Aquaculture Affirmative fyi


Advantage 2 is the Economy: US economic growth is in decline



Download 0.81 Mb.
Page6/19
Date28.05.2018
Size0.81 Mb.
#51726
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   19

Advantage 2 is the Economy:

US economic growth is in decline


Lambro 5-2-14 [Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times, won the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism, “U.S. Economy Slides Deeper Into Decline,” http://townhall.com/columnists/donaldlambro/2014/05/02/can-obamas-nogrowth-jobless-economy-get-much-worse-it-can-and-it-will-if-we-do-nothing-to-change-his-policies-n1832247/page/full]
The Obama economy nearly stopped breathing in the first quarter, giving the Republicans new political ammunition for a full takeover of Congress in the November elections. No sooner did the Commerce Department announce that the economy barely grew by one-tenth of one percent in the first three months of this year, than the news media was searching for the toughest words to describe the U.S. economy's demise under President Obama's anti- growth, anti-job policies. "U.S. Economic Growth Slows to a Crawl," was the way the Reuters news agency put it Wednesday, and even that was being generous. Some said the economy "stalled," or "barely grew" or "hit a wall." Others called the 0.1 percent growth rate "anemic," a word that doesn't do justice to an economy that has all but ground to a halt. But after one excuse after another for the president's economic failures, some in the news media weren't pulling their punches. Here's the way the Wall Street Journal put it:¶ "U.S growth nearly stalled in the first three months of the year, fresh evidence that the economic expansion that began almost five years ago remains the weakest in modern history." "U.S. economic growth stalled to near zero," the Journal said on its website, minutes after the government announced its shocking number.¶ Even the liberal New York Times, one of the Democrats' biggest apologists, pointed out that the economy's failing grade was actually a continuation of what Americans have been experiencing ever since Obama's first year in office, without any sustained improvement. "For all the attention devoted to the quarterly fluctuations, the current underlying rate of expansion is not much different from the frustratingly slow trajectory in place ever since the economy began to recover from the Great Recession," the Times said.¶ "The average quarterly rate of growth since the summer of 2009 stands at 2.2 percent," the newspaper noted, a pathetic, sub-par rate of growth for the largest and once strongest economy on the planet.¶ The White House was still peddling their belief that the economy would soon pick up in the second quarter and that the slowdown was the result of a harsh winter. But wiser economists aren't buying the administration's excuses. Dan North, the chief economist at Euler Hermes North America, a large insurer, told the Times that even if the growth rate picks up in the second quarter, "the annual growth rate in 2014 will most likely still be below the post-World War II average of just over 3 percent." ¶ "We've been living in a sub 3-percent land, and people have gotten used to that as the new normal," North said. "But it's not.¶ It's anemic."¶ Yes, a bitter winter took its toll on growth, but it was not the driving force behind a snails-pace economy.¶ Its precipitous plunge into recession-leaning territory -- defined by two back to back quarters of near minus growth -- was driven by multiple weaknesses across the nation's economic landscape.¶ U.S. exports plunged 7.6 percent, a victim of Obama's failure to negotiate new trade deals. Business investment fell as many companies cut back on their inventories in the face of a weak economy.¶ The real estate markets were in decline as higher interest rates and rising prices pushed homeownership beyond the reach homebuyers. ¶ "The housing market has cooled recently as buyers have struggled to afford homes," the Los Angeles Times reported this week.¶ The Federal Reserve said Wednesday that the "recovery in the housing sector remained slow."¶ And remember all that inventory businesses bought in the second half of 2013, believing the economy was going to take off? Well, their shelves were still full throughout the first quarter, resulting "in manufacturers receiving fewer orders" in the past three months, Reuters reported.¶ But the biggest factors behind the economy's decline is the shrinking labor market, high, long-term jobless rates, and stagnant or declining incomes.¶ "A separate report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Wednesday on the employment cost index showed that private sector wages and salaries in the first quarter of 2014 increased at the slowest rate since the bureau began tracking the data in March 1980," the Times reported.¶ Little wonder, then, that the Conference Board reported Wednesday that U.S. consumer confidence fell in April as a result of growing concerns about job cuts and business pullbacks in investment.¶ There are lots of ways that this economy can be turned around, but Obama and the Democrats are opposed to all of them.¶ We need revenue neutral, job friendly tax reform that scrubs corporate welfare out of the tax code, broadens the tax base, and lowers income tax rates across the board for businesses and individuals.¶ The Republicans in the House have a plan ready to go, but Senate Democrats want no part of it. And Obama's too busy trying to raise the minimum wage, even though the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says it will kill 500,000 jobs.¶ We need tax incentives to unlock trillions of dollars in capital investment to expand existing businesses, create new ones and boost employment. In his second term, Bill Clinton signed a GOP-passed capital gains tax cut and his economy took off. Obama and the Harry Reid Democrats flatly oppose this.¶ We need to enact fast track trade authorization to open up world markets to American goods and services, but the Democrats won't even discuss it for fear of angering their party's union bosses. Sad to say, but the American economy is on a slippery slope to further decline and it's not going to get any better until we have tough, new leadership in the Senate and the Oval Office.

Plan solves the economy- two reasons:

First, it’s key to solve overfishing and ocean health


Smith ’12 [Turner, Assistant Attorney General at Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, Harvard Law graduate, “Greening the Blue Revolution: How History Can Inform a Sustainable Aquaculture Movement,” http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/11938741/Smith_2012.pdf?sequence=1]
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.

Overfishing devastates the economy- the ocean sector is vital


Strauss ‘14 [Kent, Research Coordinator at Environmental Defense Fund, where he studies global experiences in fisheries management, “Report: Overfishing bad for fish, but worse for the economy,” http://www.edf.org/blog/2014/04/02/report-overfishing-bad-fish-worse-economy]
It’s undeniable that oceans are important to people and the environment. Covering nearly three-quarters of our planet, oceans produce the air we breathe, house the fish we eat and provide us with many of the products we use on a daily basis. And importantly, the oceans play a huge role in creating employment opportunities and sustaining coastal economies.¶ According to a new report from the National Ocean Economics Program for the Center for the Blue Economy, the oceans economy comprised more than 2.7 million jobs and contributed more than $258 billion to the GDP of the United States in 2010. If you aren’t impressed with those numbers, let’s think in different terms. If the ocean economy were a part of the United States of America, it would be the 25th largest state by employment and the 20th largest state by GDP—about the same size as Colorado. The oceans economy supports employment almost two and a half times larger than other natural resources industries like farming, mining, and forest harvesting. Approximately 5.4 million jobs in 2010 were directly and indirectly supported by the ocean with their total contribution estimated at $633 billion which is 4.4% of the United States’ GDP.¶ Increasingly, with disasters like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and several tsunamis across Asia, the United States and countries across the world are beginning to place more emphasis on just how significant oceans’ health is to the economy. And with more than a billion jobs around the world supported by oceans economies, it’s no surprise that the momentum around maintaining a healthy ocean is building speed. Much of that focus has been on ways to solve overfishing—the most urgent threat to the health of the oceans and the single biggest cause of depleted fisheries worldwide. Last month, I had the opportunity to meet with scientists, NGO representatives and government officials from around the world, to discuss solutions to overfishing, with particular emphasis on empowering and supporting small-scale fishermen in developing countries. During these meetings, I shared the resources my team at EDF has developed to help fishermen design sustainable fishery management programs and I talked about our Fish Forever initiative, EDF’s partnership with Rare and the Sustainable Fisheries Group at the University of California at Santa Barbara to restore small-scale coastal fisheries.¶ Perhaps the best part of the trip was just having the opportunity to sit down with like-minded individuals to “geek out” about the ways to effectively manage small-scale fisheries, keep our oceans resilient and protect those who rely on them. Healthy and abundant oceans create stronger coastal economies. As momentum grows to bring the oceans health in line with sustainability principles, we must continue to be vigilant about the numerous demands and pressures placed upon the oceans' natural resources.

Second, the plan solves the trade deficit- incentives are key


Rice ’13 [Michael A. Rice, PhD in comparative physiology and MA in biology from UC Irvine, professor of fisheries and aquaculture at the University of Rhode Island, “Ocean Fish Farms Are a Pretty Good Deal,” 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. The move to develop fish farms offshore is the response to valid criticism that our coastal waters are already overburdened by human activity and the fish farms small-scale and family-owned or not would be yet one more environmental stressor. However, if fish farms are to be developed offshore they will be by necessity industrial operations. The engineering of structures to withstand wind and waves and currents in the offshore environment is no trivial task. Sea going vessels needed to tend the farms would have to be substantial, and the protocols for feeding and tending the fish would have to be largely automated because daily trips to the farm would be out of the question during many winter days and storm days, not to mention all that expensive fossil fuel burned in the commute out to the distant farms. To meet the up front costs and high capital requirements, off shore fish farms will require some sort of corporate or other deep pocket involvement. “Industry” is not necessarily a dirty word. Oceanic fish farming can be done well and it can be an economic and eco-friendly boon to the OceanState supporting not only our skilled marine workforce but our seafood wholesale marketers as well.

Reducing the deficit bolsters the economy


Yerasi ’12 [Raj Yerasi is a money manager who has invested in public and private companies across the US and emerging markets. He spent the last seven years based in India and helped manage a top-performing hedge fund, “Analysis: Cutting US trade deficit the 'one big solution' to reducing debt,” 3-16-12, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/US-economy-solution-the-trade-deficit-stupid]
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. 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. The negative stimulus involved is huge. After spiking and subsiding in the 80s, US trade deficits have increased over the last 20 years from 1 percent of GDP to almost 5 percent today. Our trade deficit with China alone reached an all-time high last year of 2 percent of GDP, accounting for over 40 percent of our overall trade deficit. Including China’s regional trading partners, one could say that China accounts for 50 percent of our trade deficit. The US actually imports more from Europe ($382 billion) than China ($365 billion), but the difference is that Europe also buys a substantial amount from the US ($286 billion), whereas China does not ($92 billion). In fact, imports from China are 4 times exports. This multiple is 1.3 for Europe, 1.4 for Canada, and 1.1 for Mexico (our other top trading partners). This lopsided imbalance is due at root to China’s pegging its currency to the dollar at an artificially low rate. Some blame export subsidies, import barriers, under-consumption or low labor costs. All those exist. However, without its central bank involved, China’s exporters would sell their dollars on the open market to buy renminbi and the renminbi would appreciate, making our imports pricier and exports cheaper until the two reached parity. Instead, China’s central bank prints renminbi to buy these dollars and stockpiles them, investing them in dollar-denominated assets like US Treasuries. China’s regional trading partners have done the same, in part emboldened by the Chinese example and in part to remain competitive with China. Today, China’s purchases of Treasuries, just like the Fed’s purchases of Treasuries, are effectively “pushing on a string” since there is already ample liquidity in the banking system that is not translating into additional lending. What we urgently need from China now is not help with quantitative easing but more purchases of American goods and services. That will provide not just jobs but also the private savings to help consumers pay down debt. Three years after the financial crisis, cutting our trade deficit is now more urgent than ever. Till now, massive government stimulus of 8 to 10 percent of GDP has contained what would have been a depression, overcoming the destimulative impact of our trade deficit and setting us on a path to recovery. However, with support for deficit spending waning, paralysis in Washington and state and local governments cutting spending, there may well be total cuts to stimulus of 2 percent of GDP this year, and much more the following years. Combined with possible demand shocks from Europe, there is a real risk of our recovery foundering. Reducing our trade deficit now could completely offset lower government stimulus and assure a continued recovery. Seen another way, reducing our trade deficit will reduce the stimulus spending required, reducing our national debt by up to a trillion dollars over the next few years. And longer term, it also means that we’ll own more of our own assets. President Barack Obama’s recent statements about bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US are a good start, but they need to be followed up with effective actions to force real change from trading partners like China. Fears of sparking a trade war are overblown as China stands to lose a lot more than the US, as are fears of a sell off in Treasuries as we can buy our own Treasuries with the extra savings we’ll have. Furthermore, China has the political will and the balance sheet to support their economy as domestic consumption catches up. The US, meanwhile, cannot afford to wait any longer.

US collapse causes global great power wars


Duncan ’12 [Richard Duncan, former IMF consultant, financial sector specialist for the World Bank, Chief Economist Blackhorse Asset Management, The New Depression: The Breakdown of the Paper Money Economy, Page 12, Ebooks]
The political battle over America’s future would be bitter, and quite possibly bloody. It cannot be guaranteed that the U.S. Constitution would survive. Foreign affairs would also confront the United States with enormous challenges. During the Great Depression, the United States did not have a global empire. Now it does. The United States maintains hundreds of military bases across dozens of countries around the world. Added to this is a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers and 18 nuclear-armed submarines. The country spends more than $650 billion a year on its military. If the U.S. economy collapses into a New Great Depression, the United States could not afford to maintain its worldwide military presence or to continue in its role as global peacekeeper. Or, at least, it could not finance its military in the same way it does at present. Therefore, either the United States would have to find an alternative funding method for its global military presence or else it would have to radically scale it back. Historically, empires were financed with plunder and territorial expropriation. The estates of the vanquished ruling classes were given to the conquering generals, while the rest of the population was forced to pay imperial taxes. The U.S. model of empire has been unique. It has financed its global military presence by issuing government debt, thereby taxing future generations of Americans to pay for this generation’s global supremacy. That would no longer be possible if the economy collapsed. Cost–benefit analysis would quickly reveal that much of America’s global presence was simply no longer affordable. Many—or even most—of the outposts that did not pay for themselves would have to be abandoned. Priority would be given to those places that were of vital economic interests to the United States. The Middle East oil fields would be at the top of that list. The United States would have to maintain control over them whatever the price. In this global depression scenario, the price of oil could collapse to $3 per barrel. Oil consumption would fall by half and there would be no speculators left to manipulate prices higher. Oil at that level would impoverish the oil-producing nations, with extremely destabilizing political consequences. Maintaining control over the Middle East oil fields would become much more difficult for the United States. It would require a much larger military presence than it does now. On the one hand, it might become necessary for the United States to reinstate the draft (which would possibly meet with violent resistance from draftees, as it did during the Vietnam War). On the other hand, America’s all-volunteer army might find it had more than enough volunteers with the national unemployment rate in excess of 20 percent. The army might have to be employed to keep order at home, given that mass unemployment would inevitably lead to a sharp spike in crime. Only after the Middle East oil was secured would the country know how much more of its global military presence it could afford to maintain. If international trade had broken down, would there be any reason for the United States to keep a military presence in Asia when there was no obvious way to finance that presence? In a global depression, the United States’ allies in Asia would most likely be unwilling or unable to finance America’s military bases there or to pay for the upkeep of the U.S. Pacific fleet. Nor would the United States have the strength to force them to pay for U.S. protection. Retreat from Asia might become unavoidable. And Europe? What would a cost–benefit analysis conclude about the wisdom of the United States maintaining military bases there? What valued added does Europe provide to the United States? Necessity may mean Europe will have to defend itself. Should a New Great Depression put an end to the Pax Americana, the world would become a much more dangerous place. When the Great Depression began, Japan was the rising industrial power in Asia. It invaded Manchuria in 1931 and conquered much of the rest of Asia in the early 1940s. Would China, Asia’s new rising power, behave the same way in the event of a new global economic collapse? Possibly. China is the only nuclear power in Asia east of India (other than North Korea, which is largely a Chinese satellite state). However, in this disaster scenario, it is not certain that China would survive in its current configuration. Its economy would be in ruins. Most of its factories and banks would be closed. Unemployment could exceed 30 percent. There would most likely be starvation both in the cities and in the countryside. The Communist Party could lose its grip on power, in which case the country could break apart, as it has numerous times in the past. It was less than 100 years ago that China’s provinces, ruled by warlords, were at war with one another. United or divided, China’s nuclear arsenal would make it Asia’s undisputed superpower if the United States were to withdraw from the region. From Korea and Japan in the North to New Zealand in the South to Burma in the West, all of Asia would be at China’s mercy. And hunger among China’s population of 1.3 billion people could necessitate territorial expansion into Southeast Asia. In fact, the central government might not be able to prevent mass migration southward, even if it wanted to. In Europe, severe economic hardship would revive the centuries-old struggle between the left and the right. During the 1930s, the Fascists movement arose and imposed a police state on most of Western Europe. In the East, the Soviet Union had become a communist police state even earlier. The far right and the far left of the political spectrum converge in totalitarianism. It is difficult to judge whether Europe’s democratic institutions would hold up better this time that they did last time. England had an empire during the Great Depression. Now it only has banks. In a severe worldwide depression, the country—or, at least London—could become ungovernable. Frustration over poverty and a lack of jobs would erupt into anti-immigration riots not only in the United Kingdom but also across most of Europe. The extent to which Russia would menace its European neighbors is unclear. On the one hand, Russia would be impoverished by the collapse in oil prices and might be too preoccupied with internal unrest to threaten anyone. On the other hand, it could provoke a war with the goal of maintaining internal order through emergency wartime powers. Germany is very nearly demilitarized today when compared with the late 1930s. Lacking a nuclear deterrent of its own, it could be subject to Russian intimidation. While Germany could appeal for protection from England and France, who do have nuclear capabilities, it is uncertain that would buy Germany enough time to remilitarize before it became a victim of Eastern aggression. As for the rest of the world, its prospects in this disaster scenario can be summed up in only a couple of sentences. Global economic output could fall by as much as half, from $60 trillion to $30 trillion. Not all of the world’s seven billion people would survive in a $30 trillion global economy. Starvation would be widespread. Food riots would provoke political upheaval and myriad big and small conflicts around the world. It would be a humanitarian catastrophe so extreme as to be unimaginable for the current generation, who, at least in the industrialized world, has known only prosperity. Nor would there be reason to hope that the New Great Depression would end quickly. The Great Depression was only ended by an even more calamitous global war that killed approximately 60 million people.

Empirical studies prove economic decline causes wars


Royal ’10 [Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, 213-215, online]
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.

Observation 2 is Solvency:

Offshore IMTA solves best- it’s sustainable, efficient, and cost-effective


Troell et al ’09 [Max Troell, Associate Professor, Systems Ecologist, and Researcher at the Beijer Institute and Stockholm University, Alyssa Joyce, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Dr. Thierry Chopin, Doctorate from the University of Western Brittany, President of the International Seaweed Association, advisor to the International Foundation for Science, “Ecological engineering in aquaculture — Potential for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in marine offshore systems,” Aquaculture 297 (2009) 1–9, online]
With an average growth rate of 6.9% per annum, aquaculture is the fastest growing food production sector in the world (FAO, 2009). This¶ rapid growth faces, however, some limitations in the availability of¶ suitable sites and in the ecological carrying capacity of existing sites. Offshore aquaculture is increasingly being promoted as necessary to overcome such limitations and meet future world seafood demand.¶ However, considerable controversy has emerged over the proper¶ development of offshore aquaculture, and its actual advantages over¶ existing nearshore aquaculture. Although the termoffshore aquaculture¶ has specific implications within the United States, where regulations¶ explicitly define the terms of production (S.1195, the National Offshore¶ Aquaculture Act),1 a more universal and operational definition of¶ offshore aquaculture is based on the move of farm installations from¶ nearshore sheltered environments to more exposed environments. In¶ some countries, where there are no specific regulations defining¶ offshore culturing, or where there are conflicts over jurisdiction of the¶ Exclusive Economic Zone (e.g. in Asia and Europe, the 200-mile limit is¶ often shared by several countries), offshore aquaculture is better¶ defined not based on distance from shore, per se, as in some locations¶ exposed conditions can be found within less than 2 nautical miles from¶ land, while in others, these conditions exists more than10 miles¶ offshore. Thus it is difficult to develop a precise and universal definition¶ of offshore culturing (Ryan, 2004). However, in general, many of the¶ challenges for offshore aquaculture engineering involve adaptations of¶ farm installation designs and operation protocols for a variety of¶ challenging physical factors, e.g. currents and wave actions, deep water¶ (e.g. difficulty in anchoring structures), shipping routes,migration routes¶ for marine mammals, and logistical difficulties (North, 1987). Solutions¶ to these challenges involve costs, which have implications for market¶ scale and profits (North, 1987; Posadas and Bridger, 2003; NOAA, 2008).¶ Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) – the integrated¶ culturing of fed species, such as finfish, inorganic extractive species¶ such as seaweeds, and organic extractive species such as suspensionand¶ deposit-feeders – has the promise to contribute to the sustainability of aquaculture (Chopin et al., 2001; Neori et al., 2004; FAO, 2006). It is anticipated that it could also help solve some of the challenges specific to offshore systems. The aim of this paper is to identify and analyze the¶ various challenges that can be resolved, and new ones that may be¶ posed, by adopting the IMTA approach to offshore aquaculture.¶ 2. Ecological engineering in aquaculture¶ Asian countries, which provide more than two thirds of the world's¶ aquaculture production, have for centuries been practicing IMTA¶ through “trial and error” and experimentation (Li, 1987; Tian et al.,¶ 1987;Wei, 1990; Liao, 1992; Edwards, 1992, 1993; Chan, 1993; Chiang,¶ 1993; Qian et al., 1996; Troell, in press). Interestingly, civilizations most¶ successful at developing integrated aquaculture systems treatwastes as¶ valuable resources, and have for a long time integrated nutrient cycling¶ into their agricultural systems (Chopin et al., 2001; Troell, in press).¶ The discipline of ecological engineering addresses and quantifies the¶ processes that are involved with management of wastes as a resource.¶ Such studies consider a variety of complex environmental and social¶ needs, in addition to maximizing short-term profit (Ruddle and Zhong,¶ 1988; Bailey, 1988; Primavera, 1991; Wilks, 1995). Recent advances in IMTA cultivation techniques outside of Asia evolved primarily from ecological engineering experiments on the use of intensive culturing of seaweeds and bivalves as biofilters at sewage outflows (Ryther et al.,¶ 1972, 1975; Goldman et al., 1974) and aquaculture outflows (Neori¶ et al., 2004; Shpigel, 2005). Environmental concerns about the rapid¶ expansion of intensive mariculture systems have also recently led to a renewed interest in IMTA (Chopin et al., 2001, 2008; FAO, 2006).¶ However, most studies have focused on land-based systems, and only a¶ few have to-date investigated the possibilities of IMTA farming in open¶ water. In the past fifteen years, the integration of seaweedswithmarine¶ fish culturing has been examined and studied in Canada, Japan, Chile,¶ New Zealand, Scotland and the USA (Petrell et al., 1993; Hirata and¶ Kohirata, 1993; Buschmann et al., 1994, 2008; Hirata et al., 1994; Petrell¶ andAlie, 1996; Troell et al., 1997, 2003; Chopin and Yarish, 1998; Chopin¶ et al., 1999, 2001, 2008;Neori et al., 2004; Halling et al., 2005; Kimura et¶ al., 2007; Stenton-Dozey, 2007; Sanderson et al., 2008; Abreu et al.,¶ 2009). The integration ofmussels and oysters as biofilters in fish farming¶ has also been studied in a number of countries, including Australia, the¶ USA, Canada, France, Chile, Spain (Jones and Iwama, 1991; Taylor et al.,¶ 1992; Stirling and Okumus, 1995; Troell andNorberg, 1998; Buschmann¶ et al., 2000;Mazzola and Sara, 2001; Cheshuk, 2001; Langan, 2004). The¶ recent offshore relocation of many coastal finfish farms in Turkey has¶ generated interest in IMTA (Turan et al., 2009). Recent reviews on IMTA¶ research include a focus on seaweeds (Buschmann et al., 2001; Chopin¶ et al., 2001; Neori et al., 2004), bivalves (Troell et al., 1999a; Shpigel,¶ 2005), crustaceans (Troell et al., 1999b; Jones et al., 2002) and on¶ integrated cultures from a coastal zone management perspective¶ (Newkirk, 1996; Brzeski and Newkirk, 1997; Rawson et al., 2002;¶ Buschmann et al., 2006). 3. Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in the marine¶ environment—concept and drivers¶ Modern offshore fish-cage aquaculture practices are similar¶ worldwide. Designs and degree of automation may differ, but with¶ the exception of floating closed containment systems (Partridge et al.,¶ 2006; Fredriksson et al., 2008) most marine finfish cages are operated¶ as flow-though net-pen systems. This means that water is transported¶ through the cages by currents, resulting in an incomplete utilization of¶ feed resources and a direct release of reduced quality water, laden with both particulate and dissolved nutrients to the environment. IMTA has been proposed for mitigating aquaculture waste release,¶ which, as compared to other accompanying methods (i.e. improved¶ maintenance, feed development), has advantages that may include a reduced “ecological footprint”, economic diversification and increased social acceptability of finfish culturing systems. Furthermore, IMTA is the only practical remediation approach with a prospect for additional farm revenues by additional commercial crops, while all other biomitigation approaches have generally involved only additional costs to the producer. Thus, the practice of IMTA combines, in the right¶ proportions, the cultivation of fed aquaculture species (principally¶ finfish) with inorganic extractive aquaculture species (principally¶ seaweeds) and organic particulate extractive aquaculture species¶ (principally suspension- and deposit-feeders). It is a balanced ecosystem management approach that takes into consideration site specificity, operational limits, revenues and food safety guidelines, as well as environmental quality and regulations. The aim is to increase¶ long-term sustainability and profitability per cultivation unit (not per¶ species, as is practiced in monocultures), by recapturing some of the¶ nutrients and energy that are lost in finfish monocultures, and¶ transforming them into additional crops with commercial value.¶ Drivers for practicing IMTA are found at different levels of the¶ production cycle. At the farm level it may be revenues from producing¶ additional crops. From a societal perspective, value of ecosystem¶ services rendered by the extractive species can be estimated and quantified by environmental accounting. Where limitations are¶ proposed on nutrient emissions in environmental regulations, a¶ farmer could expand production, or need to fallow sites less¶ frequently, thanks to the culture of extractive species at the fish¶ farm. Such goals could be accomplished through nutrient trading credits, similar to systems utilized for pollution or carbon credits,2 or by internalizing the environmental costs of nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon discharges, enhancing the development of recycling technologies (Buschmann et al., 1996; Chopin et al., 2001).

IMTA is key to diversification- prevents industry collapse


Chopin ’10 [Dr. Thierry Chopin, Doctorate from the University of Western Brittany, President of the International Seaweed Association, advisor to the International Foundation for Science, “Chapter 9: Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture,” http://www.i-mar.cl/extension/aportes2010/Chopin%20et%20al%202010%20OECD%20paper.pdf]
The global seafood industry is at a crossroads: as capture fisheries stagnate in volume, they are falling increasingly short of a growing world demand for seafood. It is anticipated that by 2030, there will be a 50-80 million tonne seafood deficit (FAO, 2009). This gap will likely not be filled by capture fisheries but by ¶ aquaculture operations, which already supply almost 50% of the seafood consumed ¶ worldwide (FAO, 2009). Consequently, it is imperative to design the ecosystem responsible aquaculture practices of tomorrow that maintain the integrity of ecosystems and yet ensure the viability of this sector and its key role in food ¶ provision, safety and security. Without a clear recognition of the industry’s large-scale dependency and impact on natural ecosystems and traditional societies, the aquaculture industry is unlikely to either develop to its full potential, continue to supplement ocean fisheries, or obtain societal acceptance. The majority of aquaculture production still originates ¶ from relatively sustainable extensive and semi-intensive systems (Tacon et al.,¶ 2010); however, the rapid development, throughout the world, of intensive marine ¶ fed aquaculture (e.g. carnivorous finfish and shrimp), and to a lesser extent some ¶ shellfish aquaculture, is associated with concerns about the environmental, economic and social impacts that these, often monospecific, practices can have, especially where activities are highly geographically concentrated or located in ¶ suboptimal sites whose assimilative capacity is poorly understood and, ¶ consequently, prone to being exceeded. For many marine aquaculture operations, monoculture is, spatially and managerially, often the norm. Species are cultivated independently in different ¶ bays or regions. Consequently, the two different types of aquaculture (fed versus¶ extractive) are often geographically separate, rarely balancing each other out at the ¶ local or regional scale, and, thus, any potential synergy between the two is lost. In an aquaculture environment with fixed spatial limits (e.g. lease boundaries), increased production generally comes at the expense of the natural environment, as the farmer tends to squeeze more and more production into a fixed area. Once the natural system is destabilized, the risk that the entire operation will collapse increases. To avoid pronounced shifts in coastal processes, the solution to ¶ nutrification by fed aquaculture is not dilution, but extraction and conversion of the ¶ excess nutrients and energy into other commercial crops produced by extractive ¶ aquaculture (e.g. seaweeds and suspension- and deposit-feeding invertebrates). ¶ To continue to grow, while developing better management practices, the aquaculture sector needs to develop more innovative, responsible, sustainable and ¶ profitable technologies and practices, which should be ecologically efficient, ¶ environmentally benign, product-diversified and societally beneficial. Maintaining ¶ sustainability, not only from an environmental, but also from economic, social and ¶ technical perspectives, has become a key issue, increased by the enhanced ¶ awareness of more and more demanding consumers regarding quality, traceability ¶ and production conditions. Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) has the potential to play a role in reaching these objectives by cultivating fed species ¶ (e.g. finfish fed sustainable commercial diets) with extractive species, which utilize the inorganic (e.g. seaweeds) and organic (e.g. suspension- and deposit-feeders) ¶ excess nutrients from aquaculture for their growth. ¶ The need for diversification and combining fed and extractive aquaculture into ¶ IMTA systems ¶ The common old saying “Do not put all your eggs in one basket”, which ¶ applies to agriculture and many other businesses, should also apply to aquaculture. ¶ Having too much production of a single species leaves a business vulnerable to issues of sustainability because of fluctuating prices in what has become commodity markets and potential oversupply, and the possibility of catastrophic destruction of one’s only crop (diseases, damaging weather conditions). ¶ Consequently, diversification of the aquaculture industry is advisable for reducing the economic risk and maintaining its sustainability and competitiveness. ¶ From an ecological point of view, diversification also means cultivating more ¶ than one trophic level, i.e. not just cultivating several species of finfish (that would ¶ be “polyculture”), but adding into the mix organisms of different and lower trophic ¶ levels (e.g. seaweeds, shellfish, crustaceans, echinoderms, worms, bacteria, etc.), ¶ chosen according to their roles in the ecosystem and their established or potential ¶ commercial value, to mimic the functioning of natural ecosystems. Staying at the ¶ same ecological trophic level will not address some of the environmental issues ¶ because the system will remain unbalanced due to non-diversified resource needs. ¶ It is also important to consider that while some ecosystem goods (e.g.fish) ¶ generally have a higher market price than other ecosystem goods (potentially ¶ making them a more attractive investment), ecosystems are not based on the same ¶ principles, but on a balance of biomass between organisms having different ¶ complementary functions and a balance of energy flows. Evolving aquaculture practices will require a conceptual shift towards understanding the working of food production systems rather than focusing on technological solutions. In other words, we have to think about how to make the “Blue Revolution” greener and should more appropriately talk of the “Turquoise Revolution”! One of the innovative solutions promoted for environmental sustainability (biomitigation), economic stability (product diversification and risk reduction) and societal acceptability (improved support for the industry and its differentiated safe ¶ products), is IMTA. This practice combines, in appropriate proportions, the cultivation of fed aquaculture species (e.g.finfish) with inorganic extractive aquaculture species (e.g. seaweeds) and organic extractive aquaculture species ¶ (e.g.suspension- and deposit-feeding invertebrates) for a balanced ecosystem management approach that takes into consideration site specificity, operational limits, and food safety guidelines and regulations (Figutr 9.1). The aim is to ¶ increase long-term sustainability and profitability per cultivation unit (not per ¶ species in isolation as is done in monoculture), as the wastes of one crop (fed ¶ animals) are converted into fertilizer, food and energy for the other crops ¶ (extractive plants and animals), which can, in turn, be marketed. Feed is one of the ¶ core operational costs of finfish aquaculture operations, but with IMTA this cost is reduced because some of the food, nutrients and energy considered lost in finfish monoculture are recaptured and converted into crops of commercial value, while ¶ biomitigation takes place. In this way all the cultivation components have a commercial value, as well as a key role in recycling processes and rendering ¶ services. The harvesting of the different types of crops participates in the capture ¶ and export of nutrients outside of the coastal ecosystem. The biomass and functions ¶ of the fed and extractive species naturally present in the ecosystem in which ¶ aquaculture farms are operating must also be accounted for or this will lead to the ¶ development of erroneous carrying capacity models. For example, the ¶ 158 811 tonnes (fresh weight) of the intertidal seaweed, Ascophyllum nodosum ¶ (rockweed), in proximity to salmon aquaculture operations in southwest New ¶ Brunswick, Canada, are not neutral in the ecosystem and represent a significant ¶ coastal nutrient scrubber which should be taken into consideration to understand ¶ the functioning of that part of the Bay of Fundy.

The plan’s signal solves regulation clarity- key to sustainable aquaculture


Pittenger et al ‘07 [Richard Pittenger is chairman of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, former Vice President for Marine Operations and Arctic Research Coordinator for Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, former Chief of Staff to the U.S. Naval Forces in Europe, and Oceanographer of the Navy, Bruce Anderson, PhD in biomedical sciences from the University of Hawaii, is president of the Oceanic Institute, holds an M.P.H. in epidemiology from Yale University, Daniel Benetti is Associate Professor and the Director of Aquaculture at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, has over 25 years experience in aquaculture worldwide, “Sustainable Marine Aquaculture: Fulfilling the Promise; Managing the Risks,” January, http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/Sustainable_Marine_Aquaculture_final_1_07.pdf]
Addressing the effects of aquaculture on the marine environment requires specific measures to address specific concerns, such as escapes, disease, or water pollution. It also requires changes to the broader framework of laws, institutions, and policies that dictate how aquaculture is sited, permitted, and operated in marine waters of the United States. This is particularly true if aquaculture in the United States moves increasingly offshore into marine waters under federal jurisdiction.¶ Two key failings of the current legal regime for marine aquaculture are the lack of clear federal leadership and the lack of standards to protect of the marine environment. Numerous federal agencies have responsibility for aspects of aquaculture regulation, but currently no agency is charged to coordinate the overall process. This creates a confusing and cumbersome process for those seeking permits for aquaculture and results in a lack of accountability among the federal agencies for marine aquaculture activities and its impacts on the marine environment. As a result, greater authority requires greater responsibility on the part of the lead agency. This is best facilitated by a strong signal from Congress that marine aquaculture will not be promoted at the expense of the health of the¶ marine environment. • Congress should assign NOAA a leading role in planning, siting, and regulating aquaculture in federal marine waters.

Plan is modeled globally


Browdy and Hargreaves ‘08 [Craig L. Browdy, PhD, Senior Marine Scientist at the Waddell Mariculture Center, and John A. Hargreaves, PhD focus in Aquaculture from Louisiana State University, aquaculture expert with more than 30 years of experience in research, teaching, and development, “Overcoming Technical Barriers to the Sustainable Development of Competitive Marine Aquaculture in the United States,” http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/aquaculture_docs/noaanist_techbarriers_final.pdf]
In order to meet increasing demand for seafood and reduce rising trade deficits, the U.S. needs to enhance aquaculture production in land-based, nearshore and offshore sectors. Technologies and production methods for nearshore sea cage culture of a few species of finfish (e.g., salmon, trout) are well developed, however, suitable sites in protected waters are limited, and further ¶ development has been impeded by environmental concerns, disease and parasites, containment ¶ breaches, and multiple use conflicts. Technologies to improve environmental performance, create more secure containment barriers, manage fish health (diseases and parasites), reduce production costs (feed, labor) and produce new species for culture may result in expansion of nearshore cage culture. There is tremendous opportunity for expansion of cage culture in open ¶ ocean waters, however, the technology suitable for high energy ocean environments is in an early ¶ stage of development, and farms operating in exposed waters are small, production costs are ¶ high, and economic risk is not well known. Development and integration of technologies to a ¶ high level of automation for conducting routine operations is needed for offshore farming to ¶ expand. In addition, additional data on environmental effects of ocean farming at a commercial ¶ scale (e.g., 2-5,000 MT annual production) are needed in order to overcome impediments due to ¶ environmental concerns, and to inform the policy and regulatory framework for domestic ¶ offshore farming. ¶ Economic Significance of Innovation ¶ Restoring U.S. nearshore cage production to its 2001 peak would add approximately ¶ $80,000,000 in farm gate value to the existing sector. Additional production beyond that amount ¶ may or may not be possible due to space constraints. If technology for large scale offshore production could be achieved, (e.g., 50 U.S. farms each producing 5,000 MT) the farm gate value would be in the $1.5-2 billion by 2025, and perhaps double or triple that mount by 2050. In addition, technologies for offshore farming developed in the U.S, would be highly sought after internationally.

Incentives are key to IMTA- solves industry concerns and spurs regulation


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]
Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) systems not only produce valuable biomass, but also provide waste reduction services. Once nutrients enter coastal ecosystems, the use of extractive species in IMTA is one of the few costeffective options for treatment. With an appropriate composition of co-cultured species, IMTA can reduce the amounts of organic and inorganic nitrogen, carbon and phosphorus, making extractive aquaculture a good candidate for nutrient trading credits (NTCs). Preliminary calculations for a relatively small-scale IMTA project on the eastern coast of Canada, for example, indicated that the annual harvesting of kelp would equate to the removal of 35.75 mt of nitrogen from the ecosystem, representing an NTC of U.S. $357,504 to 1,072,512. The same could be applied to another key nutrient, phosphorus. With a removal of 4.09 mt and a value of U.S. $4/kg removed, this would represent another contribution to the NTC of $16,343 – a much smaller amount, but it could also be an important way of extracting phosphorus at a time when some are predicting a shortage of the element.¶ Carbon Trading Credits Carbon trading credits (CTCs) could also be calculated. There may be arguments¶ about what is meant by trapping and¶ sequestering carbon. Some may argue that¶ it should be reserved to long-term geological¶ storage (sink) and not transient storage.¶ If temporary removal of carbon from¶ the ocean can be credited for potentially¶ increasing seawater pH and absorbing carbon¶ dioxide from the atmosphere and/or¶ cultivated animals, it can be calculated that¶ with a value for carbon removal around¶ U.S. $30/mt, this would represent a¶ removal of 306.43 mt and a CTC of¶ $9,193 – a larger amount of carbon, but¶ with a much smaller value, underlining the¶ difficulty in removing dissolved nutrients¶ from aquatic systems and the acute issue of¶ their presence in coastal systems. Similar calculations could be applied¶ to the organic extractive component of¶ IMTA. In the case of shellfish, accumulation¶ of nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon¶ should be considered both in meat¶ and shells, which are especially rich in¶ calcium carbonates.¶ Green Tides¶ At a much larger scale, the occurrence¶ of large and recurrent “green tides”¶ should also be brought into focus. The¶ green tide that washed into Qingdao,¶ China, just before the sailing competitions¶ of the 2008 Olympic Games got a¶ lot of attention.¶ Within three weeks, 1 mmt of Ulva¶ prolifera seaweed were removed from the¶ vicinity of Qingdao to allow the sailors¶ and windsurfers to compete, while an¶ estimated 2 mmt of U. prolifera sank to¶ the bottom. The harvesting of 1 mmt¶ equated to between 3,000 and 5,000 mt¶ of nitrogen removal for an NTC value of¶ U.S. $30 million to $150 million! Additional¶ NTCs of $1.6 million for the¶ removal of 400 mt of phosphorus and¶ CTC of $900,000 for the removal of¶ 30,000 mt of carbon should also be considered.¶ Green tides are not the cause, but the¶ unintentional consequence of coastal¶ eutrophication. Obviously, it would be¶ beneficial to reduce nutrient loading at¶ the source, but this may not be possible¶ in the present context of economic development¶ along China’s coastal zone.¶ The problem is that U. prolifera is¶ presently an unwanted and uncontrolled¶ nuisance species of limited commercial¶ value. To control its proliferation, the¶ solution may be to create a competition¶ for nutrients by intentionally cultivating algal species, which not only carry on the¶ biomitigation, but also have a commercial¶ value, where U. prolifera starts to enter¶ the coastal environment.¶ This time, the IMTA concept has to¶ be interpreted as an integrated land pond/¶ coastal aquaculture system in a supra-integrated¶ coastal zone management effort¶ that goes beyond provincial borders to¶ address issues at the Yellow Sea scale.¶ Establishing and implementing a structure¶ for the payment of credits or incentives for¶ these biomitigating services will be a delicate¶ matter. A lot of regulatory details will¶ have to be worked out before this complex¶ scheme becomes reality.¶ Increasing IMTA Adoption¶ Presently, the most advanced IMTA¶ systems in open marine waters and landbased¶ operations have three components¶ – fish, suspension feeders or grazers such¶ as shellfish, and seaweed, in cages, rafts¶ or floating lines – but they are admittedly¶ simplified systems. More advanced systems¶ will have several other components¶ (e.g., crustaceans in midwater reefs;¶ deposit feeders such as sea cucumbers, sea¶ urchins and polychaetes in bottom cages¶ or suspended trays; and bottom-dwelling¶ fish in bottom cages) to perform either¶ different or similar functions, but for various¶ size ranges of particles, or selected¶ for their presence at different times of the¶ year.¶ The most advanced IMTA systems¶ near or at commercial scale can be found¶ in Canada, Chile, South Africa, Israel¶ and China. Ongoing research projects¶ related to the development of IMTA are¶ taking place in the United Kingdom, Ireland,¶ Spain, Portugal, France, Turkey,¶ Norway, Japan, Korea, Thailand, United¶ States and Mexico. It will also be interesting¶ to observe how new seaweed cultivation¶ for biofuel production initiatives in¶ different parts of the world could be an¶ additional driver for IMTA practices.¶ Most current aquaculture business¶ models do not consider the economic¶ value of the biomitigation services provided¶ by biofilters, as there is often no¶ cost associated with aquaculture discharges/¶ effluents in land-based or openwater¶ systems. Appropriate regulatory¶ and policy frameworks and financial incentive tools may therefore be required to clearly recognize the benefits of the¶ extractive components of IMTA systems. Better estimates of the overall costs and benefits to nature and society of aquaculture waste and its mitigation would create powerful financial and regulatory incentives to governments and the industry to jointly invest in the IMTA approach, as the economic demonstration of its validity would be even more obvious. Moreover, by implementing better management practices, the aquaculture industry should increase its societal acceptability, a variable to which it is difficult to give a monetary value, but an imperative condition for the development¶ of its full potential. Reducing environmental and economic risks in the long¶ term should also make financing easier to obtain from banking institutions. Consumers’ attitudes may also have to change as they come to accept eating products cultured in the marine environment in the same way they accept eating products from recycling and organic agricultural¶ practices – products for which¶ they are willing to pay a higher price for the perceived quality or ethical premiums. The differentiation of IMTA products through traceability and ecolabeling will be key for their recognition and command of premium market prices.




Download 0.81 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   19



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