Interpretation: The plan action must be mandated by the resolution and no more – can only include development of ocean resources, space, and energy

Land-sources pollution turns the aff—kills coral reefs and fishery habitats—aff’s regulations can’t solve

Andre, Thomas J. Goreau, Brian Reilly, Department of Nature Conservation, Tshwane University of Technology, Global Coral Reef Alliance,“Land-Sourced Pollution with an Emphasis on Domestic Sewage: Lessons from the Caribbean and Implications for Coastal Development on Indian Ocean and Pacific Coral Reefs,” Sustainability 2010, 2, 2919-2949

Land-sourced marine pollution in the Indo-Pacific is primarily associated with densely populated areas and industrial zones in urban centres and near river discharge points. These centres of pollution tend to be isolated, sometimes by hundreds of kilometres, creating algae dominated reefs near pollution hotspots (e.g., Sharm El Sheikh, Malindi to Mombasa, Tanga, Dar es Salaam, Old Town Zanzibar, Pemba, Beira, Maputo, Victoria, Port Louis, Boracay, Jakarta, Manila, Cebu, Makassar, etc.). However, rapid urbanization and development of coastal tourism such as the greater Bazaruto Archipelago, Mozambique if not adequately addressed, could result in ―strip development‖ [46] as in the Caribbean that could, and in some places is already, causing widespread reef degradation (for example Boracay in the Philippines, Ko Samui and Phuket in Thailand, Kenting in Taiwan).¶ The consequences of coral die-off, be it from land-sourced pollution or ocean warming are similar; dead reefs, increased beach erosion, decreased fishery habitat, public health issues, declining tourism, and ultimate loss of key economic sectors. One might challenge the importance of land-sourced pollution when the consequences of ocean warming events on coral die-off were as much as 10 times that from other causes in the Seychelles and much of the Western Indian Ocean (e.g., sediment from land or dredging, algae overgrowth, tourist and anchor damage, storm waves, or coral-eating crown of thorns starfish) [71], resulting in 75–99% loss of live coral [36,76]. However, corals have begun recovering from this ocean warming event [49,74]. Recovery can be enhanced by diminishing stresses like land-sourced pollution. Ocean warming must be dealt with through long-term international negotiations, but land-sourced pollution can be dealt with immediately at regional and local levels.¶ In the Indo-Pacific, as in most countries, most sewage is not treated at all, and even when it is treated in urban areas or tourist areas, it is almost never treated past the secondary stage. Secondary treatment gets rid of human pathogens and to some degree, makes waters ―safe‖ for humans to swim in, but it leaves almost all the nutrients dissolved in the effluent water. It is precisely those nutrients, which do not affect human health, that are deadly to coral reefs. Only one country in the world, the Turks and Caicos Islands in the Caribbean, makes it a policy that all developments must treat their sewage to secondary level, and then recycle all the waste water as irrigation on their own property [47]. This model needs to be applied wherever coral reefs are affected by land-sourced pollution.

1NC Link Turn—Overfishing

Aquaculture causes more overfishing to feed farmed fish

Turner, Law clerk Massachusetts Supreme, Judicial Court, J.D. Harvard Law School. “Greening the Blue Revolution: How History Can Inform a Sustainable Aquaculture Movement,” April 19, http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11938741

Second, aquaculture can, and should, be conceptualized as a contributor to the tragedy of the commons by exploitation.254 While aquaculture arose in part to ameliorate overfishing, it has, ironically, begun to contribute to the problem because many of the most in-demand aquaculture products are carnivorous fish.255 Catching fish to raise fish not only contributes to the pollution problems described above, but also contributes to the exploitation problems of capture fisheries.256 In fact, many commercial aquaculture systems use two to five times more fish protein to feed the farmed species than is supplied by the farmed fish at the end of the aquaculture production cycle.257 While some argue that farmed fish production is still more efficient than the production of carnivorous species in the wild, it is still the case that modern aquaculture still does not wholly solve the exploitation problem.258 Moreover, habitat modification caused by siting of aquaculture facilities, including destruction of mangrove spawning habitats, has contributed to the depletion of wild fish stocks, and aquaculture operations often stock facilities with wild-caught fry, rather than cultured fry, removing those fish from the wild and resulting in discard of large amounts of wild bycatch.259¶

No Solvency- Overfishing

In general, the presence of salmon farms and other artificially raised species has devastating impacts on local populations of fish and other organisms. Ford & Myers (2008) found that survival and abundance rates of numerous fish species significantly decreased with increases in salmon farming, some of these decreases amounting to more than 50%. This is not only evident in salmon aquaculture, but in many of artificially raised species. With the exhaustive amount of fish produced annually by aquaculture (52 million tonnes), you can begin to see the ecological impact that this industry can have on natural fish populations. As Dr. Boris Worm points out, we cannot replace natural fish populations. So the next time someone tries to tell you that the crisis of overfishing can be simply resolved through aquaculture, kindly tell them to “try again”.

No modeling

Simply economics dictates that the aquacultures won’t be modeled globally

The World Bank 2013 (FISH TO 2030; Prospects for Fisheries and Aquaculture; AGRICULTURE AND E N V I RONMENTAL S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PAPER 03; WORLD BANK REPORT NUMBER 83177-GLB; kdf)

EMBER

As the first exercise, we implement a scenario in which aquaculture production will grow at a faster pace for all species in all countries and regions. We have constructed this scenario in the same spirit as the aquaculture scenarios in the Fish to 2020 study (see Delgado and others 2003, table 4.1), in which the exogenous growth rates of aquaculture production were increased and decreased by 50 percent of the baseline values. Here, we increase the aquaculture growth rates by 50 percent from 2011 through 2030. A scenario of reduced growth rates is discussed later in this chapter in the context of aquaculture disease outbreak. Table 4.1 compares the results of the scenario with the baseline results on aquaculture production. At the global level, the total production at the end of the projection period would increase from 93.6 million tons under the baseline scenario to more than 101 million tons under the current scenario, representing an 8.1 percent increase. At the regional level, the projected aquaculture production levels in 2030 are higher in this scenario compared to the baseline scenario in most regions. Some regions, in particular LAC and MNA, would benefi t proportionately more from this scenario. In contrast, North America and Japan would lose from this scenario. That is, even though we have increased the exogenous growth rates by 50 percent in all regions, it does not necessarily translate into the same growth rate increase across regions in the fi nal results. This is, in part, due to the interactions with the demand side, especially with the market for fi shmeal, an important aquaculture production input. Faster growth of aquaculture production would entail more fi shmeal use by some (mostly carnivorous) fi sh species groups, which is expected to drive fi shmeal price upward. The latter, in turn, would slow down aquaculture expansion for some species. On the other hand, as aquaculture growth accelerates, there would be larger dampening eff ects on fi sh prices, which also in turn would work to slow down the fi sh supply. The manner in which the price would rise or drop diff ers for each commodity. Further, each region has a diff erent commodity mix, some with more fi shmeal-intensive aquaculture and others with fi sh species whose market demands are more sensitive to price changes. Therefore, the fi nal results, obtained as the equilibrium outcome in the global fi sh markets, represent intricate balancing of supply and demand, responding to signals transmitted by world prices. In the Fish to 2020 study, this scenario was aimed to explore what the cross-price response would be in capture production if aquaculture were to grow at an accelerated pace. However, the scenario does not aff ect the capture production in this study because capture supply is not price responsive—it is determined solely by specifi ed exogenous rates of growth in the current model. Therefore, we do not measure the same eff ects as in Fish to 2020. In this study, what we really measure is the eff ects of faster aquaculture growth on commodity prices and the fi shmeal market and their feedback to the aquaculture fi sh supply. Table 4.2 shows the fi nal outcome after such feedback for production and world prices of each species. While the model predicts that global aquaculture production in 2030 under this scenario would increase by 8.1 percent relative to the baseline specifi cation, the increase in total fi shmeal use would be limited to 2 percent, up from 7,582 thousand tons under the baseline scenario to 7,744 thousand tons. In contrast, its projected price in 2030 is higher by 13 percent than under the baseline. Since the supply of fi shmeal ingredients from capture fi sheries is more or less fi xed, the supply response of fi shmeal to price increases is limited. The supply of fi shmeal thus would be reallocated, through the market price mechanism, away from livestock and lower-value fi sh toward higher-value aquaculture species. In the process, supply of some high-value fi sh products, such as mollusks and salmon, is increased so much that their prices are projected to fall noticeably relative to the baseline case. In fact, except for fi shmeal and pelagics, prices in all categories would fall relative to the baseline scenario. Fish in the OPelagic category are the main ingredient of fi shmeal, and greater competition for this category between direct human consumption and use in fi shmeal production would contribute to the price increase. Together, these eff ects explain why the increase in projected aquaculture growth under this scenario is not as uniformly large across regions and across species as one would have expected purely from the scenario design. This exercise also illustrates why the links with fi shmeal and fi sh oil markets are so important in understanding the place of aquaculture products in the world food economy.

California should have solved already

Undercurrent News 2014 (California approves state's first offshore aquaculture farm; Jan 9; www.undercurrentnews.com/2014/01/09/california-approves-states-first-offshore-aquaculture-farm/; kdf)

The California Coastal Commission has approved the state’s first aquaculture farm, to be located in federal waters about eight miles offshore of Long Beach, reports Press Telegram. Known as Catalina Sea Ranch, the facility by KZO Sea Farms will primarily grow Mediterranean mussels on 45 lines anchored in the sea floor and suspended horizontally by buoys from a depth of a few feet to 200 feet, in a 100-acre patch of ocean near two existing oil production platforms. The willingness of KZO to agree to extensive monitoring for its first-of-a-kind project helped earn unanimous approval from commissioners. Phillip Cruver, co-founder of Long Beach-based KZO, said the ranch, which was previously approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers, will “put a small dent” in the nation’s $10-billion annual seafood importation deficit. According to National Marine Fishery Service data, 33.7 million pounds of live farmed mussels were imported into the United States in 2012, most of it from Prince Edward Island in eastern Canada. Organizations like Heal the Bay, though not opposed to the project, argued for frequent inspections and video reviews of the site. There was some concern over the mussels not being native, but Coastal Commission staff said the species has already been introduced to California waters and is the primary planted and harvested oyster in the state.

AT: Aquacultures Safe

Even with Safe Practices Aquacultures are Harmful

PEW 10 (Pew Environment Group. "Large-scale fish farm production offsets environmental gains, assessment finds." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 28 October 2010. .)

Industrial-scale aquaculture production magnifies environmental degradation, according to the first global assessment of the effects of marine finfish aquaculture (e.g. salmon, cod, turbot and grouper) released Oct. 27, 2010. This is true even when farming operations implement the best current marine fish farming practices, according to the findings.¶ ¶ Dr. John Volpe and his team at the University of Victoria developed the Global Aquaculture Performance Index (GAPI), an unprecedented system for objectively measuring the environmental performance of fish farming.¶ "Scale is critical," said Dr. Volpe, a marine ecologist. "Over time, the industry has made strides in reducing the environmental impact per ton of fish, but this does not give a complete picture. Large scale farming of salmon, for example, even under even the best current practices creates large scale problems."¶ The fish farming industry is an increasingly important source of seafood, especially as many wild fisheries are in decline. Yet farming of many marine fish species has been criticized as causing ecological damage. For instance, the researchers' found that the relatively new marine finfish aquaculture sector in China and other Asian countries lags in environmental performance.¶

Many Harms Spawn from Aquaculture Farms

McCutcheon 14 (Jody McCutcheon, Staff Writer Eluxe Magazine. “Something Fishy? Aquaculture and the Environment.” Eluxe Magazine. http://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/theres-something-fishy-aquaculture/. May 24, 2014.)

In addition, although aquaculturalists claim the contamination of their farms is contained within their ponds, the truth is that industrial scale aquaculture destroys coastal habitats when waste, disease, antibiotics and pests are flushed out of farming ponds into local waters, where they infiltrate wild populations. In fact, waste from fish farms can oversaturate coastal waters with nutrients, creating dead zones that suffocate marine life. A poorly run farm of 200,000 salmon can pollute the coastal environment with amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus similar to that in the sewage of a town of 20,000. Even more alarming, the antibiotics being released are creating antibiotic-resistant pathogens that wreak havoc on farmed and wild fishery stocks alike.¶ Another concern is the potential escape into local waters of exotic, possibly genetically modified species that may eventually replace indigenous species. Massachussetts-based company AquaBounty, for example, is bioengineering fish to grow faster, an advantage that would help them outcompete fellow fish. But according to Time magazine, it is very easy and common for farmed fish to escape into the wild, thus just one GMO fish could do irreparable damage to a species. And how many times has “bad seafood” caused food poisoning? More often than you might think. Due to lax physical inspection of seafood imports, fish can contain chemical residue from farming treatments, including potential carcinogens like the fungicide malachite green and the antibiotic nitrofurans, and even human feces. To offer an idea of how lax import inspections can be, understand that Japan physically inspected between 12 and 21% of its seafood imports, based on numbers gathered between 2004 and 2009. The stricter European Union, meanwhile, inspects between 20 and 50% of its seafood imports. The US gets the worst deal, though. While the nation imports over 90% of its seafood, the US Food and Drug Administration’s underfunded inspection program inspects less than 2% of it. That’s a lot of potential “food poisoning.”

Aquacultures Waste Nutritious Fish

Watch 10 (Food and Water Watch. “Expansion of Factory Fish Farms in the Ocean May Lead to Food Insecurity in Developing Countries” Food and Water Watch. http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/FeedInsecurity.pdf. June 6, 2014.)

The nutritional profile of small prey fish is extensive, and plays a key role in promoting the health of people in developing countries. These fish contain essential vitamins and minerals, co-enzymes, and fatty acids, all beneficial for optimal health. Additionally, because these food fish are often eaten whole, people benefit from the bones, which are a significant source of calcium. These fish are not only a rich source of nutrients, but also a primary source of¶ protein for many people in developing countries. Food fish contribute more than 25 percent of the total animal protein supply for approximately one billion people (one sixth of the world’s population) in 58 countries. While development of offshore aquaculture in the United States may supply more seafood to consumers in Europe and Japan, places where much of the United States’ seafood is already exported, it will likely decrease supply to populations that are much more dependent on fish for nutrition. Although forage fish are sometimes thought of as a low- value commodity, more and more consumers in the United States and abroad are recognizing the value of eating “lower on the food chain” and returning to species like sardines and anchovies, long valued in Italian and other regional cuisines. Marine biologist Dr. Daniel Pauly has pointed out the mistake of labeling these fish as “low” in value: “We should never have followed the fish meal industry on the slippery slope of naming edible fish ‘forage fish’ in the first place. These fish could provide humans with large quantities of protein, but we waste them by using them as raw material for fish meal.”

AT: Aquaculture Solves Starvation

Aquacultures Can’t Solve for Starvation

Emerson 9 (Craig Emerson, Supervising Editor, Aquatic Sciences ASFA, Oceanic. Ph.D. (Oceanography) Dalhousie University, “Aquaculture Impacts on the Environment,” CSA. http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/aquacult/overview.php. December 2009.)

One of the basic tenets of aquaculture is to increase food production. The important question is, for whom? Aquaculture, which has been hailed as THE answer to cheap production food for the millions in the poor Third World countries has instead been utilized to produce luxury delicacies such as fat prawns for the consumption of the already over-fed, affluent and wasteful societies in developed countries such as Japan and US. It has also brought a huge amount of profits to industrialists and investors who deal with high-technology gadgetry in pellet fishfood and vaccine research and production, ice production, processing, transport, etc.¶ Meanwhile, the small-time fishermen and fish farmers lose out and the diet of local people gets impoverished. In Malaysia, tiger prawn is sold for about 32 ringgit (US$13) per kg, double the cost of a kg of beef, out of reach for the general local population.¶ It is ironic then, that most of the world's top suppliers and exporters of shrimps and fish are countries where most of its own people are undernourished: Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia and India.

Turn: Aquacultures-> Food Insecurity

Aquaculture Increases Food Insecurity

Watch 10 (Food and Water Watch. “Expansion of Factory Fish Farms in the Ocean May Lead to Food Insecurity in Developing Countries” Food and Water Watch. http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/FeedInsecurity.pdf. June 6, 2014.)

Nearly one sixth of the world’s population is considered food insecure. Meanwhile, the current development of the open-ocean aquaculture industry in the United States could worsen food insecurity in developing countries by placing an increased demand on an already dwindling prey fish population. Furthermore, ocean fish farming in the United States does not equal more food security for most U.S. consumers either. As it is, the United States exports over 70 percent of its seafood to the European Union and Japan, which have higher standards for seafood and are willing to pay more for fish produced with more stringent environmental, health and labor regulations. Unless trade patterns change, which is highly unlikely under current regulatory conditions, most fish farmed offshore in the United States would likely be shipped abroad, leaving the United States with only the ecological problems. Already, Kona Kampachi®, a farmed fish from Hawaii, is sold for $17 per pound — far out of the price range of the average U.S. consumer. Expanding U.S. offshore aquaculture simply means more high-end fish available for those who can afford it.

Turn: Aquacultures->ecosystem collapse

Offshore aquacultures compete only because of subsidies—and they destroy ecosystems—Hawaii proves

Jones 2012 (Mitch; Kampachi Farms LLC Announces First Fish Farm Harvest, But Omits Law Suit and Illegal Operating Permit From Their Message; Mar 5; www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/kampachi-farms-llc-announces-first-fish-farm-harvest-but-omits-law-suit-and-illegal-operating-permit-from-their-message/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foodandwaterwatch%2Fpress+%28FWW+Press+Release%29; kdf)

Washington, D.C.—“Kampachi Farms Founder Neil Simm’s self-congratulatory announcement of the company’s first successful harvest from the first commercial offshore aquaculture facility in federal waters in the United States is an attempt to paper over the company’s problems. The announcement should have mentioned the lawsuit that was filed by Honolulu-based KAHEA: The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance and Food & Water Watch against federal agencies for allowing Kampachi Farms (formerly Kona Blue Water Farms) to operate their aquaculture farm in federal waters with an illegal permit. The suit alleges that under federal law, federal agencies can only issue a fishing permit if authorized to do so under a regional Fishery Management Plan, which they were not. Federal agencies—in this case, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)—lacked the statutory authority to issue a fishing permit for Kona Blue’s aquaculture venture. The suit also addresses the fact that NMFS should have required a more rigorous environmental analysis than they did. Curiously, despite initial claims that the project would produce 1600 fish at 8,000 pounds total, the company’s release is completely silent on how much fish was produced, leading us to question how much of a success it actually was. The public has a right to know all the facts. After all, the project, which was partly funded with U.S. tax dollars: $500,000 from the National Science Foundation and $242,889 from NMFS. “Factory fish farms use and deplete wild fish stocks to feed farmed fish. Since these fish farms contain their stocks in free-floating cages, the fish live in close quarters—just like factory farm pens on land—which breeds disease, threatening both the farmed fish and the wild populations. Fish escapes and equipment loss can also reap havoc on the environment immediately surrounding fish farms. In the summer of 2011, Kampachi Farms reported that they lost two of their empty net pens while towing them out to sea. “Even without the aid of an adequate environmental impact study, the National Marine Fisheries Service moved forward by prematurely extending a type of fishing gear license for Kampachi Farms to operate their farm. While Kampachi Farms is experimenting in federal waters, they could be inflicting major environmental damage to the ecosystem.”

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 226.09 Kb.

Share with your friends: