Case Solvency

Download 404.01 Kb.

Page	2/8
Date	26.11.2017
Size	404.01 Kb.
	#35063

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Economy Adv

Economy 1NC

Aquaculture trades off with fisheries – no net gain to the seafood industry

Buck 2012, Student for Master of Marine Affairs Degree University of Washington

(Lisa E. Buck, under Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Thomas Leschine, School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, “U.S. Development of Offshore Aquaculture: Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors” ProQuest, accessed JH 6/26/14)

At both the global and national levels, however, questions have been raised regarding the potential for competition between wild-caught fisheries and aquaculture products in the seafood market [Upton and Buck, 2010). Upton and Buck (2010) note that increased aquaculture production could have social and economic impacts on both wild-caught fisheries and the communities that have strong ties to the industry. While aquaculture could potentially supplement wild-caught fisheries products and provide larger quantities of seafood at lower prices to the consumer, this could also lead to a loss of employment in the fisheries sector. Increased supply of seafood products could lower the market cost, leading to lowered income for wild-capture fishermen, and subsequent changes to fishing communities reliant on the industry for livelihoods (Upton, 2010). This type of impact has been shown to occur in both the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery and the Alaska salmon fishery, where aquaculture products were introduced to the market and prices fell. Upton (2010) points out, however, that neither of these industries was entirely replaced by aquaculture, and offers the opinion that the additional competition could provide incentives for improvement of the quality of wild products, management institutions for wild-caught fisheries, and marketing techniques. The degree of competition with wild- caught fisheries also depends on whether new markets are created by the addition of aquaculture products to the global market, and the speed and size of production outputs from aquaculture facilities (DOC, 2010). Competition largely hinges on whether seafood products introduced to a market will supplant the existing products, or whether they will create a new market, leaving the existing wild-caught products relatively unaffected by introduction of a new product.

“Seafood Deficit” is overhyped by US Gov – export data proves.

Food and Water Watch, March 2008, Food & Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer organization that works to ensure clean water and safe food, Washington, DC, http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/FishStoryMarch08.pdf (ZD)

The federal government has created a false sense of urgency in its campaign for offshore aquaculture legislation. Consumers in the United States would be better served through: (1) a program to keep U.S. seafood in the United States, and¶ (2) seafood safety legislation, including an increase in imported seafood inspections, as well as U.S. inspection of foreign¶ seafood production and processing facilities.¶ *¶ The statistics used in this report are based on 2006 data, which, at the time of publication of this report, are the most current avail¶ -¶ able in synthesized form from the NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology. The most up-to-date statistics on U.S. aquaculture¶ production are taken from the USDA 2005 census.¶ †¶ Except off the coasts of Texas and West Florida, where state waters extend out to about nine miles from shore.¶ iv¶ Findings¶ Only 19 percent (round weight¶ •¶ ‡¶ ) of the seafood available to U.S. consumers is from this country because the U.S. ex¶ -¶ ports 71 percent (round weight) of U.S.-produced seafood.¶ If we did not export U.S.-caught and farmed seafood, 66 percent (round weight) of the seafood available to U.S. consumers would be from the United States.¶ About 17 percent of the seafood available to U.S. consumers is from China and about 12 percent is from Thailand.¶ •¶ We export 20 percent of U.S.-caught seafood to Europe and 13 percent to Japan where seafood safety standards are¶ •¶ high.¶ We export 69 percent of U.S.-caught salmon. Only 20 percent of the salmon available to U.S. consumers is from the¶ •¶ United States, while about 36 percent is farmed salmon from Chile, where food safety and labor standards are questionable.¶ We export 12 percent of U.S.-caught seafood to China, the world’s center of seafood processing for re-export back to¶ •¶ the United States.¶ Nearly 15 percent of U.S. wild salmon is shipped to China, where it is processed and shipped back to the United States.¶ •¶ We export about 45,000 metric tons, round weight, of unprocessed wild salmon to China. We then import close to¶ 52,000 metric tons, round weight, of processed salmon back from China.¶ We ship 12 percent of U.S. cod to China where it is processed and then sent back to the United States.

Aquaculture depresses fish prices – that collapses the seafood industry

F&WW Oct 24, 2007 (Food & Water Watch, non-profit international network of organizations and individuals involved in issues relating to developing countries, “Offshore Aquaculture: Bad News for the Gulf.” Oct 24, 2007, https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/common-resources/fish/fish-farming/gulf-of-mexico/offshore-aquaculture/ 6/28/14)

Unsurprisingly, many fishermen do pay heed to how various factors, including aquaculture, might affect the prices they receive for fish.¶ David Letson, a University of Miami economics professor, noted that the potentially greater supply of fish from aquaculture in the Gulf could depress fish prices in the longer term. However, he did stress that other factors might lessen or eliminate any price decline.14¶ Meanwhile, past experience from aquaculture in other places with other fish could portend potential problems in the Gulf.¶ In 2006, offshore cod farming in Norway got a thumbs-down from a professor at the Norwegian College of Fisheries Science. Terje Vassdal pointed out that it could decrease the price of wild cod, which “could be a national economical catastrophe” for the country.15¶ Similarly, a 2005 University of British Columbia study concluded that “a decrease in the price of sablefish will ultimately follow an increase in sablefish supply to market from aquaculture. This decrease will be at the expense of both sablefish farmers and fishers in Canada but beneficial to sablefish consumers, which in this case are mainly Japanese. Thus, benefits are exported while costs are entirely absorbed within Canada.” 16¶ For two decades prior to that, commercial fishermen in British Columbia had seen the prices they received for salmon decrease by two thirds, in large part be-cause of aquaculture increasing the salmon supply worldwide.17¶ The story was similar next door in Alaska in the late 1990s and into the 21st century when “very rapid growth in farmed salmon production outstripped the growth in demand, glutted farmed salmon markets and severely depressed prices for farmed (and wild) salmon,” according to Gunnar Knapp, an economist at the University of Alaska at Anchorage. His research found that the large supply of farmed fish contributed to a “drastic drop in the ex-vessel value of the Alaska salmon harvest.”18¶ Researcher Michael Weber found that the lower prices commercial fishermen received “contributed to such financial instability in fishing fleets along the Pacific coast of the United States that many fishermen simply went out of business, with dramatically negative effects on the economies of rural coastal communities.”19¶ Other studies paint a similar picture of salmon prices after the emergence of salmon aquaculture: “Peak salmon prices in 2002 were 54-92 percent lower than they were in 1988. Many salmon fishers in the region [Pacific northwest] who bought their boats and permits during the high price years of the late 1980s and early 1990s can no longer afford to stay in operation and pay off their debts.” 20¶ From 1992 to 2001, the value of the Alaskan salmon harvest plunged from $600 million to a bit more than $200 million, a drop of more than 60 percent, according to a Food & Water Watch analysis of economist Gunnar Knapp‚ research.21,22 A similar price crash would devastate the U.S. Gulf of Mexico fishing industry, which in 2006 landed more than $41 million worth of cobia, pompano, grouper, and snapper, all valuable finfish.23

Can’t shrink the seafood trade deficit – shrimp, salmon, and fishmeal imports are inevitable

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

In 2008, the United States imported approximately 5.2 billion pounds of edible seafood worth a record $14.2 billion.14 After accounting for exports valued at $4.3 billion, there was a trade deficit of approximately $9.9 billion in edible seafood products. The two largest components of U.S. seafood imports are shrimp and salmon. Shrimp accounted for $4.1 billion and salmon accounted for $1.6 billion of total U.S. imports.15 In contrast to the increasing level of seafood imports and the growing proportion of imports produced through aquaculture, the value of annual U.S. aquaculture production of edible fish appears to have leveled off at approximately $672 million in 2005.16 Proponents claim that development of open ocean aquaculture would narrow the U.S. deficit in seafood trade. However, many economists would counter that the seafood trade deficit is not a sufficient reason to advocate for development of a new industry. According to economic theory, countries gain from free trade when they specialize in products that they are best at producing.17 If other countries have an absolute or comparative advantage in aquaculture, the United States would likely benefit from specializing in other industries. Others assert that in reality, most trade is not strictly free as economic theory might assume. It is also often difficult to determine how technological development and future economic conditions will affect comparative advantages of different nations or regions. Although shrimp and salmon account for a large portion of the seafood trade deficit, they appear to be poor candidates for open ocean aquaculture. Most shrimp aquaculture is carried out in ponds in tropical coastal areas. Salmon aquaculture operations generally use net-pens in protected areas such as fjords or bays. It is questionable whether open ocean aquaculture can be competitive with established inshore aquaculture of these species. One of the current offshore aquaculture operators foresees future investment focusing on new species in tropical and subtropical regions.18 If many of the proposed species for open ocean aquaculture are carnivores, it is likely that the demand for fishmeal produced from low-value wild fish will increase. If domestic supplies are insufficient, imports of fishmeal could increase the U.S. trade deficit. However, these imports may be beneficial to the overall national economy, if the domestic aquaculture industry is economically viable.

Aquaculture can’t solve seafood deficit – Asian production still cheaper

Food & Water Watch, 08

Food & Water Watch, March 2008, “Why Offshore Fish Farming Will Not Break U.S. Dependence on Imported Seafood,” http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/FishStoryMarch08.pdf, NR

However, the claim that an increase in fish production would break the U.S. reliance on foreign seafood is way off the mark because it ignores the reasons why the United States imports such a vast quantity of seafood in the first place. In search of the lowest possible prices, large retailers purchase seafood from around the world. Nearly 20 percent of the seafood available to U.S. consumers comes from China, and close to half from Asia as a whole.4 All the while, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s badly broken import safety program allows contaminated seafood to reach consumers. Imports of cheap and contaminated seafood have pushed down prices to the point that U.S. seafood sellers now look abroad to sell their products. “It’s getting harder and harder to sell a premium product in America,” said tilapia produc er Israel Snir.5 In 2006, the United States exported more than 70 percent of its wild-caught and farmed seafood6 Following this pattern, if commercial offshore aquaculture were permitted here, producers would most likely export the majority of their fish, as well. Close to 90 percent of farm-raised tilapia is exported, leaving U.S. consumers to eat Tilapia from China and other countries. 7 Unless the sea-food industry changes its trading habits, the development of U.S. offshore aquaculture would have little effect on the volume of seafood imports.

Aquaculture not sufficient to solve – FDA and food prices are the real problem.

However, the claim that an increase in fish production¶ would break the U.S. reliance on foreign seafood is way off¶ the mark because it ignores the reasons why the United¶ States imports such a vast quantity of seafood in the first¶ place. In search of the lowest possible prices, large retailers purchase seafood from around the world. Nearly 20¶ percent of the seafood available to U.S. consumers comes¶ from China, and close to half is from Asia as a whole.¶ 4¶ All¶ the while, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s badly¶ broken import safety program allows contaminated seafood¶ to reach consumers.¶ Imports of cheap and contaminated seafood have pushed¶ down prices to the point that U.S. seafood sellers now look¶ abroad to sell their products. “It’s getting harder and harder¶ to sell a premium product in America,” said tilapia producer Israel Snir.¶ 5¶ In 2006, the United States exported more¶ than 70 percent of its wild-caught and farmed seafood.¶ 6¶ Following this pattern, if commercial offshore aquaculture¶ were permitted here, producers would most likely export¶ the majority of their fish, as well. Close to 90 percent of¶ farm-raised tilapia is exported, leaving U.S. consumers to¶ eat tilapia from China and other countries.¶ 7¶ Unless the sea¶ -¶ food industry changes its trading habits, the development¶ of U.S. offshore aquaculture would have little effect on the¶ volume of seafood imports.¶ Given that offshore aquaculture is not the solution to¶ our import problem, we should not rush blindly into the¶ development of this risky new industry. Consumers in¶ the United States would be better served by a thoughtful evaluation of the human health, environmental, and¶ socio-economic effects of offshore aquaculture, the ways in¶ which those effects could be prevented or minimized, and¶ whether these known costs are worth the predicted benefits¶ of offshore fish farming.

Squo solves, fish imports are declining and US supplies are projected to increase

Kirkley, J.E., NOAA, 2008, “International Trade in Seaf¶ ood and Related Products:¶ An Assessment of U.S. Trade Patterns,” http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/PartnershipsCommunications/tradecommercial/documents/usinternationaltradereport_draft_August_4.pdf (ZD)

There is an emerging trend, however, of dec¶ lining supplies of fore¶ ign imports. In 2007,¶ the U.S. imported less shrimp than in 2006; shrimp imports dropped from $4.1 billion to¶ $3.8 billion. The total value¶ of imports of all products,¶ however, was marginally down¶ relative to the value of imports in¶ 2006—from $13.4 billion in¶ 2006 to $13.45 billion¶ (2006 constant dollar value) in 2007. It is¶ anticipated that the weakened U.S. dollar¶ combined with strengthening currencies of¶ other nations will divert¶ foreign supplies to¶ other nations in 2008. This has already¶ happened in early 2008 with EU nations¶ increasing their imports of shrimp¶ from Southeast Asian nations.¶ In addition to the weakening dollar, the U.S.¶ is experiencing severe economic problems,¶ which can be expected to¶ affect the domestic demand fo¶ r seafood. Although there is¶ conflicting evidence to support th¶ e notion that fish is a luxury commodity compared to a¶ necessity, there is strong ev¶ idence to suggest that the dom¶ estic consumption of seafood,¶ at least on a per capita basis, will likely decline in 2008. Higher energy prices and a¶ weakened U.S. dollar will cause a downward¶ shift in the away from home demand for¶ seafood in 2008, which is the primary mark¶ et outlet for seafood consumption. The¶ economic stimulus package of the current administration may offset reduced¶ discretionary income in 2008, but¶ it is not expected¶ to substantially affect the demand for¶ seafood. Countering this potential outcome, however, is¶ a report from H.M. Johnson¶ Associates (2001), which predicted U.S.¶ supplies would increase by 40.5 % between¶ 1999 and 2025. Similarly, reports by the United States Department of Agriculture and various priv¶ ate firms all forecast enhanced demand and¶ sales in the future. And then we have the la¶ test dire forecast publis¶ hed in Science by an¶ international group of economists and ecologi¶ sts that the world’s supply of seafood will¶ run out by 2048.

Seafood deficit has minimal impact on economy – total US trade deficit much larger

Myers, Joseph J, MS, MBA, NJ Department of Agriculture, 5/3/13, “2012 US seafood trade deficit – what can pecans say about aquaculture?”

Each spring brings the start of a new hatchery season in US aquaculture. The spring also brings the release of trade data by the US Census Bureau, so once again we take a look at the seafood trade deficit (where imports exceed the exports) and how these figures compare to other trade categories. This year, not only do we take a look at the seafood trade deficit, but also describe an example of how the global food market has greatly changed another U.S.-grown product, which could indicate a potential impact on domestic aquaculture production.¶ The 12 years of trade data we have has enabled us to employ a basic regression analysis. When we completed the analysis in 2011, we found a strong negative correlation between time period and seafood trade deficit value in US$. That equation predicted a deficit value of $10.82 billion projected value for 2012. The actual value in 2012 is a deficit of $10.96 billion, which grew slightly less than 1% to from the previous year. The regression including the actual 2012 value remains significant (P = 0.000) and the R2 is 0.934. The seafood category also maintained its rank at #17 among all deficit-contributing categories in the U.S. Census Bureau data set.¶ To give some perspective, the overall trade deficit of $728.9 billion, grew only 0.21% over previous year. (00190) Wine and Related Products ($7.029 billion) captured its former spot as the second largest trade deficit contributor after being displaced by (00000) Green Coffee in 2011. Surpluses in (22090) Civilian aircraft, engines, equipment, and parts exceeded the (00200) Feedstuff and Food-grains category. The (10000) crude (crude oil) deficit declined 5.81% as the deficit in (10110) Gas-natural declined 40.7% in 2012, after a 75.1% decline in 2010-2011. The numbers in parentheses are the five digit NAICS codes of these respective trade categories.

Economy – Industry Tradeoff 2NC

Plan reduces fish prices – empirically proven in shrimp and salmon

However, aquaculture production could supplant commercial fishery production. The lower prices (and revenues to fishermen) for commercial landings could result in the failure of least efficient businesses, loss of commercial fishery-related employment, and disruption of fishing communities. However, the degree of displacement would depend on the similarity of products, the scale of aquaculture production, and the characteristics of associated markets for seafood products. Imports of shrimp and salmon have resulted in lower prices and greater consumption. Over the last 30 years, domestic shrimp production from the wild fishery has remained relatively constant while imports of aquaculture shrimp have increased. In 2007, over 90% of all shrimp consumed in the United States were imported.19 Prices and associated vessel revenues have also decreased resulting in fewer active commercial fishing vessels in the Gulf of Mexico fishery.20 During the last two decades, the salmon industry has also experienced major changes related to aquaculture. Farmed fish production has significantly increased total salmon supply and been responsible for much of the observed decline in prices.21 Because of lower prices, the value of Alaskan wild salmon landings decreased from approximately $800 million per year in the late 1980s to approximately $300 million per year for the period from 2000 to 2004.22 The income of many Alaska fishermen also declined, as well as permit and boat values. From 2000 to 2004 about two-thirds of U.S. salmon consumption was farmed and one-third was from capture fisheries targeting wild stocks.23

Economy – Can’t Decrease Imports 2NC

Aquaculture Won’t Reduce Seafood Trade Deficit – Will Continue Current Import Patterns

Cufone 08

Marianne Cufone, 4/8/08, Food & Water Watch, “Ocean Fish Farms Will Not Eliminate Seafood Trade Deficit,” http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/ocean-fish-farms-will-not-eliminate-seafood-trade-deficit/, NR

Washington, DC — Commercial-scale open ocean aquaculture will not eliminate our seafood trade deficit despite government claims, according to a new report by Food & Water Watch. The report entitled Fish Story: Why Offshore Fish Farming Will Not Break U.S. Dependence on Imported Seafood, explains why ocean fish farming, the growing of fish in huge cages out in open ocean waters, will not significantly reduce the $9.2 billion U.S. seafood trade deficit and in fact poses a grave threat to oceans, coastal communities and fishing. “The U.S. government has been pushing to open public waters to an industry that has failed to demonstrate that the practice is environmentally sustainable, technically possible or financially viable on a commercial scale,” said Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch Executive Director. “Offshore aquaculture will not solve our import problem and, furthermore, could threaten human health and the environment.” Fish Story examines seafood trade patterns and the track record of existing ocean fish farms to demonstrate how an expanded U.S. ocean fish farming industry is not likely to reduce U.S. dependence on seafood imports. According to the report, the United States exports more than 70 percent of its seafood to countries where it fetches the best prices. In turn, U.S. retailers buy their seafood from wherever they can get it cheapest, oftentimes in places with lower quality and health standards, such as China and Thailand. “These trading patterns benefit the bottom lines of global seafood companies, and unfortunately, we consumers are the ones who lose out,” stated Hauter. “We are importing cheaper seafood that may have been produced in conditions that would not be legal in the United States. Add this to an inadequate food inspection program that inspects less than two percent of all imports, and were looking at a potential human health disaster.” Likely fish grown in offshore aquaculture cages would follow the current export pattern, says Food & Water Watch, and the small quantity of newly farmed fish likely to be kept in this country would not offset the vast amount of fish imported. In order to help lessen the seafood trade deficit, Food & Water Watch recommends reducing U.S. reliance on imports by decreasing exports, and increasing domestic consumption of seafood that was caught in the United States. In fact U.S. fishermen already harvest enough fish to satisfy more than half of domestic consumption.

Aquaculture Can’t Solve Trade Deficit – We Grow the Wrong Fish

Fleming 07

Adina Fleming, 12/17/07, CLATL, “Offshore aquaculture: What does that mean?,” http://clatl.com/omnivore/archives/2007/12/17/offshore-aquaculture-what-does-that-mean, NR

Perhaps most importantly, the argument used to support offshore aquaculture is that it can help close the U.S. seafood trade deficit. But there's reason to believe the practice won't do much for that deficit at all. The types of fish raised by these experimental operations are high-priced fish for fine dining restaurants and sushi bars. These are not the types of fish the U.S. imports in high numbers. Overlooked as well is that our trade deficit could be reduced if more domestic fish were eaten domestically, as we currently export 71 percent of our production. So, legalizing open ocean aquaculture may pose serious environmental, technical and economic issues. The government should focus on promoting domestic consumption of domestic fish and work to increase the sustainability of the world's marine fisheries. In such a new industry, the largely lacking scientific consensus on the potential harm of the practice signals the need for a precautionary approach. As consumers, we should try and be aware of where our fish come from, and what kinds of farming practices we are supporting.

Aquaculture won’t solve deficit – US fishers will continue to export.

Not only is the push for offshore aquaculture reckless, its purported benefits are highly questionable. The administration’s¶ campaign for ocean fish farming is blind to the current trends in the global seafood trade. The United States exports more¶ than 70 percent of its high-quality wild-caught and farmed seafood, while importing cheaper seafood from countries such¶ as China and Thailand, which have spotty food safety records. Meanwhile, Japan and Europe have high seafood safety¶ standards and receive nearly half of U.S. exports. Following this pattern, if commercial offshore aquaculture were permit¶ -¶ ted here, producers would most likely export the majority of their fish for high-dollar returns, and U.S. consumption of¶ imported seafood would remain largely unaffected.¶ Compounding this trend are U.S. companies that export a significant amount of wild-caught seafood to China, have it¶ processed under more lax food safety and labor laws, and shipped back the United States. The equivalent of 15 percent of¶ U.S. wild-caught salmon and 12 percent of cod is exported to China unprocessed and then imported back from China, in¶ processed form. With predictions that this practice will increase and expand to South Korea, the development of offshore¶ aquaculture could end up benefiting processors in Asia, not the United States.¶

Other factors to blame for deficit, aff can’t solve – international regulations have shifted the US to importing.

The seafood trade deficit is in large part due¶ to the rapid internati¶ onal expansion of low-¶ cost, aquacultured, marine products. Many¶ nations have expanded their aquaculture¶ industry because they enjoyed a comparative¶ advantage over our wild¶ harvesters and our¶ emerging aquaculture industry.¶ This has been particularly¶ true for shrimp and salmon¶ products. Another reason for increased imports by the U.S. has been restrictions on¶ imports of farm-raised produc¶ ts imposed by other nations¶ 2¶ that have subsequently¶ enhanced market opportunities in the Unite¶ d States. Additional factors include the¶ relative strength of the U.S. economy which ha¶ s diverted products in international trade¶ from other major seafood importing markets su¶ ch as Japan and the European Union, to¶ domestic markets. The value of the dollar rela¶ tive to other currencies is a related factor¶ attracting imports to the U.S. as were th¶ e less stringent U.S. health standards for¶ contaminates found in imported, aquacultured products. In addition, a federal program to¶ globalize trade by reducing or eliminating trade¶ barriers has attracted products to the U.S.¶ marketplace.¶ 3¶ Lastly, the regulatory environment in the U.S. for wild capture and¶ aquacultured marine resources reduced the¶ productivity of domestic¶ seafood suppliers.¶ For example, despite numerous attempts, Co¶ ngress has failed to pass a comprehensive¶ aquaculture act to liberalize the permitting pr¶ ocess for offshore aquaculture facilities in¶ the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

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 404.01 Kb.

Share with your friends:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8