaculture development into this matrix will be important to meet increasing seafood consumption, because wild fisheries will remain stable at best (Duarte et al. 2009), whereas ¶ seafood will predominantly come from aquaculture (Diana ¶ 2009, Hallam 2012).¶ As aquaculture production expands, it is paramount that ¶ we avoid some of the mistakes made during the increased ¶ intensification of agriculture in the Green Revolution. ¶ Although agriculture intensification drove the higher production of food for human use, it also produced significant environmental damages, including the pollution of ¶ inland and coastal waterways, a high energy-and-water ¶ input to production ratio, and the widespread application of chemicals and antibiotics (Tilman et al. 2001). ¶ Therefore, understanding both environmental impacts and ¶ mitigation measures (Lotze et al. 2006) is important for ¶ designing responsible aquaculture production systems for ¶ tomorrow. Both intensive, single-species aquaculture and more traditional, lower-intensity aquaculture are evolving, ¶ and both will be necessary to meet the future needs for seafood. In some cases, the two systems are merging, whereas in ¶ others, different methods are being used to achieve similar ¶ goals, such as the improved treatment of effluents.

EEZ solves

US is the aquaculture tech leader- EEZ production solves food security and supply certainty


Rubino ’08 [Michael, representative the Department of Commerce on the executive committee of the U.S. Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, former manager of New Funds Development for the World Bank's Carbon Finance Group, worked for the International Finance Corporation, a private sector affiliate of the World Bank, where he developed renewable energy and biodiversity investment funds, “Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities,” July, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/economics_report/econ_report_all.pdf]
Aquaculture not only increases the current seafood supply, but also reduces supply uncertainty and provides consumers a consistent, affordable product available year-round. In addition to consumers, some segments of the U.S. economy have participated in and benefited ¶ from the worldwide growth in aquaculture. U.S. companies, investors, and farmers have ¶ participated in the global aquaculture industry by exporting technology, equipment, seedstock, ¶ services, investment, feed, and grain. A significant, but undocumented, portion of U.S. seafood ¶ imports are linked to these exports. ¶ ¶ In addition to supply and production trends, health and nutritional concerns are likely to ¶ affect seafood consumption in the United States. Doctors and nutritionists are urging Americans ¶ to eat more seafood to improve their health (Mozaffarian and Rimm, 2006; Institute of Medicine, ¶ 2006). But if Americans increase their seafood consumption from one to two meals per week, ¶ where will this seafood come from? Right now, we have a choice – we can continue to import ¶ increasing amounts of seafood, most of it from aquaculture, or grow some of it here. ¶ ¶ 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 technologies. 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. Based on discussions at the 2007 National Marine Aquaculture ¶ Summit organized by NOAA, and discussions in other forums, investors and would-be investors in U.S. offshore aquaculture believe the biggest barriers to progress are the current lack of clear regulations to allow them access to needed marine waters and the certainty of operation,3¶ ¶ Without clear rules: ¶ ¶ • Entrepreneurs, fishermen, and others will not be allowed to try offshore aquaculture in ¶ the U.S. except in a few open ocean locations in state waters; ¶ • U.S. investors and others will continue to set up offshore operations in other countries ¶ and may invest in other forms of aquaculture, such as land-based systems; and ¶ • Americans may lose opportunities created by local production of seafood under U.S. ¶ laws. ¶ ¶ U.S. investors are not waiting for the federal government to sort out its regulatory requirements. ¶ They are investing in offshore aquaculture in other areas, including the Caribbean and Latin ¶ America. Other countries such as Japan, Korea, Ireland, Norway, China, and Spain are working ¶ on offshore aquaculture technology and legal regimes (Lee and O’Bryen 2004; Ryan 2004).4¶ In ¶ 2007, the European Union established an Offshore Aquaculture Technology Platform project ¶ with partners from 16 European Union countries and Norway.5

Seafood key

Stable seafood production is key to global food security


Smith et al ‘10 [Martin D. Smith, Nicholas School of the Environment and Department of Economics, Duke University, Cathy A. Roheim, Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, Larry B. Crowder, Center for Marine Conservation, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, “Sustainability and Global Seafood,” Feb. 12, http://www.cobi.org.mx/publicaciones/2010-smith_et_al_sust_seafood-sciencemag-org.pdf]
Although seafood is the most highly traded food internationally, it is an often overlooked component of global food security. It provides essential local food, livelihoods, and export earnings. Although global capture fisheries production is unlikely to increase, aquaculture is growing considerably. Sustaining seafood’s contributions to food security hinges on the ability of institutions, particularly in developing countries, to protect and improve ecosystem health in the face of increasing pressures from international trade. Seafood (fish and shellfish harvested from capture fisheries and aquaculture production in marine and freshwater environments) contributes at least 15% of average animal protein consumption to 2.9 billion people and as much as 50% for some small island and West African states ( 1). Seafood is the main source of omega-3 fatty acids that are essential for brain development ( 2) and provides important micronutrients for the poor ( 3). As a source of livelihood, capture fisheries and aquaculture employed 43.5 million people in 2006, and 520 million people relied on income from seafood production ( 1). Seafood is also the most highly traded food commodity internationally ( 1). Fish and shellfish exports from developing countries exceed the value of coffee, rubber, cocoa, tea, tobacco, meat, and rice combined ( 1). Developing countries benefit from this trade by exporting high-valued seafood to developed countries, importing low-valued seafood, and using the surplus value to purchase other goods and services (fig. S1). However, they often lack the institutions necessary to prevent deleterious ecosystem impacts of seafood production and to sustain trade benefits. Developed countries have a history of these problems, as well, but with less-obvious consequences.

Seafood is vital to global food security


Worldwatch Institute ‘11 [Independent research institute devoted to global environmental concerns, “Fish Farming Continues to Grow as World Fisheries Stagnate,” http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5444]
These problems have led some researchers and fish farmers to consider alternative prac­tices that would minimize environmental harm while allowing increased aquaculture produc­tion. For example, integrated fish farming works at the ecosystem level, using a combination of fish, shellfish, and aquatic plants to filter wastes and provide a self-sustaining source of food.36 Integrated fish farming has been used outside major urban areas to raise fish for food and treat human wastes at the same time.37 With an ongoing food crisis and a growing world population, seafood production could potentially play a vital role in addressing food security and meeting development goals. Fish is highly nutritious and can be an important source of vitamins, minerals, and protein, even when consumed in minimal amounts.38 A recent World Bank survey showed that small-scale fish farming consistently pays off for workers by raising income, creating stable work, and increasing food supplies.39 However, not all seafood production is created equal: overfishing is linked to poverty, leading to fewer jobs and taking away an important source of income in developing countries.40

A multitude of experts prove


Science News ‘10 [e! Science News, “Sustainable fisheries needed for global food security,” http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/02/11/sustainable.fisheries.needed.global.food.security)
Increased aid from developed countries, earmarked specifically for sustainable seafood infrastructure in developing countries, could improve global food security, according to a policy paper by an international working group of 20 economists, marine scientists and seafood experts in the Feb. 12 issue of Science. Seafood is a significant source of protein for nearly 3 billion people and is the planet's most highly traded food commodity, contributing to the livelihoods of more than 560 million people. But a lack of coordinated policy threatens global seafood supplies. To help safeguard future supply, "the price of seafood has to reflect the cost of maintaining ecosystem health in the countries that capture or farm most of it," says Martin D. Smith, lead author of the paper and associate professor of environmental economics at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. "Many imports are coming from developing countries that are not necessarily well-positioned to manage their resources sustainably."

Seafood is crucial to global food security


FAO ‘10 [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Second International Congress on Seafood Technology on Sustainable, Innovative and Healthy Seafood,” May, http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2534e/i2534e.pdf]
The world production from capture fisheries and aquaculture remains very significant for global food security and food trade, providing an apparent per capita supply of 17.2 kg (LWE) in 2009. It averaged at 138.2 million tonnes per year during the period 2000 – 2009, with a record high of 145.1 million tonnes in 2009 (Table 1). While fish production from capture fisheries has stagnated at around 90 to 92 million tonnes over the years, the demand for fish and fishery products has continued to rise (Figure 1). Consumption has more than doubled since 1973. The increasing demand has been steadily met by a robust increase in aquaculture production, estimated at an average 8.3 percent yearly growth during the period 1970–2008, while the world population grew at an average of 1.6 percent per year. As a result, the average annual per capita supply of food fish from aquaculture for human consumption has increased tenfold, from 0.7 kg in 1970 to 7.8 kg in 2008, at an average growth rate of 6.6 percent per year. This trend is projected to continue, with the contribution of aquaculture to fish food supply estimated to reach 60 percent by 2020, if not before.

Global food security depends on strong seafood trading blocs


FAO ‘10 [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Second International Congress on Seafood Technology on Sustainable, Innovative and Healthy Seafood,” May, http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2534e/i2534e.pdf]
A first major issue that faces policy makers, especially in developing countries, is the necessity to balance food security and export promotion objectives owing to the impact of fish trade on food security. In 1996, the World Food Summit declared that food security is considered to exist “when all people at all times have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preference for an active healthy life”. Fish is an important source of both direct and indirect food security in many developing countries. Many of the concerns on issues relating to fish and food security focused on the dimension of fish for consumption. Consequently, when fish exports are examined, the focus has been primarily on how it reduces fish availability for domestic consumption. Fish imports, on the other hand, are mostly seen as a means to increase local availability. In actual fact, the relationship between trade (exports and imports) and food security is more complex. Production for exports to lucrative markets can enhance the income of poor fishers substantially and thus achieve greater food security. This is especially beneficial for non or low fish eating communities, for example, in Mauritania, Mali and Burkina Faso, or vegetarian fishermen in India. On the other hand, exports may deprive a section of the domestic consumers of a variety of fish, leading to a potential loss of food security for them. This is particularly so when fish is an integral part of the culturally conditioned diet of a population.


Key to land ag

IMTA offsets harmful agricultural practice


Chopin et al ‘10 [Dr. Thierry Chopin, 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,” http://research.rem.sfu.ca/papers/knowler/GAANov-Dec2010pp17-20.pdf]
Modern commercial salmon diets contain much less fishmeal (15 to 25%) and fish oil (15 to 20%) than they did less than 10 years ago (40 to 60%). By-products such as trimmings and offal from wild catch fisheries are now used to supply a major portion of the fishmeal ingredients. Some non-governmental organizations arguing for fishmeal and fish oil replacement have also voiced concerns¶ that, after all, marine fish should eat marine ingredients. Obviously, one cannot have it both ways! Turning toward land plant proteins is not without its impacts. Extra farmland area would be required, which would likely increase deforestation and need to be irrigated on a planet already suffering from water availability problems. The¶ price of some staple food crops like corn and soya used in traditional agriculture would rise considerably due to competition for their uses, as recently seen when¶ they were sought as energy crops for the production of biofuels. Partial substitution with organisms already living in water, such as seaweeds, could, in fact, be a very interesting option and fit well within the sustainability and management concept of IMTA.


Impacts- Extinction




Resource insecurity is the biggest risk of extinction- population growth guarantees the worst impacts


Kolankiewicz ‘10 [Leon, environmental scientist and national natural resources planner, masters in environmental planning from U of British Columbia, worked with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Dept of Environmental Conservation, U Wash, U New Mexico; Policy Brief #10-1, "From Big to Bigger How Mass Immigration and Population Growth Have Exacerbated America's Ecological Footprint." Progressives for Immigration Reform, http://www.progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/2010/03/05/from-big-to-bigger-how-mass-immigration-and-population-growth-have-exacerbated-americas-ecological-footprint/]
As of early 2010, the United States has a rapidly growing population of 308 million.33 In the 1990s, U.S. population expanded by nearly 33 million, the largest single decade of growth in American history since the decennial national censuses began in 1790. The 1990s exceeded even the peak decade of the Baby Boom, the 1950s by nearly five million (Figure 7). The 2001-2010 decade now drawing to a close will approach this record increment. Far from coasting to a stop or cessation in growth, U.S. population remains stubbornly and persistently high, and is literally growing with no end in sight. At current growth rates, every year more than three million net new residents are added to the U.S. population.34 The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by 2050, the population of the United States will have grown to 439 million. This is an increase of 131 million, or 43 percent, over our current population of 308 million. In 2050, if the Census Bureau’s current projections come to pass, the U.S. population would still be adding 3.45 million residents a year (more than today, though the annual growth rate will have declined somewhat), and there would be 5.7 million births compared to 4.3 million annual births today.35 Yet it is misleading to imply that increased births would be the dominant force behind this massive population growth. That is because many of those births would not occur, or at least would not occur in the United States, were it not for the persistently high levels of net immigration that are assumed by the Census Bureau in these projections. In 2050, the Bureau’s projections assume “net international migration” (immigration minus emigration) of 2.05 million, an increase from 1.34 million in 2010. This assumption reflects the Bureau’s professional judgment that domestic and international pressures to further increase already high immigration rates will only intensify. If the factors behind demographic change are divided between “net natural increase” (births minus deaths) and “net migration” (immigration minus emigration), then in 2050, 41 percent of the annual increment of 3.45 million would be attributable to net natural increase, and 59 percent would be due to net migration. However, even this breakdown understates the decisive influence that the level of immigration has in determining America’s demographic future. The full impact of immigration on demographic trends only becomes apparent when the U.S.-born descendents of immigrants are accounted for because, after all, these U.S. births would not have occurred but for the prior acts of migration by eventual parents that made them possible. When births to immigrants are accounted for, demographers at the Pew Research Center calculated recently that: If current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005, and 82 percent of the increase will be due to immigrants arriving from 2005 to 2050 and their U.S.-born descendants.36 [emphasis added] Figures 8-10 graphically illustrate the powerful role of immigration policy in shaping current and future U.S. demographic trends. Figure 8 shows U.S. population growth from 1790 to 1970; the steepening curve, one characterized by larger and larger increments over time is a shape characteristic of all phenomena experiencing exponential growth. If, however, the 1970 levels of demographic components (net immigration, fertility or birth rates, and mortality rates) had been maintained over the decades that followed, the growth trajectory would have appeared more like that of the curve in Figure 9, rather than the much steeper curve in Figure 8. At the time of the first celebration of Earth Day in 1970, young environmentalists who had just finished reading Paul Ehrlich’s best-selling 1968 book The Population Bomb and listening to one of Earth Day Founder Senator Gaylord Nelson’s moving speeches believed whole-heartedly in the cause and necessity of U.S. and global population stabilization. They endorsed the view of popular cartoonist Walt Kelly’s character Pogo that, “We have met the enemy and he is us” (a play on words of the famous line by Commodore Perry: “We have met the enemy, and they are ours”). In other words, the more of “us” there are, the more “enemies,” or at least environmental burdens Mother Earth faces. If this generation had been able to realize its vision of slowing and then stopping U.S. population growth and reining in the environmental degradation it caused, the trajectory might have looked something like that of the curve in Figure 9. Growth would have tapered off and America’s population would never have hit 300 million. Instead, because of the rapidly rising wave of immigration unleashed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, Americans and their environment are facing the grim, and utterly unsustainable, future of ever-greater demographic pressures represented by Figure 10. What bearing do these “inconvenient truths” have on America’s Ecological Footprint? In a nutshell — everything. Current immigration levels are enlarging the already enormous U.S. Ecological Footprint and ecological deficit. With the U.S. population booming by more than 10 percent a decade, the only way to maintain — much less reduce the current, unacceptable size of our EF is to reduce our per capita consumption every decade by more than 10 percent — not just for one or five decades, but indefinitely, for as long as population growth continues. One doesn’t have to be a physicist or a political scientist to recognize that an achievement of this magnitude would be technically and politically unrealistic, if not impossible. America is already in ecological overshoot, and massive population growth driven by high immigration rates only serves to exacerbate the situation. Figure 11 shows current trends with respect to the Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity of the United States from 1961 through 2006.37 As is evident from the crossing lines in this graph, America’s EF first surpassed its biocapacity in the late 1960s, just prior to the first Earth Day. Since then the gap or ecological deficit has only continued to widen. While the addition of each new American does not necessarily increase our per capita or per person (as opposed to our aggregate) EF — only increased per capita resource consumption and CO2 generation does that, it does directly decrease our per capita biocapacity, and thus increases our ecological deficit. Population growth does this in two ways. First, given a fixed biocapacity — that is, a land base that is demonstrably finite and constant, with fixed maximum acreages of potential cropland, grazing land, forestland, and fishing grounds — it is a simple mathematical reality that adding more people who depend on this ecologically productive land base reduces per capita biocapacity. Second, the more than three million new Americans added every year require space and area in which to live, work, play, shop, and attend school. As open space is converted into the “built-up land” category, some combination of forestland, cropland, and grazing land is inevitably developed. (In the 1950s, Orange County, California, home to Disneyland, was touted by developers as “Smog Free Orange County,” but by the 1990s, after four decades of relentless sprawl development to accommodate Southern California’s multiplying millions, it became known as “Orange Free Smog County”). In this way, our country’s biocapacity is steadily and inexorably diminished by a growing population. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS’s) National Resources Inventory (NRI) estimated that the United States lost 44 million acres of cropland, 12 million acres of pastureland, and 11 million acres of rangeland from 1982 to 1997, for a total loss to our agricultural land base of 67 million acres over this 15-year period.38 (One explanation of the much higher acreage of lost cropland than pastureland and rangeland was that a larger fraction of the cropland acreage was not “lost” per se, but deliberately “retired” from active production into the so-called Conservation Reserve Program or CRP, a program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency. These were lands of marginal quality and high erodibility, lands on which modern, intensive agriculture is unsustainable). All 49 states inventoried lost cropland. Overall cropland losses continued in the next NRI published in 2007.39 The impacts of the loss of this land extend beyond agriculture. The USDA has estimated that each person added to the U.S. population requires slightly more than one acre of land for urbanization and highways.40 Clearly, more land is required as more people are added to our population. A comparison of NRI acreage — 25 million acres of newly developed land over the 1982-1997 period and 67 million acres of agricultural land lost shows that development per se is not responsible for all or even half of agricultural land loss. Arable land is also subject to other natural and manmade phenomena such as soil erosion (from both water and wind), salinization, and waterlogging that can rob its fertility, degrade its productivity and eventually force its retirement or increase its dependency on ever greater quantities of costly inputs like (fossil-fuel derived) nitrogen fertilizers. Arguably, however, much of these losses are due to over-exploitation by intensive agricultural practices needed to constantly raise agricultural productivity (yield per acre) in order to provide ever more food for America’s and the world’s growing populations and meat-rich diets. Thus, the potent combination of relentless development and land degradation from soil erosion and other factors is reducing America’s productive agricultural land base even as the demands on that same land base from a growing population are increasing. If the rates of agricultural land loss that have prevailed in recent years were to continue to 2050, the nation will have lost 53 million of its remaining 377 million acres of cropland, or 14 percent, even as the U.S. population grows by 43 percent from 308 million to 440 million.41 Continuing on to 2100, the discrepancy between booming population numbers and declining cropland acreage widens even further (Figure 12). The Census Bureau’s “middle series” projection (made in the year 2000) is 571 million, more than a doubling of U.S. population in 2000.42 (The “highest serious” projection was 1.2 billion, and actual growth since these projections were made has been between the middle and highest series). If the same rate of cropland loss were to continue, the United States would lose approximately 106 million acres of its remaining 377 million acres of cropland, or nearly 30 percent. Cropland per capita, that is, the acreage of land to grow grains and other crops for each resident, would decline from 1.4 acres in 1997 to 0.47 acres in 2100, a 66 percent reduction. If this occurs, biotechnology will need to work miracles to raise yields per acre in order to maintain the sort of diet Americans have come to expect. These ominous, divergent trends — an increasing population and declining arable land, have actually led some scientists to think the unthinkable: that one day America may no longer be able to feed itself, let alone boast a food surplus for export to the world. In the 1990s, Cornell University agricultural and food scientists David and Marcia Pimentel and Mario Giampietro of the Istituto Nazionale della Nutrizione in Rome, Italy, argued that by approximately 2025, the United States would most likely cease to be a food exporter, and that food grown in this country would be needed for domestic consumption. These findings suggest that by 2050, the amount of arable land per capita may have dropped to the point that, “the diet of the average American will, of necessity, include more grains, legumes, tubers, fruits and vegetables, and significantly less animal products.”43 While this might, in fact, constitute a healthier diet both for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and for many calorically and cholesterol-challenged Americans, it would also represent a significant loss of dietary choice. As nations get wealthier, they tend to “move up the food chain” in the phrase of the Earth Policy Institute’s Lester Brown, that is they consume higher trophic level, more ecologically demanding and damaging meat and dairy products, but were these predictions to hold true, Americans, for better or worse, would be moving in the opposite direction. From 2005 to 2006, the U.S. per capita ecological deficit widened from 10.9 to 11.3 acres, continuing the long-term trend depicted in Figure 11. Assuming the Census Bureau’s official population projections for 2050 actually do happen, the U.S. population would be 43 percent larger than at present. Even if there were no further increase in the U.S. per capita EF, which is, as can be seen from the 45-year trend in Figure 11, a rather generous assumption, a 43 percent increase in the U.S. population would correspond to a further 43 percent reduction in biocapacity per capita, even without the types of continuing land and resource degradation just discussed above for cropland. The 2006 U.S. biocapacity was 10.9 global acres (ga) per capita. By 2050, if current U.S. demographic trends and projections hold, this will have been reduced to 6.2 ga per capita. If the per capita American EF of consumption were to remain at the 2006 value of 22.3 ga, the ecological deficit in 2050 would increase to 16.1 ga per capita. In essence, if we American “Bigfeet” do not opt for a different demographic path than the one we are treading now, Ecological Footprint analysis indicates unequivocally that we will continue plodding ever deeper into the forbidden zone of Ecological Overshoot, trampling our prospects for a sustainable future. Incidentally, we would also be trampling the survival prospects for many hundreds of endangered species with which we share our country. These birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, butterflies, mussels, and other taxa are menaced with extinction by our aggressive exploitation of nearly every ecological niche, nook, and cranny. In nature, no organism in overshoot remains there for long. Sooner or later, ecosystem and/or population collapse ensues. Are we humans, because of our unique scientific acumen, immune from the laws of nature that dictate the implacable terms of existence to all other species on the planet? Our political, economic, and cultural elites seem to think so, and en masse, we certainly act so. Yet ironically, many scientists themselves believe otherwise: that all-too-human hubris, unless checked by collective wisdom and self-restraint, will prove to be our undoing, and that civilization as we know it may unravel.44

Impacts- Wars

Food insecurity is a conflict multiplier


Brinkman and Hendrix ‘11 [Henk-Jan Brinkman is Chief, Policy, Planning and Application in the Peacebuilding Support Of ice of the¶ United Nations. Cullen S. Hendrix is Assistant Professor, The College of William & Mary, and Fellow, Robert¶ S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law, University of Texas at Austin, “Food Insecurity and Violent Conflict: Causes, Consequences, and Addressing the Challenges,” July, http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/newsroom/wfp238358.pdf]
This paper provides an overview of the link between¶ food insecurity and violent conflict, addressing both¶ traditional and emerging threats to security and¶ political stability. It discusses the effects of food¶ insecurity on several types of conflict, and the¶ political, social, and demographic factors that may¶ exacerbate these effects. It then discusses the¶ interventions that can break the link between food¶ security and conflict, focusing on mechanisms that¶ can shield consumers and producers from food price¶ shocks. Finally, it discusses ways in which the¶ international community can assist in breaking this¶ link and build peace.¶ Food insecurity – especially when caused by a rise in¶ food prices – is a threat and impact multiplier for violent conflict. It might not be a direct cause and¶ rarely the only cause, but combined with other factors, for example in the political or economic¶ spheres, it could be the factor that determines whether and when violent conflicts will erupt. Changes in food security, rather than levels of food¶ insecurity, are probably most influential. Food insecurity is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for violent conflict. Food price stabilization measures and safety nets are critical instruments to prevent violent conflict. Food assistance can contribute to peacebuilding, restore trust in governments and rebuild social capital.

Food insecurity makes all impacts inevitable


Trudell ’05 [Robert H., J.D. Candidate, Food Security Emergencies And The Power Of Eminent Domain: A Domestic Legal Tool To Treat A Global Problem, 33 Syracuse J. Int'l L. & Com. 277, Lexis]jap
Today, more than 842 million people - nearly three times the population of the United States - are chronically hungry. 43 "Chronic hunger is a profound, debilitating human experience that affects the ability of individuals to work productively, think clearly, and resist disease. It also has devastating consequences for society: it drains economies, destabilizes governments, and reaches across international boundaries." 44 The enormous number of chronically hungry people conjures up a critical question: how can we feed these people? While the rate of population growth has been leveling off in the developed, wealthy countries of the world, the populations of the poorest countries and regions of the world still grow at an alarming pace. 45 Population statisticians refer to this phenomenon as population momentum. 46 Of the seventeen countries whose women average six or more births in a lifetime, all but two are in Africa. 47 In sub-Saharan Africa, millions are undernourished and millions more live on a dollar a day, making it the most poverty-stricken region in the world today. 48 [*285] Chronic hunger and poverty are the rock-and-a-hard-place in between which the people of sub-Saharan Africa find themselves today. One tragedy endlessly feeds upon and exacerbates the other because a person needs money to buy food, but she (or he) cannot earn money when she is chronically hungry. 49 The food security issues of this region are a global concern. Silvio Berlusconi, Prime Minister of Italy, and Chairperson of the 2002 World Food Summit in Rome said, "Together with terrorism, hunger is one of the greatest problems the international community is facing." 50 Human security is a value which can be broadly defined as both the "freedom from fear" and the "freedom from want." 51 Until recently, security was largely a concern arising out of the conflict among states, i.e. state security, which can be summed up in the phrase "military preparedness." 52 Today, it is recognized that the achievement of freedom from want is as important a goal as the achievement of freedom from fear and countries must arm themselves against such fear by addressing food insecurity. 53 In an editorial in the Economist, Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, wrote that today's threats to security - terrorism, food security and poverty - are all interrelated so that no one country can tackle them alone. 54 For example, keeping our food supply secure plays a direct role in achieving freedom from fear. The State Department has been studying the possibilities of food-borne bioterrorism, introducing the national security element to food security concerns. 55 Likewise, in December [*286] 2004, during his resignation announcement, Tommy Thompson, the former Secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, stated: "For the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to do." 56 Yet it is a mistake to think of global security only in military terms. 57 Food security deserves its place in any long-term calculation regarding global security. Widespread chronic hunger causes widespread instability and debilitating poverty and decreases all of our safety, for example from the increased threat from global terrorism. 58 Widespread instability is an unmistakable characteristic of life in sub-Saharan Africa. 59 Food insecurity, therefore, causes global insecurity because widespread instability in places like sub-Saharan Africa threatens all of our safety. Food insecurity in the unstable regions of the world must be taken on now lest we find ourselves facing some far worse danger in the days to come.

Don’t buy their generic impact defense- new ag slowdowns collapse food security and causes extinction


Palm 1-31-13 [Justin T., writer for The Real Truth magazine, “Agriculture’s Amazing Future!” http://realtruth.org/articles/130125-005.html]
Seventy-four days. That is all that stands between mankind and starvation—the length of time the world’s food reserves would feed humanity before disappearing. From 1986 to 2001, the world held an average of 107 days’ worth of grain in storage. But from 2002 to 2011, the average dropped to just 74. Not even three months’ worth!¶ Shrinking levels of surplus food supplies are signaling that the future of food may not be as secure as most think. The Guardian quoted Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute and author of Full Planet, Empty Plates: “Ever since agriculture began, carry-over stocks of grain have been the most basic indicator of food security.”¶ If mankind missed one harvest, it would begin to starve. For thousands of years, man’s existence has been drawn from the soil. Civilizations unable to provide lasting sustenance for their people were invariably lost to history. Healthy, arable land has always been humanity’s most precious commodity. As its total area shrinks to dangerous, never-before-seen levels, and man’s population explodes, the very future of civilization is at stake. Too little food is being grown on too few acres to provide for the roughly 370,000 human beings born every day.¶ Like millions of American families living “paycheck to paycheck,” humanity is living harvest to harvest. Mr. Brown also stated, “An unprecedented period of world food security has come to an end. The world has lost its safety cushions and is living from year to year…” (ibid.).¶ Once-bountiful water sources are drying up. Arable land is dwindling. Now more than ever, mankind must address the issue of food security.

Impacts- Democracy

Food insecurity destroys democracy


Brinksman and Hendrix ’11 [Henk-Jan Brinkman is Chief, Policy, Planning and Application in the Peacebuilding Support Of ice of the United Nations. Cullen S. Hendrix is Assistant Professor, The College of William & Mary, and Fellow, Robert

S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law, University of Texas at Austin, “Food Insecurity and Violent Conflict: Causes, Consequences, and Addressing the Challenges,” July, http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/newsroom/wfp238358.pdf]


Food insecurity, proxied by low availability of¶ calories for consumption per capita, makes democratic breakdown more likely, especially in higher-income countries, where people expect there to be larger social surpluses that could be invested to reduce food insecurity (Reenock,Bernhard and¶ Sobek, 2007). Though statistical evidence is lacking, rising food prices have been implicated in the wave of demonstrations and transitions from authoritarian rule to fledgling democracy in some countries across North Africa and the Middle East in 2011. There are some historical precedents for this: a bad harvest in 1788 led to high food prices in France, which caused rioting and contributed to the French revolution in 1789; and the wave of political upheaval that swept Europe in 1848 was at least in part a response to food scarcity, coming after three below-average¶ harvests across the continent(Berger and Spoerer¶ 2001).

Democracy is key to solve extinction


Diamond ’95 [Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, December, PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN THE 1990S, 1995, p. http://www.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/diam_rpt.html]
Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty and openness. The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments.



Download 0.81 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   ...   19



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
national oceanic
london school
major benefit
larger issue