Aquaculture Affirmative fyi

Download 0.81 Mb.

Page	9/19
Date	28.05.2018
Size	0.81 Mb.
	#51726

1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 19

IMTA key

IMTA solves sustainability- avoids environmental pollution

Multi-trophic practices support healthy ecosystems

Papenbrock and Turcios ’14 [Prof. Dr. Jutta Pape Brock, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Ariel Turcios, PhD student, “Sustainable Treatment of Aquaculture Effluents—What Can We Learn from the Past for the Future?” Sustainability 2014, 6, 836-856, online]
A more advanced system is the integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA). Here, the by-products or waste from one species are recycled to become inputs as fertilizers or food for another. The term ―multi-trophic‖ refers to the incorporation of species from different trophic or nutritional levels in the same system and this is one potential distinction from polyculture systems [6]. The ―integrated‖ in IMTA refers to the more intensive cultivation of the different species in proximity of each other, connected by nutrient and energy transfer through water. Ideally, the biological and chemical processes in an IMTA system should be balanced. This is achieved through the appropriate selection and ratios of different species providing different ecosystem functions. The co-cultured species are typically more than just biofilters; they are harvestable crops of commercial value. A working IMTA system can result in greater total production based on mutual benefits for the co-cultured species and improved ecosystem health, even if the production of individual species is lower than in monoculture over a short term period [3,7,8].

IMTA is sustainable- incentives solve

Ogden ’13 [Lesley Evans Ogden, Ph.D., Wildlife Ecology from Simon Fraser University, M.Sc. in Biological Sciences from York University, former wildlife ecologist, freelance science writer, “Aquaculture’s Turquoise Revolution,” BioScience 63: 697–704, http://www2.unb.ca/chopinlab/articles/files/Evans%20Ogden%202013%20Aquaculture's%20Turquoise%20Revolution%20BioScience.pdf]
Since 1999, with support from the¶ National Oceanic and Atmospheric¶ Administration, the US Department¶ of Agriculture, academia, and industry,¶ Rensel and his colleagues at the University¶ of Southern California have¶ been involved in developing geographic¶ information system biophysical models¶ (e.g., AquaModel, www.aquamodel.¶ org) that use physical oceanographic¶ inputs, including depth, current, salinity,¶ dissolved oxygen, and flow velocity,¶ to find the best possible sites for fish¶ net pens. Rensel has recently examined¶ the potential for growing Pacific oysters,¶ Gallo (Mediterranean) mussels¶ (Mytilus galloprovincialis), and seaweed¶ alongside salmon in farms in Puget¶ Sound. He used stable isotopes to trace¶ nutrient uptake, and the resultant data¶ suggest that salmon farm wastes contribute¶ between 16 and 59 percent of¶ oyster body tissue, varying with season¶ and location. Gallo mussels, he found,¶ were less effective for salmon waste¶ nutrient removal, perhaps because¶ they prefer warmer waters.¶ However, despite this global history, many recent aquaculture operations in North and South America; Europe; and, increasingly, even in parts of Asia, where polyculture has ancient¶ roots, have been focused on culturing a single species. Chopin likens singlespecies systems in aquaculture to the¶ dominance of monoculture systems¶ on land. In agriculture, farmers typically¶ specialize in only one species,¶ such as wheat, cattle, or corn. Every single-species system generates environmental¶ and economic issues that parallel intensification, explains Chopin.¶ On land, “the green revolution has¶ increased yields and increased productivity…¶ but in the short term. Now¶ soils are eroding and getting exhausted,”¶ he explains. “On land, we’re rediscovering¶ the value of crop rotation, fallowing,¶ and multiculture.” The same is occurring in aquaculture, so “there is value in diversification,” argues¶ Chopin. It took centuries on land to¶ refine agronomy principles. Chopin¶ thinks that it’s now time to approach farming of the sea through the development of “aquanomy.” IMTA means more than just diversifying to a polyculture. Diversification, in this sense, means cultivating more than one trophic level such that the wastes from fed organisms such as fish are recaptured and converted to fertilizer, food, and a source of energy for other crops, which would mimic aspects of the more complex marine¶ communities seen in nature. In the Bay of Fundy, in coastal New Brunswick, Chopin and DFO’s Shawn Robinson have championed a pilot IMTA venture through which Atlantic salmon housed in circular cages are flanked by rafts of mussels and rafts of seaweeds further downstream. Mussels can take advantage of small organic molecules, such as the fine-powder leftovers of fishmeal, fish excrement, and naturally occurring seston (the tiny living and nonliving particle¶ swimming or floating in the water).¶ Seaweeds make use of the inorganic¶ molecules and “are nutrient sponges,”¶ explains Chopin. Direct markets for¶ edible seaweeds are still small in North¶ America, save the local maritime habit¶ of chewing on crunchy dulse (a red¶ alga) and its gourmet incorporation¶ by adventurous local chefs near the¶ IMTA pilot project in New Brunswick,¶ but the market is growing in¶ some unexpected places. Seaweeds are¶ being used for pharmaceuticals and¶ cosmetics and show up in ice cream,¶ dental molds, microbiology labs (agar¶ plates), and wound dressings.¶ Just as Chopin’s IMTA system is,¶ itself, an ecological partnership of several¶ organisms, so, too, is the complex¶ collaboration that has supported his¶ project. The IMTA concept is slowly gaining traction in its transition from¶ a research and development phase to¶ what Chopin describes as “small-C¶ commercialization.” Its partners over¶ the years have included natural and socioeconomic scientists from the¶ University of New Brunswick and¶ St. Andrews Biological Station, industrial¶ partners, Canadian government¶ agencies, and private foundations. In¶ Canada, Loblaws supermarket now¶ charges premium prices for what it¶ calls “WiseSource” salmon, raised using IMTA, and in Monaco, the manufacturer¶ of cosmetic compounds Exsymol¶ SAM has developed skin care products¶ from IMTA kelp extracts.¶ Chopin is struck by the idea that,¶ on land, waste recycling has grown¶ in popularity, whereas in the sea, it¶ has not yet been embraced. It’s ironic,¶ thinks Chopin, because one of the¶ marine organisms most highly prized¶ as food—the lobster—is in fact a¶ bottom-feeding detritivore. This technical¶ term, he says, disguises the fact¶ that lobsters eat “the garbage of the¶ sea… the excrement and dead bodies¶ fallen on the bottom.” When it comes¶ to wild seafood, explains Chopin,¶ “lots of what you eat is a product of¶ recycling at sea.” IMTA is an extension¶ of this natural recycling idea,¶ clustering fed (e.g., fish) and extractive¶ (e.g., mussels, seaweeds) species¶ together so that they can exchange¶ nutrients. Like recent interest in the¶ value of carbon credits, Chopin suggests¶ that nutrient-trading credits could¶ one day be established as a means¶ to value nutrient load reduction and¶ recovery—an important ecosystem¶ service—through a credit system that¶ could provide incentives for changes in aquaculture practices.

NOAA key

The plan solves the biggest barriers to development- the industry wants a federal and NOAA approach

Buck ‘12 [Lisa E. Buck, Master of Marine Affairs from the University of Washington, “U.S. Development of Offshore Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors,” https://digital.lib.washington.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1773/21752/Buck_washington_0250O_10741.pdf?sequence=1]
When asked if they felt that the current regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture ¶ helped or hindered the development of the industry, there was agreement across all interviewees that it is a hindrance. Interviewee explanations for these hindrances tended ¶ to fall into two distinct categories as shown in Table 6. The most commonly noted factor contributing to the limitation of development was the lack of a clear regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture in the United States, the other being closely related, a lack of action taken by congress to create a federal regulatory framework. There was agreement across all four sectors of interviewees that this lack of a clear federal regulatory framework is one of the main reasons for the slow development of the industry. As stated by one Regional Aquaculture Coordinator with NMFS, the current ¶ system is “fractured and cumbersome…” and what is needed is a “rational and ¶ transparent permitting process” for offshore aquaculture. As discussed in Section 2.1.3, ¶ bills have been proposed that have outlined standards and criteria for the development of ¶ a regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture in the United States, however the ¶ content and political motivation of these bills has been questioned by some stakeholders, ¶ and Congress has not taken action to pass any of the proposed bills. The National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2009 (reintroduced in 2011) was ¶ commonly referred to by interviewees as an example of standard setting and a ¶ precautionary approach to development of offshore aquaculture. Opinions of interviewees ¶ regarding this bill varied across stakeholder groups however. An interviewee in the ¶ industry category believes that the bill has the wrong motivations and perspective on ¶ environmental impacts. This interviewee asserts that this bill takes too precautionary an ¶ approach to offshore aquaculture development, and would build precautions into the ¶ legislation in a way that would not be conducive to the adaptive management of a ¶ growing industry that will necessitate regulatory changes as it evolves. This concern is ¶ seconded by an interviewee in the research category who states that assertiveness in ¶ regulatory solutions to the lack of a clear framework for offshore aquaculture could create a federal system that is not conducive to adaptive management. It is stated by this ¶ interviewee, as well as by interviewees in both the industry and political categories that adaptive management is necessary in a federal framework developed for offshore aquaculture in order to promote innovation and raise standards as the industry becomes more established. An interviewee in the industry noted that while the current permitting ¶ process is extremely difficult to navigate and serves as a barrier to entry, it also serves to ¶ show that operations that are granted permits have met the high standards that have been ¶ set and offshore aquaculture can be done in a way that will be in compliance with ¶ applicable regulations. ¶ Interviewees in both the industry and research categories have expressed opinions that ¶ research has shown that the ocean is adaptable, and if monitored properly, offshore ¶ aquaculture can have little to no lasting environmental impact. While this view is shared ¶ by others in the industry, research, and some political organizations, it contrasts with the ¶ views of some NGOs involved in the development of offshore aquaculture. One ¶ environmental NGO involved in the development of the NSOAA of 2009 viewed it as a ¶ chance to create a balance between the views of industry participants and the views of ¶ those who were concerned about the potential environmental impacts of offshore ¶ aquaculture development (Ocean Conservancy, 2011). This effort however, seems to ¶ have resulted in a bill that has not gained support from many stakeholders and has not ¶ moved beyond initial assignment to committee in Congress. ¶ ¶ Many interviewees expressed preferences for ways regulatory hindrances should be ¶ addressed. Aside from one interviewee who believed that offshore aquaculture should not ¶ be developed, the majority of interviewees stated the need for an entirely new piece of ¶ legislation for offshore aquaculture development and agreed that NOAA should be named the lead federal agency for management of offshore aquaculture. Many interviewees also noted the need for a streamlined, transparent and rational permitting ¶ process in order to address regulatory and economic issues previously discussed in this ¶ thesis. One interviewee in the offshore aquaculture industry offered an alternative ¶ suggestion that new legislation for offshore aquaculture development is not necessary, ¶ and would in fact delay the process further due to the nature of the legislative process. This suggestion acknowledged that the current system of permits and regulations is fragmented and can be extremely difficult to navigate, but argued that it can be streamlined to create a more comprehensive process for offshore aquaculture permitting ¶ without entirely new legislation. This opinion was based on the view that the legislative ¶ process tends to be a lengthy one, and it was this interviewee’s opinion that offshore aquaculture production in the United States needs to begin at a large scale as soon as possible. One interviewee in the industry offered the suggestion that regional “blueprints” ¶ be created, which would outline standards and criteria for technology selection, species ¶ selection, site selection among others. The goal of this blueprint would be to streamline ¶ the permitting process, as the interviewee was of the opinion that applying for permits ¶ necessary for offshore aquaculture should be more like applying for a fishing permit than a multi-year process.

NOAA permits are key- otherwise red tape prevents growth

Ramsden and Stewart 2-25-14 [Neil Ramsden, reporter at Undercurrent News, a news service covering the seafood industry, Jeanine Stewart, Americas editor for Undercurrent News and journalist specializing in the global seafood industry, “US aquaculture industry expects breakthrough year,” http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2014/02/25/us-aquaculture-industry-expects-breakthrough-year/]
At present, the regulatory red tape for those wishing to embark on an aquaculture project in US waters is something of a headache. To carry out aquaculture of a federally-managed species within federal waters (between three and 200 miles offshore) requires three different permits: one from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), one from the US Army Corps to allow the structure in US waters, and one from NOAA. The first two are “readily available” according to sources, but NOAA’s has long been hard to come by, as fish farmers such as Kampachi Farms and aborted cobia project Snapperfarms can attest to.¶ Kampachi Farms, owned by Neil Sims, had so much difficulty expanding its Hawaii site that eventually the firm moved to Mexico – a country which is highly supportive of entrepreneurial fish farming projects, Sims said.¶ “What’s needed is for NOAA to sort the fisheries management plan for aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico,” he told Undercurrent. “They say aquaculture is the key element in the responsible development of fisheries in the US, yet haven’t moved on that in five years.”¶ However, according to the head of NOAA’s office of aquaculture, Michael Rubino, this plan is soon to be moved on to the office of management and budget, which will check it before passing it on for public comment. It is now hoped the plan will have passed before the end of the year, and could act as a model for other regional fishery councils to emulate.¶ Brian O’Hanlon, founder of offshore cobia producer Open Blue, was another entrepreneur who found life easier outside of US waters. The New Yorker first set up a company in Puerto Rico, Snapperfarm, to try farming cobia in offshore waters. However, O’Hanlon gave up after 11 years, citing prohibitive US regulations that made growth impossible. “We really hope to see some advancements,” said Joe Hendrix of Aqualine Americas, whose parent company provides farming equipment worldwide.¶ “The US now, the bottom line is the government does not issue permits. The demand and interest from the private sector, and the seafood industry, has been there for some time. Any amount of the country’s seafood consumption, which is 90% imports, we can offset is a direct boost to the US economy,” he said.

Congress should clarify NOAA leadership

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]
1. Congress should authorize NOAA to develop a national program of marine aquaculture, including both strong environmental safeguards and provisions to balance offshore aquaculture with other ocean uses. 1.1. Congress should authorize NOAA to issue implementing regulations and site and operating permits for aquaculture in federal marine waters.6 1.2. After making institutional changes to ensure the integrity of its decision-making process, NOAA should take a leading role in planning, permitting and regulating¶ aquaculture in federal marine waters, and in coordinating aquaculture in all marine¶ waters with other federal agencies, the states, tribes, and the regional and interstate fisheries management councils. 1.3. Congress should direct NOAA to establish a program for marine aquaculture that: • Uses relevant and timely scientific and technical information in a precautionary¶ manner to protect the health of marine ecosystems; • Is socially and culturally compatible with coastal communities and existing uses of¶ the marine environment; and • Is economically beneficial to coastal communities.

Incentives solve

Incentives cause an industry shift to IMTA

Nobre et al ’10 [Ana M. Nobre, researcher at the Institute of Marine Research, Dr. Deborah Robertson-Andersson, Institute for Microbial Biotechnology and Metagenomics, A. Neori, Amir Neori, Associate Scientist of Marine Biology and Aquaculture. National Center for Mariculture, “Ecological–economic assessment of aquaculture options: Comparison between abalone monoculture and integrated multi-trophic aquaculture of abalone and seaweeds,” Aquaculture 306 (2010) 116–126, online]
The application of the ΔDPSIR to the present case study quantified the direct profitability advantage that abalone–seaweed IMTA farms can¶ have relative to abalone monocultures. The analysis also quantified even¶ larger benefits to the environment and the public that the IMTA¶ configuration brought, through reduced Pressures on the adjacent¶ coastal ecosystem. As the cost of energy increases and where pollution¶ taxes are adopted, the economic incentives for the implementation of IMTA farms, compared with monoculture abalone farms, are likely to mount. Remarkably, the current form of accounting, which does not yet¶ incorporate ecological and social externalities, indicates significant profit to the studied IMTA farm configurations. This outcome follows the demonstration of profits resulting from implementation of IMTA¶ configuration with salmon, bivalves and seaweeds in a couple of cases¶ in open water mariculture (Ridler et al., 2007; Buschmann et al., 2008).¶ These encouraging results should be considered by industry and¶ regulators involved with the current expansion in abalone culture worldwide. For other similar analysis it might be important to consider¶ the price of land for transforming a monoculture farm into an IMTA with¶ seaweed ponds. In the present case study this was not an issue but might¶ be prohibitive for retrofitting other farms. A recognition by regulations¶ and taxation of the value of the externalities when evaluating the farm's¶ accounting, can make the IMTA concept much more profitable overall.¶ The present ΔDPSIR analysis can also serve as a blueprint to help owners¶ and regulatory officials in balancing the design of the farm with respect¶ to nutrient mass balance towards reduced negative environmental¶ externalities. As kelp is reaching limits of legal and sustainable¶ harvesting, particularly in kelp concession areas with high abalone¶ farm concentrations, and with the forceful socio-economic incentives quantified in the present paper, it can be expected that two- and three species¶ IMTA farms will become the industry norm, rather than the¶ exception.

Government incentives solve IMTA

Barrington et al ‘09 [Kelly Barrington, University of New Brunswick, Department of Biology, Thierry Chopin, University of New Brunswick, Department of Biology, Shawn Robinson

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, St. Andrews Biological Station, “Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in marine temperate waters,” http://aansonline.ca/archives/doi/barrington-et-al-2009-fao-imta-review.pdf]

Governments have a role to play. One of the key roles for government agencies, ¶ from the municipal to the federal levels, is to understand the basic concept of IMTA ¶ and to evaluate their current and future policies. If they agree with the concept of ¶ IMTA, then they should try and promote protocols through their policies that will encourage the marine production sectors to follow those tenets. This could be done in the form of incentives or penalties similar to economic policies that are currently ¶ used to regulate environmental behaviour of people in land-based systems (i.e. fuel ¶ or cigarette taxes, better premiums for good behaviour on life insurance policies, ¶ incentives for identifying and recognizing the values of environmental services as in a ¶ few countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden).

IMTA is economically viable- incentives can boost development

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]
In anticipation of future increases in the costs of the main inputs of¶ intensive offshore culture of carnivorous fish – energy and feeds – as¶ well as high construction, maintenance and transportation costs, the¶ economic viability of offshore aquaculture is still unclear. The profit¶ margins of present day large-scale cage fish culture (salmon,¶ seabream, etc.) have declined dramatically in the past fifteen years.¶ These trends may impede the development of offshore fish monoaquaculture.¶ A key question with respect to IMTA is, then, how¶ seaweeds, filter-feeders, and other extractive species can contribute¶ to the overall economic performance, both for nearshore and offshore¶ systems. As discussed earlier, IMTA provides economic benefits not only at the farm level but also at the broader environmental/societal levels. The broader benefits include a reduction in waste discharges,¶ improvement in social acceptability of the industry, and additional jobs. The primary benefits at the farm level will be maximizing net income, including profit from the production of both fed species (fish) and the extractive species. There are no feed costs for extractive¶ species, but there are other costs for infrastructure and operation to¶ produce additional co-cultured species. Despite a relatively low¶ market price for seaweeds, the millions of tons produced in some¶ countries each year attest that their culture is profitable (Chopin and¶ Sawhney, 2009). The achievement of seaweed profitability in offshore¶ IMTA farms may require identification of species that combine¶ effective biofiltration and productivity with specific qualities that¶ generate higher prices, such as sea-vegetables, nutraceuticals and¶ cosmetics ingredients. Research devoted to the development of higher¶ value products from seaweeds is therefore an additional step towards¶ the incorporation of these organisms into IMTA systems. For instance,¶ Macrocystis, a low valued genus that is harvested for its alginates, has¶ recently been used in higher valued edible products, and as feed for¶ abalone (Gutiérrez et al., 2006; Flores-Aguilar et al., 2007). However,¶ the economic success of this type of culturing is not necessarily¶ determined by income at point of sale; rather, the net profits also depend on initial investment costs, costs for maintenance, harvest, handling, and any additional inputs to production (plus the value of¶ ecosystem services which will have to be soon recognized and¶ valuated). Buck and Buchholz (2004) showed that gross profit from an¶ offshore Saccharina cultivation (based on production data from¶ experimental setup) was 40€/yr/culture unit, but that overall¶ investment costs were 100€/yr/culture unit. The high investment¶ costs were due to the cultivation methodology, which, compared to¶ seaweed farming in nearshore waters, required significant infrastructure¶ and engineering research and development for the installations.¶ In addition, costs for labour or maintenance were not included in this¶ analysis. Even though integration of seaweeds and shellfish with¶ offshore fish cages could benefit from other available structures¶ [e.g. associating aquaculture and wind farm ventures (Buck, 2007) or¶ single point mooring fish-cage systems to which seaweed and¶ invertebrate units could be attached], technological solutions will be¶ required to make such designs economically feasible. The IMTA systems¶ currently being used for commercial applications in Canada and China¶ are relatively simple farming systems (ropes, rafts), and it remains to be¶ seen how new technologies can be applied in highly exposed offshore¶ environments. An important factor in the farming of multiple species is¶ the ability to manage risk through horizontal integration. A diversified¶ product portfolio will increase the resilience of an aquaculture¶ operation in the face of disease outbreak, product gluts, or price¶ fluctuations in one of the farmed species. In such situations, product¶ diversification can increase the survivability of the company.¶ Seaweed and mussel production in offshore IMTA may be profitable on their own, but if the extractive properties can be translated into economic benefits for the farmer this would create stronger incentives for integration. The challenges for doing this are to 1) identify and¶ quantify the environmental costs fromcultivating only fed species, and¶ 2) find ways to internalize the positive effects from integration with¶ extractive species. For instance, in Sweden, a novel program has been initiated for mussel farming, wherein mussel farmers get credits to offset nutrient (carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus) discharges (e.g. from¶ sewage outfalls) (Sterner, 2005). As wastes from aquaculture are identified as potential threat to the environment, developing IMTA will have societal and environmental as well as economic benefits. An¶ example of this could be reduced risk for HABs and eutrophication. It is,¶ however, difficult to find a specific correlation between loadings and¶ ecosystem effects, as this is usually a nonlinear relationship with¶ thresholds. It is also difficult to estimate the costs for society from the¶ degradation of the environment. Thus, to be able to put a value on¶ nutrient mitigation by biofiltering species, there is a need to knowwhat¶ values of ecosystem goods and services are being generated from¶ natural ecosystems, and how aquaculture wastes affect them. Information¶ about this is scarce, especially for offshore environments.

Incentives spur safe aquaculture development

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]
By harnessing the enormous power of the marketplace to reward good behavior with¶ respect to the environment, demand-side programs—including environmental certification¶ systems, corporate purchasing policies,¶ and eco-labeling—provide incentives for environmental protection that governments cannot provide. These methods can complement and enhance the effectiveness of government regulation and industry management practices. A well-recognized,¶ widely accepted certification system does¶ not yet exist for marine aquaculture¶ products, although there are a number of efforts underway that may lead to more¶ sustainable aquaculture practices. The keys to success of purchasing agreements and environmental certification schemes include high standards for sustainability, strong verification procedures to ensure compliance with standards, transparency and accessibility of the process to interested parties, and achieving and maintaining high consumer confidence in the label. Major issues to be resolved for aquaculture include the degree to which organic standards are, or can be, credibly applied to various forms of aquaculture, and whether a widely accepted approach for certifying the sustainability of aquaculture feed ingredients can be developed. In the meantime, corporate purchasing agreements can reward environmentally friendly production practices and offer insights for the development of broader programs.

Incentives are key

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]
At present all commercial marine aquaculture in the United States occurs in waters under the primary jurisdiction of the states. The Department of Commerce is encouraging a substantial expansion of aquaculture into federal marine waters, but economics, engineering, and logistics are significant constraints on the pace and scope of that development. Without substantial subsidy, most aquaculture in U.S. marine waters will continue to be in state waters for some time to come. To assess the environmental impact of¶ marine aquaculture in the U.S., it is essential to understand how it is being regulated by¶ the states, and what the environmental¶ results of that regulation have been. During¶ its regional meetings, the Task Force learned¶ as much as it could about how marine aquaculture¶ was managed in the states we visited.¶ Snapshots of four of these regulatory programs¶ are presented below. This is not¶ intended to serve as an exhaustive survey, but¶ we hope it will provide an overview of some¶ of the different approaches that have been¶ used.

IMTA=broad support

IMTA is broadly popular

Thomas ’11 [Susan A. Thomas, PhD, Workshop for Peninsula College, “INTEGRATED MULTI-TROPHIC AQUACULTURE: A WORKSHOP,” http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/imta/imta_white_paper.pdf]
Why is the US not a major aquaculture producer on the world scene? (1) In the US, in contrast to China ¶ and some other parts of the world where aquaculture is intensively practiced, there seems to be major ¶ concern about coastal zone use for the production of food, rather than for other purposes; (2) there is a lack ¶ of social acceptance (political viability) of aquaculture; and (3) there is not a regulatory framework in place that allows aquaculture, including IMTA, to develop in a responsible way. ¶ Is there indeed a role for the US as a major aquaculture producer, and will IMTA offer a special ¶ opportunity? Does IMTA supply that which will get society to accept aquaculture? Strengths of IMTA that could help move aquaculture forward appear to be that it is a new approach that could be more acceptable to the general public and to local communities because it can supply environmental services to clean up environmental contaminants where it is practiced in open systems, and can in closed, recirculation systems (which are self-cleaning, using techniques such as biofloc, for example) isolate cultured species and potential contaminants, diseases, etc., from the natural environment. There is a positive perception of the sustainability of IMTA systems, and of its ability to use alternative feeds rather than those made entirely from fish. Further, there would be economic advantages from the multiple products that can be sold in new market areas, including niche markets, and IMTA would open many opportunities for research, innovation, partnerships, and education.

Tech exists

IMTA is proven- we just need to commercialize

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]
Several IMTA projects worldwide have now accumulated enough data to support proof of the concept at the biological level. The next step is the scaling up of more experimental systems to commercial scale to further document the¶ economic and social advantages of IMTA, which will be key to offering it to practitioners of monospecific aquaculture as a viable option. Emerging sustainable aquaculture approaches must generate net economic benefits for society if they are to be advocated.

Tech for the plan already exists- it’s environmentally safe

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]
Industry is not the only group with a responsibility here, as indicated in the National ¶ Aquaculture Act of 1980.¶ 345 Rather, the United States, which has played a large role in subsidizing and encouraging development of aquaculture throughout the industry’s history, has a duty to ensure that the industry does not come to be characterized by tragedies of pollution and exploitation like the tragedy well underway in the context of wild capture fisheries. The U.S. ¶ government must instead condition its support on, or plainly mandate, environmentally and ¶ socially responsible industry behavior. The World Bank explained the dilemma well: “[t]he ¶ vision of sustainable aquaculture demands not only a favorable business climate, but also a ¶ governance framework that embraces social objectives and enforces environmental standards.”346 ¶ Furthermore, it has become clear that the success of aquaculture in the coming years will also ¶ depend on the extent to which coastal areas are polluted by other causes, like inland nonpoint ¶ source pollution. 347 Thus, state and federal regulators must also regulate sources of coastal ¶ pollution to give adequate support to a sustainable aquaculture industry. ¶ Luckily, the rapid development of technology accompanying the “blue revolution” 348 has ensured that sustainable aquaculture production is available and feasible. For example, in addition to the possibility of moving offshore to dilute coastal pollution, researchers have developed closed systems that require minimal disease and pest control and produce virtually no pollution.349 ¶ Aquaculturalists are also perfecting integrated systems, also called polyculture systems that combine culture of fish aquaculture with culture of mollusks or seaweed so “the wastes from one organism are used as inputs to another, resulting in the optimal use of resources and less pollution overall.” 350 These systems have the potential to be both more environmentally sound operations and more economically efficient.351 Moreover, the use of fishmeal in aquaculture feed can be reduced and researchers are using developing more sustainable plant-based feeds for use on fish farms.352 Thus, the technology exists to guide aquaculture onto a sustainable path. Aquaculture’s recent boom and the rapid technological development have made it the obvious choice going forward for satisfying the world’s growing appetite for protein.353 It is a choice that has potential to be more sustainable, as an alternative to exploitative overfishing and as a lower-impact source of protein than many industrially raised terrestrial livestock, if done correctly. 354 But we have a long way to go. As stated by James Connaughton, former Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Now is the time, not to have a national conversation about aquaculture, now is the time to have a national system of sound management of aquaculture to provide the certainty that’s necessary to do it right, to assure that we have the ecological integrity to the process [sic], and, again, to set a beacon for the world.355 Without institution of “[m]utual coercion mutually agreed upon,” the United States aquaculture industry is causing, rather than solving, tragedies of the commons. 356

Regulation key

Regulatory uncertainty prevents aquaculture investment

Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2014
2014 -> For want of a nail
2014 -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014
2014 -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter
2014 -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter
2014 -> International History Bee and Bowl 2013-14 Asian Division Question Set Bowl Round Six
2014 -> United states patent and trademark office
2014 -> Coffs harbour eisteddfod vocal syllabus
2014 -> Listen News Programs Schedule pledge now
2014 -> Slow club announce third album complete surrender

Download 0.81 Mb.

Share with your friends:

1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 19