Case Solvency



Download 404.01 Kb.
Page5/8
Date26.11.2017
Size404.01 Kb.
#35063
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8

Escapes DA



Escapes DA 1NC

Open ocean aquaculture will inevitably cause fish escapes - causes intermingling in wild populations


Rosamond L. Naylor et al – 8/3/09, Letter Opposing Open Ocean Aquaculture Signed by 10 Scientists, Professor, Environmental Earth System Science @ Stanford University, (Felicia C. Coleman, Ph.D., Ian A. Fleming, Ph.D., L. Neil Frazer, Ph.D., Les Kaufman, Ph.D., Jeffrey R. Koseff, Ph.D, John Ogden, Ph.D., Laura Petes, Ph.D., Amy R. Sapkota, Ph.D., MPH, Les Watling, Ph.D.), http://mauisierraclub.org/letter-opposing-open-ocean-aquaculture-signed-by-10-scientists/

Aquaculture is known to be a major vector for exotic species introduction (Carlton 1992, Carlton 2001), causing concern over the ecological impacts that escaped farmed species can have on wild fish and the environment, whether the farmed species are native or exotic to the area in which they are farmed (Volpe et al. 2000, Naylor et al. 2001, Youngson et al. 2001, Myrick 2002, Weber 2003). Farmed salmon are known to regularly escape from net pen systems, negatively impacting wild salmon stocks by increasing competition for food and breeding sites, as well as reducing the fitness of wild fish through interbreeding (Einum and Fleming 1997, Youngson and Verspoor 1998, Volpe and Anholt 1999, Fleming et al. 2000, Volpe et al. 2000, Jacobsen and Hansen 2001, Volpe et al. 2001, McGinnity et al. 2003, Naylor et al. 2005, Hindar et al. 2006). As compared to salmon aquaculture facilities, which are generally sited in sheltered bays, net-pen systems in open ocean environments face increased risk of failure due to increased exposure to storms and stronger currents. Developing separate broodstock to allow for selection of desirable growth characteristics is a hallmark of traditional agriculture and livestock production. To date, this has been common practice in aquaculture as well. However, allowing these practices to continue for aquaculture in open ocean environments, where fish will inevitably escape, greatly increases the risk to natural ecosystems of genetically-distinct farmed fish, even if these fish are native to the farming area. If the U.S. is to prevent environmental damage related to fish escapes, explicit regulations for broodstock maintenance and fish escape standards are needed that account for both individual farm-level effects and the cumulative impact of escapes occurring across a large number of farms. In the absence of these regulatory safeguards, permitting open ocean aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico at this time risks significant harm to the environment and should not be allowed.

That crushes biodiversity


De Silva et al 2/2009, professors from the School of Life and Environmental Sciences at Deakin University

(De Silva, S.,S., Nguyen, T. T. T., Turchini, G. M., Amarasinghe, U. S., & Abery, N. W., , writing in Ambio, an environmental research studies journal, “Alien species in aquaculture and biodiversity: A paradox in food production” Proquest, accessed 5/27/14 JH)



Fish introduction, which results in alien (i.e., exotic) species, is considered to be one of the biggest threats to finfish biodiversity (33, 34). In the present contribution, we do not loosely use the term "invasive" to describe any introduction of nonindigenous species or introduced species that spread rapidly in the new region. This is because there is no strong link between invasion and its impact as suggested by Ricciardi and Cohen (35). Alien species can impact biodiversity, directly or indirectly (Fig. 3), and these impacts can be immediate or long term. The potential impact of alien species on biodiversity cannot be ignored easily because high-impact invaders are more likely to belong to genera not already present in the system (36). Most watersheds within continents cover vast areas, impacts of alien species can spread far and wide, and translocated organisms can even become invasive. Currently, aquatic habitats, particularly in the developing world, are under serious threat from anthropogenic activities such as dam building (37) and other developments in the watersheds (38). Most of the cultured alien species are somewhat noncatholic in their habitat requirements, and habitat deterioration often facilitates the invasiveness of alien species, a good example being the spread of tilapias throughout Asia (39). Examples of negative influences on biodiversity arising from fish introductions are recorded from many parts of the globe, the most controversial one being that of the Nile perch (Lates niloticus) into Lake Victoria, Africa (40). In Asia, one of the worst documented negative effects on fish biodiversity has resulted from the translocation of grass carp, Ctenopharyngodon ideila in Donghu Lake, Wuhan, China. Grass carp introduction resulted in the decimation of submerged macrophytes, and the consequent ecological changes brought about an upsurge of bighead (Aristichthys nobilis) and silver carps (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and simultaneously the disappearance of most of the 60 fish species native to the lake (41). Perhaps the impacts on biodiversity of salmonids, in particular species of trout, one of the most extensively moved species across continents into temperate climates, have received less attention than desired. This apparent negligence could be attributed to the dominant role of such species as recreational/sport fishery objects, which brings about significant social and economic benefits, but not necessarily environmental benefits. Admittedly, some negative impacts of these translocations are beginning to be documented (42, 43), but a global synthesis of these translocations is urgently warranted. Alien species, both aquatic and terrestrial, have been responsible for the introduction of new pathogens and diseases world over (44). From an aquaculture view point, probably the worst occurred with the introduction of the North American crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) into Europe, which is thought to have been responsible for the near decimation of the European crayfish (Astacus astacus) (45, 46). Evidently P. leniusculus brought with it the fungus Aphanomyces astaci (47, 48), although it has also been suggested that this fungus may have been inadvertently introduced through ballast water (49). Fortunately, to date, similar large-scale decimation of finfish species through the introduction of pathogens associated with an alien finfish species is unknown, although there have been many pathogen transfers associated with alien species in aquaculture. Changes in genetic diversity of natural populations resulting from molecular genetically enhanced aquaculture escapees, estimated at about three million per year and considered to be a danger to ecosystems (50), and also from the use of hatchery bred stocks for stock enhancement purposes, are becoming increasingly evident. Loss of diversity in a number of natural populations of Oncorhynchus and Salmo species has been reported in watersheds in the western United States (51, 52) and in the Atlantic watersheds in Europe (53), respectively. For example, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) hybridize easily and extensively with threatened Apache trout (Oncorhynchus apaché) and endangered Gila trout (Oncorhynchus gilae). It has been reported that currently 65% of Apache trout have rainbow trout alleles and, at least in one instance, one whole native Apache trout population has been completely replaced by rainbow trout. Similarly, in Asia, introgression of African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) genes into the native walking catfish Clarias macrocephalus has been reported in wild (54) and two broodstock populations in Thailand (55). Consequently, it has been suggested that the indigenous walking catfish is being increasingly threatened as a result of massive backcrossing with hybrid catfish, which is the preferred catfish of Thai catfish farmers (55). A comparable problem has been found in Bangladesh through the use of hybrid Clarias batrachus × C. gariepinus for aquaculture (56).

Marine biodiversity is essential to all life on earth – lack of knowledge means we should be overly cautious


Craig 3 — Robin Kundis Craig, Associate Professor of Law at the Indiana University School of Law, 2003 (“Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii,” McGeorge Law Review (34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155), Winter, Available Online via Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)

Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, n863 its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." n864 More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique.

UQ – A2: Onshore AQC Now





Link is linear – inland U.S. aquaculture is limited and growing slow – the plan creates a rapid expansion of aquaculture in the ocean, which exponentially increases the threats to biodiversity – every additional aquaculture farm is a step towards the tipping point



Open ocean aquaculture is uniquely vulnerable to escapes – storms and predators


Food & Water Watch – no date, Top 10 Problems, http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/common-resources/fish/fish-farming/offshore/problems/

Offshore fish farming, also known as open ocean aquaculture, involves giant cages located about 30 feet under water anywhere from three to 200 miles off the coast. Here are 10 reasons why this is so problematic. Competing/Conflicting Interests Open water aquaculture facilities could cause conflict of interest. Areas of current significant competing economic use or public value must be eliminated for consideration for open ocean aquaculture. These areas include 1) fishing grounds and routes to those fishing grounds; 2) vessel traffic lanes; 3) military sites and areas of concern regarding national security; 4) marine reserves and otherwise protected areas; and, 5) areas of significant multiple use. Escapement Offshore aquaculture of finfish uses cages or pens. These containers, even if well engineered and built, will allow some fish escapes into the open ocean, due to various complications like severe weather, equipment failure or human error. In the case of net pens, predators may tear the enclosures. Escapement can affect native populations through disease and dilution of locally adaptive gene complexes, disrupt natural ecosystems and jeopardize the recovery of depleted or endangered species. Consequences could be widespread and devastating.

Link – Plan => Escapes



Farmed fish inevitably escape and compete with wild fish for resources


Tim Eichenberg – 6/8/06, Director, Pacific Regional Office, The Ocean Conservancy, Testimony before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY STUDY OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109shrg64706/html/CHRG-109shrg64706.htm

Open ocean aquaculture is promoted as a solution to the ocean's diminishing resources. However, it also poses significant risks, including escapement of fish, damage to the surrounding environment, harmful effects on native fish populations, and pollution. These risks, and their consequences, are largely dependent upon the location of the operation, its size or scope, the management practices, the capacity of the receiving water body, and the choice of species to be raised in a particular area. Fish Escapement: Perhaps the single greatest ecological and economic threat associated with the growth of offshore aquaculture is the potential to introduce invasive species to the surrounding ecosystem and nearby coastal communities. Millions of farmed fish escape from fish farms because of storms, human error, and predators. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and many other authorities, escapes result in harmful interactions with native fish, including competition with wild stock for food, habitat and mates; transfer of potentially deadly diseases and parasites to wild stocks; and genetic modification of wild stocks through inter- breeding.\6\ Farmed fish are vastly different and can weaken the genetic makeup of wild populations.\7\

No way to prevent escapes – storms, predators, and fertilization


ROSAMOND L. NAYLOR – 11/27/13, Senior Fellow at the Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Stanford University, Environmental Safeguards for Open-Ocean Aquaculture, Issues in Science and Technology, http://issues.org/22-3/naylor/

Opening far-offshore waters to aquaculture could lead to substantial commercial benefits, but it also poses significant ecological risks to the ocean—a place many U.S. citizens consider to be our last frontier. Some of the species now farmed in open-ocean cages, such as bluefin tuna, Atlantic cod, and Atlantic halibut, are becoming increasingly depleted in the wild. Proponents of offshore aquaculture often claim that the expansion of farming into federal waters far from shore will help protect or even revive wild populations. However, there are serious ecological risks associated with farming fish in marine waters that could make this claim untenable. The ecological effects of marine aquaculture have been well documented, particularly for near-shore systems, and are summarized in the 2005 volumes of the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Frontiers in Ecology (February), and BioScience (May). They include the escape of farmed fish from ocean cages, which can have detrimental effects on wild fish populations through competition and interbreeding; the spread of parasites and diseases between wild and farmed fish; nutrient and chemical effluent discharge from farms, which pollutes the marine environment; and the use of wild pelagic fish for feeds, which can diminish or deplete the low end of the marine food web in certain locations. Because offshore aquaculture is still largely in the experimental phase, its ecological effects have not been widely documented, yet the potential risks are clear. The most obvious ecological risk of offshore aquaculture results from its use of wild fish in feeds, because most of the species being raised in open-ocean systems are carnivorous. If offshore aquaculture continues to focus on the production of species that require substantial quantities of wild fish for feed—a likely scenario because many carnivorous fish command high market prices—the food web effects on ecosystems that are vastly separated in space could be significant. In addition, although producers have an incentive to use escape-proof cages, escapes are nonetheless likely to occur as the offshore industry develops commercially. The risks of large-scale escapes are high if cages are located in areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico, that are prone to severe storms capable of destroying oil rigs and other sizeable marine structures. Even without storms, escapes frequently occur. In offshore fish cages in the Bahamas and Hawaii, sharks have torn open cages, letting many fish escape. In addition, farming certain species can lead to large-scale “escapes” from fertilization. For example, cod produce fertilized eggs in ocean enclosures, and although ocean cages are more secure than near-shore net pens, neither pens nor cages will contain fish eggs. The effects of such events on native species could be large, regardless of whether the farmed fish are within or outside of their native range. At least two of the candidate species in the Gulf of Mexico (red drum and red snapper), as well as cod in the North Atlantic, have distinct subpopulations. Escapes of these farmed fish could therefore lead to genetic dilution of wild populations, as wild and farmed fish interbreed.

Prefer our evidence – the aquaculture industry has a terrible track record


Belton et al – 2/10/04, Post-Doctoral Fellow at The WorldFish Center, Dhāka, Bangladesh, “Open Ocean Aquaculture,” Ben Belton, Jeremy Brown, Lynn Hunter, Tracie Letterman, Anne Mosness, Mike Skladany, http://www.iatp.org/files/Open_Ocean_Aquaculture.pdf

The aquaculture industry, using the same strategies that have proven inadequate in preventing fish escapes from coastal facilities, offers only new net-pen designs and management plans for OAA. The industry’s dismal record is well documented. For example, ‘Up to two million salmon are thought to escape from farms around the North Atlantic each year’ (17). Once free, these fish may quickly assimilate into the wild, and can compete with wild stocks for food, habitat, and mates. Interbreeding with native fish results in genetic modification and degradation, and increased potential for disease and parasite transfer to wild stocks (18). In many regions, such as off the coast of Maine, ‘farmed escapees vastly outnumber wild salmon in some spawning rivers’ (19). Although most species slated for OOA development are not andronomous, as is the case for salmonids, inherent dangers remain, particularly with the introduction of exotics. Initial halibut and cod culture has focused on the Atlantic species, yet there is no reason to believe that their introduction into the Pacific would yield any lesser degree of competition, interbreeding and genetic degradation. The likelihood of GE fish escaping from ocean pens raises even more serious ethical and biological issues.

Link – A2: Plan is only Native Species

Even native species are genetically different from wild stocks – degrades biodiversity


Goldburg et al – 2001, Marine Aquaculture in the United States: Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, Prepared for the Pew Oceans Commission, Rebecca J. Goldburg (Environmental Defense), Matthew S. Elliott (Environmental Defense), Rosamond L. Naylor (Stanford University), http://www.iatp.org/files/Marine_Aquaculture_in_the_United_States_Enviro.htm

Native Species Escapes of native species of farmed fish can also harm wild stocks, particularly when substantial genetic differences exist between the farmed and wild populations. Genetic differences often occur when farmed fish are specifically bred for aquaculture or are moved from one area to another. Farmed fish that have been selectively bred for particular traits can be markedly different from wild fish. Highly selected strains often have smaller fins, larger bodies, and more aggressive feeding behavior (Fleming and Einum, 1997). Compounding these differences due to selective breeding, the genetic makeup of some fish, such as wild Atlantic salmon, varies significantly between regions due to evolved local adaptations (Hindar, 2001; Johnson, 2000). When farmed salmon escape, they can interbreed with wild salmon frequently enough to change the genetic makeup of some wild stocks (Hindar, 2001; McGinnity et al., 1997). This interbreeding can decrease the fitness of wild populations through the loss of adaptations and the breakup of beneficial gene combinations (HSRG, 2000), and wild stocks may be unable to readapt if escapes continue (Hindar, 2001). In Maine, escaped farmed Atlantic salmon may threaten the survival of endangered wild stocks by flooding the wild salmon gene pool (FWS/NOAA, 2000). Maine salmon populations are particularly susceptible to genetic perturbations because of their very low abundance levels. For example, a December 2000 storm resulted in the escape of 100,000 salmon from a single farm in Maine, more than 1,000 times the number of documented wild adult salmon (Daley, 2001). Similarly, in the Magaguadavic River in neighboring New Brunswick, 82 percent of the young salmon (smolts) leaving the river in 1998 were of farmed origin (FWS/NOAA, 2000). Aquaculturists’ use of European milt (sperm) exacerbates the risk of genetic consequences. The genetic makeup of farmed Atlantic salmon in Maine is now about 30 to 50 percent European (NMFS/FWS, 2000).


Internal Link 2NC

Fish escapes decimate biodiversity

  1. Disease


FAO ’07, The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2007. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. http://www.academia.edu/1005835/Effects_of_Aquaculture_on_enviroment

Another influence of aquaculture on aquatic biology is that the escaping fishes would impact their wild neighbors in biology. Escapees from small-scale scenarios and unreported escape cases seem to make up a large proportion of the escaped farmed fish, based on a four-year study in the sea in Hordaland County. Furthermore, the size variability of the catches implied that the escapees originated from several different escape events. A similar conclusion was made by Fiske, based on the fact that escaped farmed salmon sampled at one locality had escaped at a wide range of body lengths (based on scale analyses), indicating that they originated from many different escape events. Most salmon had escaped when they were between 50 and 80 cm long (52-66%), but a relatively large proportion had also escaped as smoltsor post-smolts (19-42%). A study from the 1990s suggested that up to 50% of the escaped farmed salmon caught in bag nets on the coast of Norway had escaped as smolts or post-smolts. The escaping fishes in the aquaculture may spread diseases and change the inheritance composition of genes of wild swarm, and infect local epidemics to wild swarms. The energy of escaping aquatic fishes was less than the energy of 18 wild swarms. Mills found that the influence of the fishes escaping from the cages or replanted intentionally on the wild fish swarm also would kill out local swarms by preying or feed competition. Especially once the cross-fertilized fishes and genetically engineered fishes generated by modern biological technology escape to the nature, the “gene pollution” may be induced, which will harm the inherit diversity of wild swarm in the nature.

  1. Displacement


Upton and Buck – 10, Harold F. Upton and Eugene H. Buck, Analyst/Specialist in Natural Resources Policy @ CRS, August 9, 2010, Open Ocean Aquaculture, http://cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/10Sep/RL32694.pdf

Genetic anomalies could occur if wild fish are exposed to or interbreed with hatchery-raised fish. This issue might arise if genetically modified or non-native fish escape from aquaculture facilities and interbreed with wild fish.42 The potential interbreeding problem can be greatly reduced if only sterile fish are farmed; fairly simple technology exists to accomplish such sterilization. Critics speculate that, since selectively bred and genetically modified fish may grow faster and larger than native fish, they could displace native fish in the short term (both through competitive displacement and interbreeding), but might not be able to survive in the wild for the long term.43 This is especially a concern of states (e.g., California, Maine, Maryland, and Washington) where genetically modified fish are banned within state waters but could be grown in offshore federal waters. A related concern is the introduction of exotic species into non-native waters, such as Atlantic salmon in British Columbia. Exotic fish may escape from open ocean facilities that may be particularly vulnerable to storms, although recent hurricanes and tropical storms in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Bahamas have caused no reported damage or loss of fish in submerged cage- culture operations. The escape of Atlantic salmon has been documented in the Pacific Northwest and escapees have been recaptured in Alaskan commercial fisheries.44 Escapes are also common in the Atlantic where 40% of the Atlantic salmon caught in the North Atlantic are of farmed origin.45 The experience with salmon farming indicates that escaped fish could be a problem, either through interbreeding with closely related native species (genetic interactions) or through competitive displacement of native species. Although management techniques at net pen sites are improving and modified cage designs better prevent escapes, closed containment systems may be the only way to fully address this problem.

  1. Exotic species


Ocean Conservancy -2010, A Precautionary Approach to U.S. Open-Ocean Aquaculture, http://act.oceanconservancy.org/site/DocServer/federalMarineAquaculture7.pdf

To date, promoters of domestic open-ocean aquaculture have downplayed the significant risks that could accompany the growth of such an industry in the US. A large body of peer- reviewed scientific literature has identified a host of risks and impacts, including: • Escapes: Aquaculture is known to be a major source for the introduction of exotic species, causing concern over the ecological impacts that escaped farmed species can have on wild f ish.3 Escaped fish compete with wild fish for food and habitat, transmit diseases, and prey on and breed with local fish, reducing the health of wild populations. • Diseases and Parasites: Intensive fish culture has been involved in the introduction and/or amplification of pathogens and disease in wild fish populations.’ • Nutrient and Habitat Impacts: By design, untreated wastes from open net pen systems are released directly into nearby bodies of water, which can negatively impact the surrounding environment6 Waste and uneaten food can build up on the ocean floor beneath pens, altering species abundance and community biodiversity. • Impacts on Predator Populations: The presence of captive fish held in high density attracts predators such as birds, sharks, and marine mammals. Techniques to keep some of these predators at bay can impact their natural behavior and pose entanglement and drowning risks. • Drugs and Chemicals: Aquaculture often relies on the use of chemicals including antibiotics, pesticides, and antifoulants.7 In some cases, use of antibiotics has resulted in bacterial resistance in the environment8 and has influenced antibiotic resistance in humans.9 • Increased Fishing Pressure on Wild Fish Stocks: Though counterintuitive, farming of fish can actually increase pressure to catch wild fish. Feed for many farmed species contains high percentages of fish meal and fish oil that come from wild-caught fish.1° To feed their livestock, the fish farming industry is creating pressure to remove key food sources on which economically and environmentally important wild species depend.’1 • Socioeconomic Impacts: Farmed fish compete with wild fish in the marketplace.t2 While price competition may be good for consumers, it can result in negative impacts on communities dependent on wild fish, including industry consolidation, overproduction arid elevated fishing pressure on wild fish stocks as fishermen try to catch more to make up for lower prices at market.


Impact XT



Biodiversity decline causes extinction


Mmom 8 (Dr. Prince Chinedu, University of Port Harcourt (Nigeria), “Rapid Decline in Biodiversity: A Threat to Survival of Humankind”, Earthwork Times, 12-8, http://www.environmental-expert.com/resultEachArticle.aspx?ci d=0&codi=51543)

From the foregoing, it becomes obvious that the survival of Humankind depends on the continuous existence and conservation of biodiversity. In other words, a threat to biodiversity is a serious threat to the survival of Human Race. To this end, biological diversity must be treated more seriously as a global resource, to be indexed, used, and above all, preserved. Three circumstances conspire to give this matter an unprecedented urgency. First, exploding human populations are degrading the environment at an accelerating rate, especially in tropical countries. Second, science is discovering new uses for biological diversity in ways that can relieve both human suffering and environmental destruction. Third, much of the diversity is being irreversibly lost through extinction caused by the destruction of natural habitats due to development pressure and oil spillage, especially in the Niger Delta. In fact, Loss of biodiversity is significant in several respects. First, breaking of critical links in the biological chain can disrupt the functioning of an entire ecosystem and its biogeochemical cycles. This disruption may have significant effects on larger scale processes. Second, loss of species can have impacts on the organism pool from which medicines and pharmaceuticals can be derived. Third, loss of species can result in loss of genetic material, which is needed to replenish the genetic diversity of domesticated plants that are the basis of world agriculture (Convention on Biological Diversity). Overall, we are locked into a race. We must hurry to acquire the knowledge on which a wise policy of conservation and development can be based for centuries to come.


Biodiversity is a key backstop – loss causes extinction


ScienceDaily – 8/11/11, “Biodiversity Key to Earth's Life-Support Functions in a Changing World,” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110811084513.htm

The biological diversity of organisms on Earth is not just something we enjoy when taking a walk through a blossoming meadow in spring; it is also the basis for countless products and services provided by nature, including food, building materials, and medicines as well as the self-purifying qualities of water and protection against erosion. These so-called ecosystem services are what makes Earth inhabitable for humans. They are based on ecological processes, such as photosynthesis, the production of biomass, or nutrient cycles. Since biodiversity is on the decline, both on a global and a local scale, researchers are asking the question as to what role the diversity of organisms plays in maintaining these ecological processes and thus in providing the ecosystem's vital products and services. In an international research group led by Prof. Dr. Michel Loreau from Canada, ecologists from ten different universities and research institutes, including Prof. Dr. Michael Scherer-Lorenzen from the University of Freiburg, compiled findings from numerous biodiversity experiments and reanalyzed them. These experiments simulated the loss of plant species and attempted to determine the consequences for the functioning of ecosystems, most of them coming to the conclusion that a higher level of biodiversity is accompanied by an increase in ecosystem processes. However, the findings were always only valid for a certain combination of environmental conditions present at the locations at which the experiments were conducted and for a limited range of ecosystem processes. In a study published in the current issue of the journal Nature, the research group investigated the extent to which the positive effects of diversity still apply under changing environmental conditions and when a multitude of processes are taken into account. They found that 84 percent of the 147 plant species included in the experiments promoted ecological processes in at least one case. The more years, locations, ecosystem processes, and scenarios of global change -- such as global warming or land use intensity -- the experiments took into account, the more plant species were necessary to guarantee the functioning of the ecosystems. Moreover, other species were always necessary to keep the ecosystem processes running under the different combinations of influencing factors. These findings indicate that much more biodiversity is necessary to keep ecosystems functioning in a world that is changing ever faster. The protection of diversity is thus a crucial factor in maintaining Earth's life-support functions.

A2: Plan Regs Solve

Increased regs don’t solve alien species – poor enforcement


De Silva et al 2/2009, professors from the School of Life and Environmental Sciences at Deakin University

(De Silva, S.,S., Nguyen, T. T. T., Turchini, G. M., Amarasinghe, U. S., & Abery, N. W., , writing in Ambio, an environmental research studies journal, “Alien species in aquaculture and biodiversity: A paradox in food production” Proquest, accessed 5/27/14 JH)



An alien species is defined as one that has been translocated, accidentally or deliberately, beyond its natural distribution range. In the present study, the natural distribution of the species in question was determined with reference to the database "Fishbase" (24) and also checked against the Catalogue of Fishes of the California Academy of Sciences, also commonly referred to as the Eschmeyer Catalogue. It is known that the great bulk of global fish introductions/ translocations have been carried out for aquaculture purposes (25, 26), and such introductions are a common occurrence even now (27, 28). Regrettably, there appears to be very little adherence to codes of practices (29) in affecting translocations, even though most nations are signatories to such codes (30). Needless to say, fresh concerns on the issue of translocations are being addressed widely, such as, for example, the European Union Council Regulation of 1 1 June 2007 (31). Often when attention is paid to translocations it is restricted to intercontinental introductions rather than intracontinental and between watersheds introductions, which can have an equally negative impact, particularly on biodiversity. On the other hand, even in nations where legislation exists to prevent minimizing the spread of alien species, effective implementation of such laws can often be hampered by other factors (27). Over 250 aquatic species are cultured globally. Annual production of cultured aquatic species, however, exceeds 10 000 t only for about 115 animal species, of which 67 are finfish (32). Importantly, for 6 of the top ranked 22 freshwater finfish species (produced in excess of 100 000 t per year) or species groups cultured globally, 20% or more of the production occurred outside their natural range of distribution (Fig. 1). Although not clearly seen from Figure 1, it should be noted that, from a geographical viewpoint, the most widespread alien finfish species used in aquaculture is rainbow trout. The mean yearly cultured alien freshwater finfish production from 2000 to 2004 amounted to 3.6 million t, or 16% of the global finfish aquaculture production (32). It has been shown that in Asia, the epicenter of aquaculture production and development, in the last 5 y, alien finfish species accounted for 12.2% of total cultured finfish production, and the proportion was as much as 35% when PR China is not considered (Fig. 2) (19). Moreover, it is evident that the dependence on alien freshwater finfish in aquaculture has been steadily increasing over the years. Entire national aquaculture industries have been built upon alien species, particularly in nations that have taken up aquaculture in recent times, as in the case of the freshwater crayfish and salmonid culture in Ecuador and Chile, respectively (10, 11).


Download 404.01 Kb.

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



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
united states
federal government
national oceanic
most significant
city university
ocean floor
full impact
initial development
economic potential
environmental effects
cumulative effects
commercial viability
capital investment
southern united states
goal will be
right choices
increasing level
aquaculture industry
most efficient ways
high density