No Solvency: Miami Debate

MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
No Solvency
Ending subsidies would not end all aquaculture FAO, 1992, Diagnosis of the Aquaculture Sub-sector, http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/009/ag184e/AG184E03.htm, ACC:
12.20.08, p. online
The evaluation of carp culture economics by the mission, on the basis of information gathered in the field, indicates that carp farming would be profitable without subsidies and would be more profitable if the potential for increasing yields from ponds is achieved. Government funds could be used more effectively in the development of a strong extension service, especially in the northern provinces. However, in view of the tentative nature of the field data, it is recommended that an in-depth study of production economics be carried out and the need for subsidies reassessed on the basis of the results.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
No Solvency US Not Key

US aquaculture is not the problem
Rebecca J. Golburg, Environmental Defense, Matthew S. Elliot, Environmental Defense, and Rosamund L. Naylor, Stanford University, 2001, Marine Aquaculture in the United States: Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, Pew Oceans Commission, http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/env_pew_oceans_aquaculture.pdf, ACC: 12.20.08, p. online
In the United States, the marine aquaculture industry is small and better regulated. It has not caused widespread environmental problems. The present effects of U.S. aquaculture on the marine environment do not come close in gravity to many other environmental problems, including the decimation of wild stocks and habitats by the U.S. fishing industry (NRC, 1999b). Effects of marine aquaculture are minor compared to changes in ocean temperature, coral bleaching, and coastal flooding likely from global warming (IPCC, 2001).
Plan cant solve global aquaculture

Matthew Connolly, J.D. Candidate, University of Connecticut School of Law, 2005, Note: Thinking globally, acting locally: cleaning up global aquaculture through eco-labeling in the United States, Public Land & Resources Law Review, 26 Pub. Land & Resources L. Rev. 121, p. L/N
Eco-labeling is preferable to domestic regulation because of the global scope of the problem. Environmentalists and industry alike complain that the US's piecemeal approach of regulating aquaculture through a myriad of state and federal law is both burdensome and ineffective because it is applied inconsistently. 110 However, even more effective domestic aquaculture regulation would have only a small impact on global aquaculture because the US is a net importer. 111 While much of the imports come from developed nations with their own regulatory schemes in place, the majority comes from developing nations where regulation is weak or nonexistent. 112 No changes in US regulation of domestic fish farms, be they command and control regulation, taxes, or subsidies, will affect the unsustainable practices [*133] of Thai shrimp farmers or Chilean salmon farmers. Developing nations have a disincentive to regulate aquaculture because it would hurt their competitive advantage over developed nations. 113 Eco-labeling avoids the limitation of traditional domestic regulation (command and control regulation, taxes, subsidies, etc.) by providing an incentive to all producers, regardless of location, to lessen environmental harm from their operations.
World market growth has a larger impact than U.S. aquaculture

Dr. Gunnar Knapp, Professor of Economics @ the University of Alaska, July 2008, Chapter 8: Potential Economic Impacts of U.S. Offshore Aquaculture, Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities, http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/pdf/econ/econ_rpt_all.pdf, ACC: 12.28.08, p. online
Table 8.7 depicts either/or situations in which fishermen, fish farmers and consumers are either all American or all foreign. However, the situation most relevant to discussion of U.S. offshore aquaculture is one in which consumers may include both foreigners and Americans, and fish farmers may include both foreigners and Americans. The relevant policy issue for discussion of U.S. offshore aquaculture is how U.S. production may affect Americans, given that foreign aquaculture production is likely to grow with major effects on world seafood marketsregardless of the extent of U.S. production.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
No Solvency US Not Key

US aquaculture is inevitable and beneficial
Nevertheless, there are strong reasons to do more to address the environmental effects of U.S. aquaculture. Aquaculture may be the only means to markedly increase seafood production, and can be less detrimental to marine ecosystems than fishing. Moreover, aquaculture may be a more desirable way to raise animal protein than terrestrial production. Contrasted with other meats, farming fish is a relatively efficient means of supplying protein (Forster, 1999b), mainly because fish are coldblooded and have low metabolic rates. In short, aquaculture is here to stay; the challenge is to ensure the young and growing industry develops in a sustainable manner and does not cause serious ecological damage.
The US isnt key to halt global aquaculture New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 7-1-05, Contribution to the Discussion on the
Framework for Disciplines on Fisheries Subsidies Aquaculture, http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/0--Tradearchive/WTO/0--fish-subsidies/0-fishsubsidies-1-july-05.php, ACC: 12.20.08, p. online
The FAO reports that world fish consumption more than tripled over the period 1961 2002, increasing from 29 to 100.7 million tonnes. [5] Global fisheries production has doubled since 1973, reaching 133 million tonnes in 2002 [6] Global exports of fisheries products in 2001 (the latest available figures) totalled 27.2 million tonnes.[7] We note that these figures do not differentiate between production levels for high and low value fisheries products. Recently the major increases in global fisheries production have been attributed to aquaculture fisheries production, rather than wild capture production. In particular, output from aquaculture (excluding aquatic plants) grew at an annual average rate of 9.1 per cent from 1971 2001, compared to a rate of 1.2 per cent growth in wild capture fisheries.[8] The FAO considers that increases in aquaculture production will need to continue in order to meet future global consumption demands, particularly because, most capture fisheries are at or near their production limits.[9] Asia produced 88.5 per cent of world aquaculture output (excluding aquatic plants) in 2001. Asia is expected to continue to produce the bulk of aquaculture output by 2020, and all regions are forecast to expand aquaculture production.[10]
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
Aqua Good (Generic)

At the very least, SUBSIDIES go towards good aquaculture practices New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 7-1-05, Contribution to the Discussion on the
We note that some WTO Members have notified to the WTO Subsidies Committee various programmes which could be considered relating to aquaculture. Some examples of the types of fisheries subsidies, which may encompass aquaculture, notified by WTO Members are: subsidies for inland hatching fisheries to mitigate the environmental effects of dam construction [15] subsidies for land improvement, acquisition of land and agricultural mechanization [16] subsidies to assist with the implementation of programmes for the promotion of sustainable fisheries to ensure the stable, safe and efficient supply of food to people [17] subsidies to both regional governments and non-governmental organisations for the promotion of aquaculture to assist with the sustainable management of fisheries resources [18] subsidies for the development of commercial fisheries for marketing and aquaculture research for nonsalmon species [19]
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
Aqua Good (Overfishing)

Aquaculture subsidies key to reduce overfishing of wild fish stocks
Diego Valderrama, PhD Candidate @ the University of Rhode Island, MSc in Aquaculture and Fisheries from the University of Arkansas, and Dr. James Anderson, Chairman of the Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics @ the University of Rhode Island, Editor of Marine Resource Economics, July 2008, Chapter 9: Interactions Between Capture Fisheries and AquacultureOffshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities, http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/pdf/econ/econ_rpt_all.pdf, ACC: 12.28.08, p. online
In addition to the price interactions, it has been suggested that aquaculture may contribute to the recovery of overexploited wild stocks, as reduced prices lead to lower fishing effort. These interactions were formally analyzed by Anderson (1985) and Ye and Beddington (1996). Andersons analysis showed that the entry of aquaculture reduces effort and increases total supply from open-access fisheries while raising natural fish stocks. Because aquaculture enhances efficiency in the capture fishery while increasing availability of fish to consumers, aquaculture development is regarded by some as a much more effective management tool relative to traditional measures of effort control. In a related analysis, Green and Kahn (1997) found similar results and used them to argue for public subsidization of aquaculture.
Aquaculture key to solve overfishing

The world faces an epidemic in overexploited wild fisheries. 21 Aquaculture is a way of meeting the global demand for fish while avoiding the large-scale depletion of wild fish stocks. Nonetheless, wild fisheries still suffer from the "tragedy of the commons." 22 Fishermen have an incentive to take as many fish as they can, leading to resource depletion. 23 Aquaculture is a potential means to avoid the "tragedy of the commons." 24 In the case of a fish farm, the fish are already owned, and the owner has the motivation to sustain the supply. 25 In theory, only the law of supply and demand limits aquaculture production. Production could increase until supply meets demand, a condition that is a practical impossibility for wild fisheries. [*124]
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
Aqua Good Overfishing Extn

Aquaculture key to solve overfishing
Ronald J. Rychlak, Professor of Law @ the University of Mississippi, 1997, Ocean Aquaculture, Fordham Environmental Law Journal, 8 Fordham Envtl. Law J. 497, p. L/N
One possible solution to the fish shortage is aquaculture. It is unlikely that one will ever hear a commercial aquaculturist complain that his or her pond has been over-fished and that is why the harvest is low. 30 Aquaculturists protect their crop and have a clear economic incentive to keep the fish supply strong and [*502] healthy. The trick is to create a similar incentive for the protection of ocean fisheries. The art of rearing aquatic organisms, 31 was developed in China between 3500 and 4000 years ago, 32 but because of the historically abundant natural catch, the practice lagged in the United States. 33 In the 1970s, many American fisheries reached maximum sustainable yields and some were overexploited. During this time, aquaculture began to receive focused attention, 34 culminating with passage of the National Aquaculture Act ("NAA") in 1980. 35 The NAA recognized the aquaculture industry as a source for "augmenting existing commercial and recreational fisheries . . . and for producing other renewable resources, thereby assisting the United States in meeting its future food needs and contributing to the solution of world resource problems." 36 Since that time, aquaculture has become a thriving industry in many states. 37 Most trout and catfish served in this nation's restaurants, as well as a significant portion of crawfish and oysters, are now farm raised. 38 Abalone, salmon, and shrimp are [*503] also cultivated in various aquaculture programs. 39 Aquaculturists have been very successful in keeping this nation's kitchens, restaurants, and grocery stores well-stocked. In addition, to the extent that aquaculture reduces the demand for ocean fish, it helps fish stocks in the oceans. If, however, the goal is not simply to increase a food source, but to restore depleted ocean stocks, aquaculture as it is currently practiced in this country will not work. In order to harvest the fish that they develop, aquaculturists need to keep the fish in a confined area. 40 Thus, they either build artificial ponds that have no access to the open sea, or they keep the fish in a silo or other manmade device that is both contained and easy-to-harvest. 41
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
Aqua Good (Food)

Aquaculture subsidies key to food production
Jansen Anderman-Hahn, JD at Vermont, Summer 2006 Note: Net pens with adaptive management: How to manage the expansion of aquaculture using the clean water act, 30 Vt. L. Rev. 1007, p. L/N
The United States's seafood demands continue to increase, n22 and the United States continues to import the majority of its seafood, causing it to operate at a six-billion-dollar-per-year-seafood-trade deficit. n23 Meanwhile, global "wild" fisheries are declining at an unprecedented level. n24 In fact, the FAO estimates that fifty-two percent of global marine fisheries are currently "fully exploited." n25 In response to these numbers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) states that the promotion of [*1011] aquaculture is a national objective, n26 and the Department of Commerce (DOC) is set to quintuple the national yield of seafood produced from aquaculture by the year 2025. n27 The NOAA allocates approximately twelve to fourteen million for aquaculture development and the USDA's budget for aquaculture is approximately fifty million. n28 Economic incentives are also present in the form of traditional farm subsidies, n29 and matching funds are available to build aquaculture facilities for commercial production. n30
Aquaculture key to solve food shortages

Population growth in developing nations is occurring nearly six times faster than in the developed world, with the poorest subset of nations experiencing the highest rate of all. 26 The population of less developed nations is expected to increase from 4.9 billion currently to 7.7 billion by 2050. 27 As discussed above, global demand for fish has grown and supply has fallen. This has raised the price of wild fish and changed how fish are consumed. 28 Fish was the "poor man's protein" because of its affordability and accessibility in developing nations. 29 The "Blue Revolution" (as aquaculture's dramatic expansion has been dubbed) 30 has the potential to mitigate this condition by providing cheaper and more abundant supplies of fish. Just as the "Green Revolution" in terrestrial agriculture helped developing nations by dramatically increasing productivity through the use of pesticides and technologically enhanced seeds, this "Blue Revolution" can also bring relief to populations at risk of food shortages. In fact, aquaculture's expansion has already led organizations such as the FAO to recognize its importance in meeting the needs of the expanding world population. 31 Aquaculture could be a boon to developing nations both in terms of food security and attracting foreign capital. Small-scale, pond aquaculture is a possible solution to problems of food shortages because it does not require access to large amounts of capital or technical expertise 32 and is a highly efficient way to produce food on a small-scale. Aquaculture could also benefit those not directly involved by providing affordable food to local communities. 33 Similar subsistence methods could be practiced in much of the developing world, enhancing food security for rapidly growing populations. Furthermore, the environmental impact of this type of subsistence aquaculture is minimal. 34Large-scale marine aquaculture could also benefit developing nations. As demand for fish in the developed world rises, developing nations are increasingly promoting large-scale fish farming operations. 35 Such large [*125] scale projects are a means of attracting foreign investment. 36 Job creation and foreign investment could help developing nations meet the needs of their growing populations.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
Aqua Good Food Extns

Aquacultures key to food production
Erin R. Englebrecht, Founder of Defenders of Wildlifes State Biodiversity Project, Articles Editor for the Emory Law Journal, Summer 2002, Comment: Can aquaculture continue to circumvent the regulatory net of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act? This Comment received the 2002 Mary Laura "Chee" Davis Award for the best Comment by a Candidate for the Board of the Emory Law Journal, 51 Emory L.J. 1187, p. L/N
Habitat loss is causing a dramatic decline in the nation's marine and anadromous n2 fisheries. n3 While the domestic supply of seafood is decreasing, the public's demand is rising, n4 and the United States has consequently incurred a $ 7 billion seafood trade deficit. n5 To address these issues, Congress appropriates millions annually for the research and development of seafood aquaculture - the artificial propagation of fish for food. n6 Over the last two decades, aquaculture has become one of the nation's fastest growing food production industries. n7
Aquaculture key to food production

Most Americans would be surprised to discover that their last seafood meal may have been raised on a farm rather than caught in the wild. Farmed fish (finfish and shellfish) supply one-third of the seafood that people eat worldwide, and that fraction is increasing (Tacon and Forster, 2000). In the United States, aquaculture provides almost all of the catfish and trout people consume, along with roughly half of the shrimp and salmon. Aquaculture is an increasingly important contributor to our diet and some experts assert it is the fastest-growing segment of U.S. agriculture.
Aquaculture key to supply fish catch fisheries cant produce

Since the mid-1990s, total global wild fisheries catch has plateaued at roughly 185 to 200 billion pounds (85 to 90 million t) (FAO, 2000b). At the same time, growing human population and affluence are increasing the demand for seafood. As a result, the global per capita supply of seafood from capture fisheries dropped from 23.99 pounds per person (10.88 kg) in 1984 to 23.32 pounds (10.58 kg) in 1998 (Tacon and Forster, 2000). Scientists, governments, and international organizations all point to aquaculture as the most important means to boost per capita fish supply.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__

Aquacultures key to produce enough fish for projected consumption increases
Dr. James Anderson, Chairman of the Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics @ the University of Rhode Island, Editor of Marine Resource Economics, and Gina Shamshak, John A. Knauss Sea Grant Fellow, July 2008, Chapter 11: Future Markets for Aquaculture Products, Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities, http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/pdf/econ/econ_rpt_all.pdf, ACC: 12.28.08, p. online
In a recent study, Delgado et al. (2003) projected the global demand for seafood will grow 38% from 133 million metric tons (mmt) in 1999/2000 to approximately 183 mmt in 2015. This represents an annual increase of about 2.1%, compared to an annual growth rate of 3.1% over the prior two decades. They expect 46% of this growth to come from population increases and 54% to come from economic development and other factors. Their report also projects the source of the supply required to meet the forecasted demand. They expect that 73% will come from aquaculture, while most traditional capture fisheries are expected to stagnate. Only 27% of the growth in supply is expected to come from traditional fisheries. In particular, they expect the share of supply derived from pelagic and demersal fisheries to decline.
Aquacultures key to stable fish supply

In addition to increasing global seafood supplies, the aquaculture sector also provides seafood markets with characteristics that traditional fisheries are often unable to provide. Aquaculture species are often not as influenced by seasonal and environmental fluctuations in supply, unlike wild fisheries (such as wild-caught salmon) which have season-specific supply spikes, followed by periods of no availability. This consistency in the supply of a species is preferable to processors and distributors, who can make production and marketing decisions throughout the year instead of over a concentrated period of time. Consumers also benefit from year-round availability of a species, allowing demand to grow as consumption becomes more frequent. In aquaculture, product forms do not have to be limited to frozen, as is often the case for many wild fisheries. Furthermore, year-round trade in fresh or live species is also possible for several species. Given the standardized production of aquaculture species, producers are able to supply a homogeneous product of similar size, quality, and consistency throughout the year. For example, a catfish fillet harvested and sold in March is essentially identical in size and quality to a catfish fillet sold in December, owing to consistency in the production process. Processors, distributors, consumers, and the market all benefit from this reliability in supply, quality, and form. Another important feature of aquaculture is the ability to predict supply with a much lower variance than is the case in wild, traditional fisheries. The consistency in supply and quality of aquacultured products are essential features for market development, especially with regard to new and value-added products. Investors and marketers will seek out species that exhibit increasing production trends, where, as demand grows so too can supplyfurther increasing market demand.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__

Aquaculture key to food production
The great potential for sea farming recognized in the 1970s is now a reality. Currently, aquaculture, the farming of aquatic organisms, is the fastest growing sector in the animal-food industry and has increased from four percent of global seafood production in 1970 to thirty percent in 2002. n2 That same year, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimated 6,653 "aquaculture facilities" were operating in the United States with a total of $ 1.1 billion in sales. n3 Aquaculture was valued in 2002 by the United Nations at sixty billion. n4 There is some consensus that in the near future, if trends continue, the majority of fish consumed will be raised in aquaculture instead of caught from the wild. n5 With the enactment of the [*1008] National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005, and other incentives for aquaculture discussed in this Note, there is every indication that the trend will continue. n6 The Offshore Aquaculture Act encourages the development of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), an area of water that extends from three to two hundred nautical miles from land, by allowing open-ocean aquaculture. n7 The further development of open-ocean aquaculture would result in an increased number of "net pen systems," which are capable of placement in open water. n8 A coherent management plan is needed to contain the environmental effects from these net pens.
More evidence key to avoid fish shortages

Open-ocean aquaculture has the potential to contribute in two major ways. First, it would increase the global supply of seafood by providing an additional source of production. Recall that global demand for seafood is expected to grow 38 percent between 1999/2000 and 2015. Additionally, open-ocean aquaculture can provide a product that meets the needs of consumers and processors: a consistent, highquality product with a relatively stable and/or declining price.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
Aqua Good (Crunch)

Aquaculture solves the crunch
John Forster, Founder of Colombia River Fish Farms LLC, Current Director of four aquaculture companies, Member of the NOAAs Marine Fishery Advisory Committee, July 2008, Chapter 3: Emerging Technologies in Marine Aquaculture, Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities, http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/pdf/econ/econ_rpt_all.pdf, ACC: 12.28.08, p. online
Aquaculture offers another response. By finding ways to use a greater proportion of the Earths surface for food production, and by growing species that may be more efficient in converting resources into animal tissue, aquaculture promises to change how the Earths capacity is presently understood. The opportunities and possibilities identified in Table 3.5 touch upon this promise. It is impossible to know how it will actually develop. Other factors besides simple resource considerations will determine the ultimate outcome. But insofar as the future will be driven by the balance that is struck between human needs and the Earths capacity to supply them, aquaculture in the oceans seems certain to become increasingly important.
We need to let aquaculture continue to advance so we can start growing plants in the ocean too in order to maximize productivity
John Forster, Founder of Colombia River Fish Farms LLC, Current Director of four aquaculture companies, Member of the NOAAs Marine Fishery Advisory Committee, July 2008, Chapter 12: Broader Issues in the Offshore Fish Farming Debate, Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities, http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/pdf/econ/econ_rpt_all.pdf, ACC: 12.28.08, p. online
The potential for offshore aquaculture in the long term may be larger and more profound than merely providing additional production to meet our future needs for seafood. Our biosphere is powered by energy received from the sun, two-thirds of which falls on the oceans. In turn, the oceans provide equable growing conditions for plant life over their entire surface, resulting in an overall level of productivity already comparable to that on land when, as yet, no serious attempt has been made to enhance it. Moreover, this productivity and its potential enhancement are not dependent on inputs of freshwater as is terrestrial agriculture, a dependency that may inhibit its expansion in some areas. The key to recovering more of this energy and to making the oceans more productive is to develop a system of aquaculture that grows plants as its primary source production, with animal protein being produced secondarily, just as is done in terrestrial agriculture today. For reasons explained below, it will take many decades and much experimentation before methods are perfected to be able to do this. Marine aquaculture, as practiced today, is simply a first stage in this process, and it is important that it is seen in this context because it is too easy, otherwise, to misinterpret it and to under-estimate the environmental and economic benefits it will bring. For the same reason, it is also important to start thinking about what might be involved in a plant-based Marine Agronomy, in order to help guide a development process that could not only ease pressure on our natural fisheries but could, eventually, reduce the demands we now make on the land and even on the biosphere itself. At a time when the prospect of global warming threatens human existence as we know it, it is surely an oversight that we use two-thirds of the Earths surface for little more than hunting and navigation.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
Aqua Good Crunch Extns

Aquaculture key to support growing global population
Rosamond L. Naylor, Stanford University Institute for International Studies, Rebecca J. Goldburg, Jurgenne H. Primavera, Nils Kautsky, Malcolm C. M. Beveridge, Jason Clay, Carl Folke , Jane Lubchenco, Harold Mooney and Max Troell, et Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies Nature 405, pp. 1017-1024
al., 6-29-00,
The worldwide decline of ocean fisheries stocks has provided impetus for rapid growth in fish and shellfish farming, or aquaculture. Between 1987 and 1997, global production of farmed fish and shellfish (collectively called 'fish') more than doubled in weight and value, as did its contribution to world fish supplies1. Fish produced from farming activities currently accounts for over one-quarter of all fish directly consumed by humans. As the human population continues to expand beyond 6 billion, its reliance on farmed fish production as an important source of protein will also increase.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
Aqua Good (Trade)

Aquaculture key to solve trade deficit Food and Water Watch, Nonprofit consumer organization that works to ensure clean water and safe food, October 2007, Fishy Farms: The Problems With Open Ocean Aquaculture, www.foodandwaterwatch.org/fish/fish-farming/fishyfarms/FishyFarms.pdf, ACC: 12.20.08, p. iv
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is promoting open ocean aquaculture as a way to reduce the countrys $9.2 billion seafood trade deficit and ease pressures on decimated wild marine fish populations. The government has spent more than $25 million supporting four experimental fish farms, as well as research into this technology, which involves growing tens of thousands of fish in cages anchored to the seafloor between three and 200 miles off the U.S. coast. The government wants to open public waters for the potential construction of thousands of these cages.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
Aqua Good (Environment)

Aquacultures help the environment New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 7-1-05, Contribution to the Discussion on the
Points for consideration: Land-based and maritime aquaculture fisheries, in some WTO member countries, can be stocked using the progeny of brood stock fish caught in wild capture areas that may already be overexploited by wild capture fishing. Further, some forms of aquaculture production (e.g. tuna) rely entirely on sourcing juveniles from wild capture fisheries, which may further drive pressure on wild fish stocks. Also, given the high demand for marine protein in aquaculture feed, aquaculture may also result in further pressures on wild stocks such as small pelagics commonly used in aquaculture feed.[20] However, we note however that research indicates that catches of species used for aquaculture fishmeal have remained static despite significant increases in aquaculture production over the last 20 years.[21] Aquaculture may have positive environmental affects. For example, it may be used to support re-stocking, re-seeding and ranching processes which can improve wild capture and recreational fisheries.
The benefits of aquaculture on key environments far outweighs the negatives

Aquaculture practices have had some extensive influence on habitat. For example, pioneering shrimp farms negatively impacted mangrove forests in tropical countries. In some locations, excessive finfish cage culture has resulted in the destruction of benthic habitat and created pollution. But there are also examples of positive aquaculture influence on habitat. The relocation of shrimp farms to zones above mangrove forests has paralleled increases in mangrove cover areas (Fast and Menasveta, 2003; Lutz, 2001). Oyster culture has contributed positively to reef development, which increases the diversity of fish in the area. Net pens also create habitat for marine species and act as fish aggregating devices. In a recent study, Rensel and Foster (2007) quantified the types and volumes of biocolonization at a commercial net-pen fish farm site in North Puget Sound in Washington State. The study showed that a typical fish pen system is populated by a diverse group of over 100 species of seaweeds or invertebrates, providing a locally important component of the food web. Many of the conflicts concerning habitat use, siting of aquaculture facilities, and other environmental interactions can be addressed through integrated ecosystem-based management approaches to aquaculture development. McVey et al. (2006) and other authors (Dumbauld et al., 2006; Bridger, 2004; Cicin-Sain et al., 2001) offer valuable insights on how this could be achieved.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
A2 Aqua Hurts Environment

Environmental problems are inevitable but aquaculture at least has a purpose that leads toward sustainable, environmentally sound food production
Some of the discourse about marine aquaculture is focused upon concerns about actual or hypothetical environmental impacts. It is suggested, however, that it would be better instead to talk about environmental costs or the use of environmental services. Man could not survive without incurring such costs or using such services, and it is hardly surprising that the costs imposed by six billion people (soon to be eight billion) appear to be pushing the environment toward bankruptcyconsumption of food being one the main drivers. Yet no one suggests that humans should not eat, so the only solution, if there is one, is to seek to minimize the costs incurred or services used in producing what we need. This raises two points of principle which merit discussion and which; as is often the case in debate about aquaculture, take the discourse into a much broader realm of philosophy and mans purpose in life. First, though we are confronted by great environmental challenges, is it an appropriate response merely to try to conserve rather than to seek instead to manage and build on the resources that have been given to us? Second is the concept of relative costs, or comparative ecological footprints. As we strive to build on our resources, there will be environmental costs and risks that things will not always go as expected. There is no hiding from the fact that in the short and medium term, as an offshore aquaculture industry strives to develop it may (like any aquaculture operation elsewhere) incur ecological costs, including: use of feed materials from several external sources; discharge of wastes into marine waters; the potential for escapes of domesticated stock which, if they breed with wild stock, may impact them genetically; and the potential for release of pathogens if farmed stock become infected, which may then heighten the risks of disease in wild stock. All of these actual or potential costs will either draw on environmental services or risk negative environmental consequences. But are these more or less than the burdens imposed by other forms of food production, such as deforestation or soil erosion in terrestrial agriculture, or degradation by certain commercial fisheries at sea? It is impossible to satisfy humanitys need for food with zero impact. Therefore, in weighing the possible impacts of a new form of food productionsuch as offshore aquaculturethe alternatives must be compared.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
Aqua Good (Poverty)

Aquaculture key to solve poverty New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 7-1-05, Contribution to the Discussion on the
Points for consideration: Aquaculture is "one of the fastest growing food producing sectors of the world and has achieved a reputation as a significant contributor to poverty alleviation, food security and income generation".[22] According to the FAO, developing countries contributed over 90 per cent of the total global aquaculture fisheries production.[23] The FAO forecasts that by 2010 fisheries production (including from aquaculture fisheries) will be outweighed by demand for fisheries products which will result in severe restrictions on trade.[24] Accordingly, the effect of a prohibition on subsidies to aquaculture fisheries would be felt even more keenly in developing countries in these forecast circumstances.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
Aqua Good (Fish Industry)

Theres only a risk of a link aquaculture can only benefit an industry already weakened by globalization
Dr. Michael Rubino, Manager of NOAAs Aquaculture Program, CEO of Bluewaters, Inc an aquaculture research and development company, and former Vice-Chairman of the State of Marylands Aquaculture Advisory Committee, July 2008, Chapter 1: Introduction, Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities, http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/pdf/econ/econ_rpt_all.pdf, ACC: 12.28.08, p. online
What is also clear and often missing from the discussion of competition is that competition will exist with or without domestic aquaculture. The marketplace is global and demand for seafood products is growing. The United States cannot meet consumer seafood demand through wild caught fishing activities alone. Seafood imports and other forms of protein, such as beef and chicken, already provide significant competition. Seafood business executives speaking at the National Marine Aquaculture Summit said that if seafood is not available from U.S. sources, their customers are demanding that they get it somewhere else (NMFS 2007b). The challenge therefore is to integrate aquaculture into domestic seafood production so that U.S. boat owners, fishermen, processors, and marketing companies can benefit directly.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
Aqua Good Fish Industry Extns

US aquaculture can be competitive
Dr. Gunnar Knapp, Professor of Economics @ the University of Alaska, July 2008, Chapter 2: Economic Potential for U.S. Offshore Aquaculture: An Analytical Approach, Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities, http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/pdf/econ/econ_rpt_all.pdf, ACC: 12.28.08, p. online
U.S. offshore farms can compete with lower-cost foreign inshore farms if their costs are similar to foreign offshore costs, and if demand expands sufficiently so that lower-cost U.S. and foreign inshore sites are fully utilized, causing prices to increase to levels at which U.S. offshore farming is profitable (Figure 2.8A). U.S. offshore farms can compete with lower-cost foreign inshore or offshore farms if U.S. offshore farms are able to command a price premium over the world market price; for example, due to lower costs of transport to the U.S. market or perceived higher quality (Figure 2.8B).
Close proximity will allow US aquacultures to dominate the market

One of the most important competitive advantages of U.S. offshore farming may be the shorter distance to U.S. markets. This is particularly important for fresh fish which would have to be shipped by air to reach U.S. markets. It is relatively less important for the large-scale production of frozen fish. In the future, food miles could become an important factor for some markets where consumers or buyers are concerned about greenhouse gas releases associated with food production and transportation. If so, this would tend to favor domestic producers of fish in supplying the U.S. market. Note that this transportation cost advantage would not apply equally to all U.S. offshore aquaculture production. Alaska, in particular, is located a significant distance from U.S. markets.
US infrastructure offsets any potential market disadvantages for US aquaculture

With the significant exception of many parts of Alaska, the United States has a highly developed physical and service infrastructureroads, airports, utilities, construction services, vessel repair and maintenance services, electronics installation and repair services, for example. This represents a competitive advantage for the United States in offshore farming over less developed countries, and would help to offset the labor cost advantages these countries may enjoy.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__

US aquaculture will attract more investment than foreign competitors
For major investments such as offshore fish farms, political and economic stabilityin particular the security of property rights and the rule of lawis essential. With regard to some less developed countries, the fact that the United States is a stable and safe place to do business may be a significant competitive advantage. For major investments such as offshore fish farms, political and economic stabilityin particular the security of property rights and the rule of lawis essential. With regard to some less developed countries, the fact that the United States is a stable and safe place to do business may be a significant competitive advantage.
Only a link aquaculture wont hurt fishers but it helps fish farmers
The relative scale of these effects depends on the shapes of the U.S. and foreign demand and supply curves, and in particular on the price sensitivity (elasticity) of world demand and supply. Suppose, as depicted in Figure 8.9, that as prices decline and consumption increases world demand becomes relatively more pricesensitive (elastic). At high prices and low consumption the demand curve is relatively more vertical; at low prices and high consumption the demand curve becomes relatively more horizontal. If there is no U.S. fish farming, foreign fish farming still results in a large increase in supply over wild production, which significantly depresses the price received by U.S. fishermen from P to P*. However, if American fish farmers now increase world supply further, there will be only a limited further effect on prices. Thus, in this situation, American fish farming would have relatively little effect on U.S. fishermen, while providing significant benefits for U.S. farmers.
Globalization will inevitably effect US fishers regardless of U.S. aquaculture

Nor is it likely that any U.S. policies could have protected U.S. salmon fishermen from the market-drive effects of salmon aquaculture. The most important fresh and frozen markets for Alaska salmon were in foreign countriesparticularly Japanrather than the United States (Table 8.8). Even if the United States had banned imports of farmed salmon, it would not have prevented the competition which Alaska sockeye salmon encountered in the Japanese salmon market from farmed Chilean and Norwegian salmon and trout. In a globalized seafood industry in which U.S. fishermen are heavily dependent upon export markets, it is impossible for U.S. fishermen to escape competition from farmed fishregardless of U.S. policy towards aquaculture.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__

Massive benefits for the American economy
Dr. Michael Rubino, Manager of NOAAs Aquaculture Program, CEO of Bluewaters, Inc an aquaculture research and development company, and former Vice-Chairman of the State of Marylands Aquaculture Advisory Committee, July 2008, Chapter 1: Introduction, Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities, http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/pdf/econ/econ_rpt_all.pdf, ACC: 12.28.08, p. online
The authors also note that a variety of Americans may benefit from offshore aquaculture, including the following: Consumers will benefit by having access to affordable, locally and regionally produced, safe, and healthy seafood. The seafood supply, marketing, and food service industries, including supermarkets and restaurants, will have access to additional U.S. supplies of seafood, thereby reducing supply risks. Aquaculture and wild capture fisheries are part of a spectrum of seafood production techniques with many synergies. Boat owners (including fishermen) will be owner operators or hired by offshore operations. Seafood processing waste is used in making fish feed. The whole seafood supply chain, from boats to docks to processing plants to cold storage, benefits from having predictable and increased throughput from aquaculture. Marine aquaculture may help keep working waterfronts alive. Finite supplies of fish meal and oil for fish feed may limit the expansion of aquaculture and has raised questions about aquacultures environmental sustainability unless alternatives can be found (FAO 2006). But not only does the United States have its own fish meal and oil menhaden and sardine fisheries, its researchers are among the world leaders in development of alternatives, such as feeds from soybeans, algae, yeasts, and other products. Aquaculture is a growing market for the nations farmers, some of whose crops can be used in aquaculture feeds. The United Soybean Boards Soy in Aquaculture Program is an example.8 There are also fishery wastes from the abundant fisheries of Alaska that could be made into fish meal and oil if there were incentive to do so. American companies have pioneered and are leaders in the design of offshore containment systems, hatcheries, and alternative feeds. Global markets for their products and services beckon. A strong home market will reinforce their position. Research at U.S. hatcheries directed at commercial marine aquaculture (fingerling and spat production for grow-out on land or in nearshore or offshore facilities) will benefit not only commercial aquaculture, but the beneficiaries of stock enhancement practices. U.S. hatcheries grow finfish and shellfish to enhance recreational and commercial fishing stocks and to restore endangered species and habitat.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__

Further development of aquaculture is necessary to new job creation
Table 8.6 provides similar estimates of average annual employment per thousand metric tons in several wild fisheries. As in aquaculture, there is wide variation between species in how much employment is created in harvesting a given volume of fish. For any given species, employment created in by fish harvesting also varies from year to year, reflecting differences in total harvest volumes. In general, the ranges of average annual employment per thousand metric tons in these wild fisheries are comparable to those for aquaculture shown in Table 8.4. An important difference between aquaculture and wild fisheries is that employment in wild fisheries is more seasonal. For example, peak monthly employment in Alaska salmon fisheries, which occur primarily in the summer, is more than four times as high as average employment. This means that wild fisheries tend to provide jobs for relatively more workers, working relatively less of the year, to produce a given volume of fish. In comparing wild fisheries and aquaculture, such as comparing the employment estimates in Tables 8.6 and 8.4, it is important to keep in mind that the policy choice faced by the United States is not between harvesting fish in wild fisheries or growing fish in farms. With most United States wild fisheries fully exploited, is not an option for the United States to produce significantly more fish in wild fisheries. Rather, the policy choice is how much fish the United States will grow in fish farms. Even if commercial fishing tended to employ far more workers than aquaculturewhich available data suggest is not the casewe would not have the option of creating more jobs by increasing commercial fish harvests. In contrast, aquaculture does provide an opportunity to create more jobs in fish production.
Aquaculture key to the economy

Brian R. Price, II, Managing Editor, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 2003-04, 2004, Note: Maine Aquaculture, Atlantic Salmon, and Inertia: What is the Future for Maine's Net Pen Salmon Industry? Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 31 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 683, p. L/N
Despite this uncertainty in federal regulation, the aquatic animal production industry has grown rapidly: a 1992 study found that $ 5.6 billion of the U.S. gross domestic product, along with 181,000 jobs, stemmed from aquaculture. 10 Currently, "there are approximately 4,200 commercial aquatic animal production . . . facilities in the United States." 11 These are located in all fifty states, and aquaculture is growing faster than any other form of agriculture in the United States. 12
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
Aqua Good (Energy)

Marine aquaculture key to growing plants for green energy
This idea was first examined in the early 1970s following the first world oil crisis when the U.S. Department of Energy and the Gas Research Institute established a marine biomass energy research program to determine the potential for producing methane from seaweed by a process of biodigestion. After conducting several pilot studies and feasibility analyses, Ashare et al. (1978) concluded that the concept was not then economically competitive, a conclusion thatwas validated later as crude oil prices declined in the early 1990s. But oil and gas prices are now back at record highs and the prospect of carbon taxes makes it likely that burning them will become even more expensive in future. A recent analysis of the past work (Chynoweth et al. 2001) suggests that methane production from seaweed such as Macrocystis, Sargassum, and Laminaria could now be economically viable if methods can be developed for the large scale farming of these species. Viability might be even more likely if these plants could also be processed into products such as animal feeds as well as biofuel, as is the case in ethanol production from corn. It is easy to dismiss such notions as fantasy. Certainly, the prospect of large scale farming of seaweeds for energy and animal feed is many years away but, as we learn to farm fish and to work in the open sea, so we will develop the skills and infrastructure that will allow us to farm marine plants there in future. And, as we learn to feed carnivorous fish on terrestrially grown plant nutrients, so we will set the stage for them to be fed, one day, on plant nutrients produced at sea. In effect, todays pioneering aquacultural efforts are just the beginning of the creation of a critical mass around which new developments can take place, some of them barely imaginable now. The key to making progress, as it has always been, is to try, to risk failure and to learn from it. In a twenty-first century capitalist democracy, that also means trying something that has a chance at the outset of making some money and, for now, that means growing something for which people will pay a price that justifies the costs, and that means high value finfish. If we can embrace that idea and build research programs around it that anticipate subsequent steps in the journey, there is a reasonably good chance that it will get us, eventually, to where we need to go. It is noteworthy that one of the companies that collaborated in the earlier marine biomass work was General Electric, which now, alongside other, international corporations, champions green energy production as one of the outstanding economic opportunities for American business in the new century. As in the offshore production of finfish, America possesses many of the technologies necessary to develop new, renewable energy and food sources based on the farming of marine plants. That such an opportunity is apparent at the same time as the offshore production of more seafood is contemplated is no coincidence. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (UN, 2005) describes all too clearly how the Earth, especially its terrestrial habitat, is strained to its breaking point. And though the assessment provides similar warnings about world fisheries and coastal pollution, it is not surprising that people from many fields find themselves wondering simultaneously if two-thirds of the planet could be used more effectively.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
A2 Disease
Microbes in ocean animals wont cause human pandemics
Kristin Thoms, Marine Biologist with a Masters in Marine Science Journalism, Specialist for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administrations National Marine Fisheries Service, 8-21-08 Sea Life Is Accumulating Pathogens Oceanus, magazine of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=48086, ACC: 2.3.09, p. online
The researchers focused on testing their specimens for four relatively common microbes known to be zoonotic, or transferable from animals to humans: Brucella, Leptospira, Crytopsporidium, and Giardia which cause symptoms that include high fever, severe headaches, chills, muscle aches, vomiting, and diarrhea. Thirty-five percent of the animals they examined contained Brucella; 17 percent contained Giardia; 13 percent had Crytopsporidium. To date, the initial results indicating the presence of Leptospira in 10 percent of the tested animals has not been confirmed. All together they found nearly 100 types of disease-causing agents in their specimens. The number of zoonotic agents in the animals surprised the researchers, but they strongly cautioned against interpreting their results as a reason to avoid the beach. Zoonotic microbes are not new, infection usually requires a bite or other direct exposure, and people have developed immunities to many such organisms, explained Moore, a biologist at WHOI. But it is one of the many reasons to leave beached seals well alone, he said.
Farms on land are a greater risk than aquacultures to the spread of antibiotic resistance
Graham M. Wilson, Associate @ Preston Gates & Ellis in Seattle, 2004, Note: A Day on the fish farm: FDA and the regulation of aquaculture, Virginia Environmental Law Journal, 23 Va. Envtl. L.J. 351, p. L/N
Farmers use astronomical amounts of antibiotics in agriculture. Animals receive approximately half of the over 50 million pounds of antibiotics produced in this country. 24 In the last thirty years the amount of penicillin-type antibiotics used by farmers has grown by an estimated 600%, while the use of tetracycline, another antibiotic, has grown 1500%. 25 The beneficial results from farm antibiotic use are preventing and curing disease, and enhancing animal growth. 26 These uses are known respectively as prophylactic, therapeutic and promotional applications. During prophylactic and promotional applications, antibiotics are given to animals at sub-therapeutic levels, or in smaller doses. 27 With regard to resistance, dispensing smaller amounts of antibiotics is thought to be more problematic; bacteria that are least susceptible to the drugs will not be killed by the application and will live to spread their resistance characteristics. 28 This prevalent and varied use of antibiotics on farms contributes significantly to bacterial resistance. 29 Already, as a result of ever-increasing resistance, farmers must use ten to twenty times more antibiotics than they did only ten years ago to achieve the same level of growth benefits in farm animals. 30
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
A2 Viruses
Viruses are overstated
Bob Holmes, Staff Writer, 11-2-96, New Scientist, Who rules the waves? p. L/N
Yet a quick mental reckoning suggests that viruses - most of which infect bacteria, not larger organisms may not be all that important. In laboratory cultures, a single virus has only about 1 chance in 100 million of successfully infecting any given bacterium in a millilitre of water during the course of a day, says Bruce Levin, an expert on the population biology of viruses from Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. If this applies in the real world, then at a density of 100 000 viruses per millilitre - a moderate concentration for a single type of virus - only about 1 bacterium in 1000 should succumb to viruses each day. But even if Levin's back-of-the-envelope calculation vastly underestimates the impact of the viruses, most bacteria will quickly evolve resistance to these tiny enemies, says John Waterbury of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. In Woods Hole harbour, for example, Waterbury found that the most common strains of Synechococcus, an abundant group of cyanobacteria, were resistant to most of the naturally occurring viruses that attack them. He found a few strains of Synechococcus that were susceptible to the common viruses in his samples, but they were rare components of the cyanobacterial mix. Most virologists think that this resistance prevents viruses from being a major cause of death in bacteria. Waterbury estimates that even at Woods Hole harbour, where the water teems with Synechococcus, only about 2 per cent succumb to infection. Despite this, he thinks the viruses may drive a merry-go-round of different bacterial types. In this scenario, an individual strain becomes common enough to edge over the threshold at which its viruses spread easily. The number of viral infections increases, driving that bacterial strain back into obscurity. A different cyanobacterial strain that is resistant to those viruses, but susceptible to others, then becomes dominant, and the pattern is repeated.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
A2 Wetlands
Across the world wetlands have been consistently destroyed for the past 50 years aquaculture is a better use of that land Ramsar Convention, 1996, Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, Wetlands and Biodiversity, Executive Summary,
http://www.ramsar.org/about/about_biodiversity.htm, ACC: 12.20.08, p. online
Despite their importance, wetlands are among the most impacted and degraded of all ecological systems. In the past few centuries, they have been commonly regarded as unproductive, unhealthy lands. Many countries, often with government support and backing, have made considerable efforts to convert them from a "worthless" existence to economically viable systems for agriculture or fisheries production. Many have been filled with domestic and industrial wastes (some of which have been of a toxic nature), while others have been drained to create additional land for development. In the past 50 years the rate of wetland loss has increased dramatically, and is still continuing. Agriculture has been one of the main reasons for this: persistent agricultural subsidies and surpluses have led to the transformation of hundreds of thousands of hectares of wetlands in the developed world. Elsewhere, the construction of dams has radically altered the water regime of many rivers. It seems likely that more than half of the world's wetlands may have been destroyed this century.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
A2 Mangroves
Mangrove forests have been steadily declining and aquacultures arent the main reason
Alfredo Quarto, Director of the Mangrove Action Project, Co-Director and Co-Founder of the Earth Island Institute, 2000, The Mangrove Forest, http://www.islandecosystems.org/images/Mangrove_Forests.doc, ACC: 12.20.08, p. online
Mangroves are the rainforests by the sea. Large stretches of the subtropical and tropical coastline are dominated by mangroves, once estimated to cover an area of over 36 million hectares. Now, less than 15 million ha remainless than half the original area. over the past several decades, the global area in mangroves has increasingly diminished as a result of a variety of human activities, such as overharvesting, freshwater diversion and conversion to other uses."( Snedaker, S.C., University of Miami, Division of Marine Biology and Fisheries, personal correspondence).
There are only four species of mangrove forests in the United States
Alfredo Quarto, Director of the Mangrove Action Project, Co-Director and Co-Founder of the Earth Island Institute, 2000, The Mangrove Forest, http://www.islandecosystems.org/images/Mangrove_Forests.doc, ACC: 12.20.08, p. online
These complex ecosystems are found between the latitudes of 32 degrees north and 38 degrees south, along the tropical coasts of Africa, Australia, Asia, and the Americas. There are varying scientific classifications of what constitutes a mangrove plant. According to two reputable scientific studies, mangroves include approximately 16-24 families and 54-75 species. ((Tomlinson (1986) and Field (1995) respectively) The greatest diversity of mangrove species exists in Southeast Asia. For example, there are only twelve mangrove species in the New World and only four species of mangroves exist along portions of the coasts of the southern USA.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
A2 Eutrophication
Aquacultures doesnt cause eutrophication
Though aquacultures share in national nutrient loading is small, eutrophication is a cumulative problem. EPA recognizes that aquaculture contributes nutrients and pathogens to environmentally sensitive areas such as the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay, and other estuaries, rivers, lakes, and streams throughout the country(EPA, 2000a). Eutrophication is difficult to address precisely because it is often caused by many, predominantly small, sources.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
A2 Fishmeal
High fish meal and fish oil prices are good force innovative new feed formulas and revitalize the commercial fishing industry
Aquaculture can influence fish stocks through its use of wild fish stocks for inputs. One of the most controversial examples concerns the use of small pelagic fishes for fishmeal and fish oil. The growth of aquaculture, in particular the farming of carnivorous fishes, has had a direct impact on the demand for fishmeal and fish oil. Fishmeal prices have traditionally traded in a range of two to three times the price of soymeal; however, fishmeal has traded recently at levels more than six times the price of soymeal. The traditional relationship between fishmeal and soymeal has changed substantially. Empirical evidence indicates that the increased relative price of fishmeal and fish oil represents an important structural shift (Kristofferson and Anderson, 2006). If fisheries are well managed, this implies an opportunity for the wild fisheries sector to increase net revenue. On the other hand, if fisheries are poorly managed, this implies increased risk of overfishing. In either case, the increased relative price for fishmeal and fish oil presents an incentive for innovation. In the specific case of salmon aquaculture, this phenomenon has led to the rapid development of new feed formulations and declining feed conversion ratios.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
A2 Escapees
Release of escapees key to revitalize current stocks
Aquaculture has also been used to replenish or enhance fisheries through purposeful release of juvenile or adult fish. For example, the Japanese chum salmon fishery is almost exclusively dependent upon hatchery-based salmon. In Alaska, approximately 40 percent of state's salmon harvest is dependent upon hatchery-based fisheries (Knapp at al., 2007). However, although hatchery (aquaculture)-based capture fisheries may result in increased harvest, they also may facilitate inefficient harvest practices and create problems with genetic diversity and the integrity of truly wild stocks (Hilborn 1992).
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
A2 Arctic
No US-Russian nuclear conflict over the arctic
Rob Huebert, Professor of Political Science/Strategic Studies Program @ University of Calgary, 2007 Canada and the Circumpolar World: Meeting the Challenges of Cooperation into the Twenty-First Century: A Critique of Chapter 4 - "Post-Cold War Cooperation in the Arctic: From Interstate Conflict to New Agendas for Security," Omitted Arctic Security Issues http://www.carc.org/calgary/a4.htm, ACC: 2.5.09, p. online
The arguments about the new nature of expanded security concerns in the Arctic notwithstanding, there remain some issues that the Report did not fully address that warrant consideration. The current effort to transform the security debate from a narrowly militaristic definition to a much broader definition is laudable. But in expanding the definition, it is still necessary to avoid the trap of examining only the "newer" elements of security while pretending the traditional elements are now irrelevant. This critique posits that the Standing Committee has indeed fallen into such a trap. The definition of security must include the traditional elements when at least one of two conditions exist in the Arctic region. The first is that a traditional military threat still exists. There is no doubt that the Cold War has greatly reduced the risk of conflict between Russia and NATO. But the questions remains as to whether or not the threat has been completely eliminated. The second condition is that there is a perceived military threat. Even if Russia has completely eliminated and repudiater-reactions of the Russians. In both instances, there are policies that Canadian policy-makers need to take that differ from those that would be necessary if all military threat and/or perceptions thereof in the Arctic regions had been completely eliminated. Evidence of the first condition is minimal. There is little indication that either the Americans or Russians currently threaten each other. With respect to the second condition however, some recent Russian actions, including missile testing and the submarine procurement program, suggest that the Russian Government believes that some military threat to its security still exists. With the end of the Cold War, the Russians no longer pre-aim their nuclear missiles at western targets. Furthermore, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties are substantially reducing the number of nuclear arms that both sides possess. However, in spite of the end of the Cold War, the Russian Government has been testing its missiles much closer to Western territory. Questions remain as to why the Russians believed it necessary to test launch one of their submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) 500 kilometres off the coast of Baffin Island in August of 1995. (1) Equally troubling is the apparent repudiation by the Russians of Brezhnev's pledge of no first use of nuclear weapons. Mary Fitzgerald, of the Hudson Institute, testified before the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development of the US House of Representatives that the official Russian military doctrine revoked the no-first use doctrine in 1993. She explained that the revocation was due to the growing gap between Russian and American military technology. As a result, the Russians believe that their increasing vulnerability requires a more "brutish" strategic doctrine. (2) Such a drastic policy realignment indicates that the Russians are continuing to view security in traditional terms.
Its not the cold war anymore there wont be a conflict

Rob Huebert, Professor of Political Science/Strategic Studies Program @ University of Calgary, 2007 Canada and the Circumpolar World: Meeting the Challenges of Cooperation into the Twenty-First Century: A Critique of Chapter 4 - "Post-Cold War Cooperation in the Arctic: From Interstate Conflict to New Agendas for Security," Omitted Arctic Security Issues http://www.carc.org/calgary/a4.htm, ACC: 2.5.09, p. online
In summary, there is no doubt that the Arctic is now a much safer place than it was during the Cold War. The authors of the Standing Committee Report are correct in focusing on the new and expanded definition of security in the Arctic regions with its emphasis on environmental security. However, in accepting an expanded definition of security, it is important to remember that traditional aspects of military security still need to be considered.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
States CP
State regulations solve best
States that have received approval to administer their own permitting scheme have the capacity to set more stringent water-quality requirements than federal regulations. n149 States that have the most welldeveloped permitting regulations for aquaculture are likely those states that have historically relied on the ocean for much of their economic productivity. n150 Many of these regulations find their roots in the EPA's previous guidance with the Acadia Aquaculture permit. [*1027] 1. Maine's Regulations Maine's aquaculture laws and regulations demand much more monitoring than the federal government. On January 12, 2001, the EPA approved the State of Maine's application to administer the NPDES program. n151 Maine's subsequent aquaculture regulations emphasize regular site visits, consideration of cumulative impacts, and innovative methods to reduce nutrient enrichment. n152 Maine facilities can obtain a lease for aquaculture but only for a maximum of ten years (subject to renewal). n153 Creating limited leases for aquaculture is probably a good idea because it would allow for an area to recover after being subject to the heavy pollutants associated with aquaculture facilities. Maine mandates video surveillance because it shows potential food buildup beneath the pen. n154 When considering whether to allow an aquaculture lease, the Department of Marine Resources (DMR) looks to the anticipated "physical and ecological impact[s] of the project . . . and any adverse effects on the existing uses." n155 The DMR Commissioner may require the applicant to conduct fish and invertebrate surveys and must receive sediment-core analyses. n156 The Commissioner may also collect or mandate the collection of site-specific information including changes in the physical characteristics of the net-pen site, water-column effects, disease incidence, and other information as deemed necessary before approving a net pen system permit. n157 All this information should create a "baseline that will serve as a benchmark for monitoring the effects of farms on sediments, marine organisms, and water quality." n158 The DMR may revoke an aquaculture lease "[i]f aquaculture has been conducted in a manner substantially injurious to marine organisms, if no substantial aquaculture or research has been conducted over the course of the lease[,] or if any condition of the lease has been violated." n159 In addition, in exchange for the lease of a larger aquaculture facility, the DMR requires a fallow period of twelve to twenty-four months [*1028] (on average) to allow the area beneath net pens to recover from aquaculture activities on previously harvested areas. n160 Maine created the State of Maine Finfish Aquaculture Monitoring Program (FAMP)- an advisory panel comprised of stakeholders in the aquaculture industry, which coordinates state and federal permit application for net pen systems. n161 The primary purpose of the FAMP is to assess the impact of aquaculture farms on the ocean floor and on water quality around the net pens, to enable DMR to determine whether or not the salmon farms are in compliance with the conditions in their leases, and to allow DEP [(the Maine Department of Environmental Protection)] to determine if water quality standards are being met. n162 Thus, FAMP acts as a supplementary enforcement body. In an effort to create a more holistic management system, Maine is considering the implementation of "bay management," a program proposed by the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF). n163 Bay management is meant to encourage decision making that "facilitates adaptive management practices" for current and future use. n164 Bay management encourages local participation, shorter feedback loops between industry reporting and regulation, and provides an opportunity for people who live and work around a body of water to think prospectively about the potential impacts that might result from locating net pen systems in their area and to gather data on biological and ecological impacts. n165
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
States CP
Aquacultures are in State waters
The question of whether aquaculture constitutes a "fishing" activity pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act has been pondered for nearly as long as the Act has been in place. n11 The Act's broad definition of "fishing," which includes "harvesting" of fish and "any other activity which can reasonably be expected to result in the ... harvesting of fish" encompasses aquaculture activities. n12 Prior to 1996, there was little significance in classifying aquaculture as "fishing." The original Magnuson Act had no specific provisions for protecting fish habitat from "fishing" activities. Further, most marine aquaculture projects were, and still are, in state territorial seas (from the shoreline to three miles out), yet the original Act has traditionally been applied to managing fisheries in the federal Exclusive Economic Zone (three to two hundred miles off the shoreline). n13 Thus, under the law as it stood prior to 1996, even if aquaculture were subject to the Magnuson Act, it would have implicated only the slightest number of aquaculture ventures.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
Federalism Link
States have jurisdiction over fisheries
States have for the most part regulated fisheries off their coasts since colonial times. Congress confirmed state jurisdiction over the territorial sea by enacting the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, which adopted a model for dividing state and federal authority over the sea-bed (the area between the mean low tide and three geographic miles seaward from the low tide line of the United States coastline). n263 In essence, the Submerged Lands Act designated the three-mile territorial sea as the state boundary. n264 The Submerged Lands Act granted to the states "title to and ownership of ... natural resources," including the "right and power to manage, administer, lease, develop and use" marine resources within their boundaries." n265 It further provides that natural resources include, in addition to oil, all "fish, shrimp, oysters, clams, crabs, lobsters, sponges, kelp, and other marine animal and plant life ... ." n266 The Magnuson Act adopted the jurisdictional lines set forth in the Submerged Lands Act. n267
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
NMFS CP
1nc CP solvency
The tide for aquaculture has turned since Congress passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. The Magnuson-Stevens Act now confers NMFS clear and unwaiveable authority to address the substantiated concerns that aquaculture, as a "fishing" activity, poses for habitat essential to the nation's fisheries. NMFS' decisions to approve the Councils' EFH Plan Amendments and FMP implementing regulations that inconsistently classify aquaculture as both "fishing" and "non-fishing," and to adopt a guideline-regulation that limits its authority over "fishing" activities in state boundaries are legally and factually infirm. These policies reflect NMFS' endeavors to favor private interests in aquaculture and preserve states' turf in the fisheries arena over Congress's clear mandate to minimize the effects of all fishing activities on all essential fish habitat. The 1996 EFH habitat provision has forced NMFS to take on a number of new responsibilities, justly requiring it to prioritize measures that will have the greatest return on reducing adverse impacts on habit areas of most concern. While traditional capture fisheries have been the center of NMFS' focus, the aquaculture industry has managed to navigate around NMFS' oversight. Many would argue that NMFS is already overburdened and is too financially strapped to take on the task of regulating the aquaculture industry. However, a decision by NMFS to exercise its congressionally mandated authority would not necessarily entail that NMFS or the Councils devise a complex regulatory scheme. As noted supra, NMFS has proposed a voluntary Code of Conduct for aquaculture projects in the Exclusive Economic Zone. n307 NMFS could promulgate regulations that simply require that complying with this Code of Conduct is mandatory for any aquaculture facility located within essential fish habitat, whether in state or federal territories. Moreover, NMFS could at least prohibit new aquaculture operations from being cited in Habitat Areas of Particular Concern. Fundamentally, NMFS needs to revisit its policies on aquaculture under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Ideally, the policies should be consistent within all regions and apply to both state and federal territories, as the invisible line [*1245] between political jurisdictions means nothing to the viability of essential fish habitat and the survival of the fishery resources on which the nation's fisheries depend.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
NMFS CP
Congressional regulation of aquacultures through the NMFS would protect the marine environment
Highlighting the lack of coordination for addressing the ecological impacts of aquaculture in both state and federal territories, many advocate the need for [*1205] one federal agency to take the lead in regulating aquaculture activities. n128 It is often suggested that NMFS is best suited for this role, given NMFS expertise in marine fisheries conservation and management. n129 NOAA Fisheries, NMFS' parent agency, acknowledges that gaps exist in the current regulatory scheme and recognizes its and NMFS' responsibility as experts in fisheries to oversee aquaculture's impact on the marine environment. n130 However, NMFS has been reluctant to assert much authority over the industry. n131 While NMFS has advised that national standards in the form of "best management practices" should be adopted, n132 it is pursuing an optional rather than legally enforceable scheme. In August 2002, NMFS officially proposed "A Code of Conduct for Responsible Aquaculture in the [*1206] U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone" (Code of Conduct), and intends that the principles and standards within this voluntary Code of Conduct, including best management practices, will provide guidance for companies engaged in aquaculture activities in U.S. offshore waters. n133 Skepticism is frequently raised when voluntary codes of conduct are adopted in lieu of binding and enforceable measures. n134 Such skepticism is particularly founded when an ecological condition is in need of restoration and not merely convenient caution - as Congress has declared is the case for habitats essential to the nation's fisheries. n135 Ideally, Congress should enact specific legislation that establishes a substantive regulatory scheme for addressing the environmental concerns over aquaculture and appoint NMFS as the lead administering agency. However, the current political climate makes this an unlikely possibility. n136 Nonetheless, the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides NMFS with clear statutory authority and in fact establishes a duty for NMFS to regulate aquaculture in the interest of protecting essential marine habitat in both state and federal waters. NMFS' efforts would be more worthwhile if it incorporated the general guidelines in [*1207] its voluntary Code of Conduct into specific enforceable regulations promulgated under its authority pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
More ev Magnusson Stevens would solve

The Magnuson-Stevens Act embodies principles of "ecosystem manage-ment," and authorizes NMFS to adopt ecosystem-based approaches for managing the nation's ocean and coastal resources. n137 More than any of the aforementioned federal environmental laws, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in its recently amended state, provides mechanisms for protecting marine habitat essential to the nation's fisheries, including substantive controls on the siting of aquaculture projects in areas of particular concern. n138
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
LOST Arctic CP
US ratification of the Law of the Sea is necessary to stabilize the arctic
Scott G. Borgerson, International Affairs Fellow @ the Council on Foreign Relations and a Former Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Coast Guard, March/April 2008 Arctic Meltdown, Foreign Affairs, p. L/N
While the other Arctic powers are racing to carve up the region, the United States has remained largely on the sidelines. The U.S. Senate has not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the leading international treaty on maritime rights, even though President George W. Bush, environmental nongovernmental organizations, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard service chiefs, and leading voices in the private sector support the convention. As a result, the United States cannot formally assert any rights to the untold resources off Alaska's northern coast beyond its exclusive economic zone -- such zones extend for only 200 nautical miles from each Arctic state's shore -- nor can it join the UN commission that adjudicates such claims. Worse, Washington has forfeited its ability to assert sovereignty in the Arctic by allowing its icebreaker fleet to atrophy. The United States today funds a navy as large as the next 17 in the world combined, yet it has just one seaworthy oceangoing icebreaker -- a vessel that was built more than a decade ago and that is not optimally configured for Arctic missions. Russia, by comparison, has a fleet of 18 icebreakers. And even China operates one icebreaker, despite its lack of Arctic waters. Through its own neglect, the world's sole superpower -- a country that borders the Bering Strait and possesses over 1,000 miles of Arctic coastline -- has been left out in the cold. Washington cannot afford to stand idly by. The Arctic region is not currently governed by any comprehensive multilateral norms and regulations because it was never expected to become a navigable waterway or a site for large-scale commercial development. Decisions made by Arctic powers in the coming years will therefore profoundly shape the future of the region for decades. Without U.S. leadership to help develop diplomatic solutions to competing claims and potential conflicts, the region could erupt in an armed mad dash for its resources.
US ratification of Law of the Sea is necessary to solve Arctic issues

But even as it pushes for a multilateral diplomatic solution, the United States should undertake a unilateral effort to shore up U.S. interests in the Arctic. The few in the United States who still stubbornly oppose U.S. accession to UNCLOS claim that by ratifying the treaty Washington would cede too much U.S. sovereignty and that customary international law and a powerful navy already allow the United States to protect its Arctic interests. But these are not enough. The United States is the only major country that has failed to ratify UNCLOS, and Washington is therefore left on the outside looking in as a nonmember to various legal and technical bodies. In addition to becoming a party to the convention, the United States must publish an updated Arctic policy, invest in ice-mapping programs, and breathe new life into its inefficient, uncompetitive shipyards, thus enabling it to update the country's geriatric icebreaker fleet, as soon as possible.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
LOST Arctic CP
More ev Law of the Sea necessary to solve arctic conflict
There are few legal frameworks that offer guidance. The Arctic Council does exist to address environmental issues, but it has remained silent on the most pressing challenges facing the region because the United States purposefully emasculated it at birth, in 1996, by prohibiting it from addressing security concerns. Many observers argue that UNCLOS is the correct tool to manage the thawing Arctic. The convention provides mechanisms for states to settle boundary disputes and submit claims for additional resources beyond their exclusive economic zones. Furthermore, UNCLOS sets aside the resources in the high seas as the common heritage of humankind, it allows states bordering ice-covered waters to enforce more stringent environmental regulations, and it defines which seaways are the sovereign possessions of states and which international passages are open to unfettered navigation.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
Food Prices Link

Aquaculture key to low food prices
It should be noted that aquaculture production of salmon and shrimp has been increasing steadily, even in the face of declining prices. Guttormsen (2002) explains that such a phenomenon is evidence of productivity gains in the aquaculture sector, meaning that expansion has been possible due to the ability of farmers to substantially lower production costs. The difference in the structure of costs between aquaculture and wild fisheries has important implications. In the traditional fisheries, the primary costs are labor, fuel and fleet maintenance. In the aquaculture sector, the primary costs are feed and fingerlings. This distinction is important, as aquaculture has immense opportunities to reduce costs through genetics research and feed substitutions. In contrast, fisheries have less room for cost improvement unless a move is made towards more efficient management; e.g., rights-based fishing (Anderson, 2003). All of this comes down to a matter of better management, biotechnology and related factors. The most impressive achievements have been attained in salmon aquaculture, but there is still much room for improvement with regard to production of tilapia and other new species. This trend will enable aquaculture to continue recording gains in market share at the expense of wild-caught species.
Farmed salmon prove that aquacultures are key to lower food prices
Most cointegration-analysis studies examining the price interactions between wild and farmed species have been conducted with respect to salmon. Results of these studies are consistent with previous demand analyses and indicate that different salmon species and product forms are close substitutes (e.g., Asche et al., 1999; Clayton and Gordon, 1999; Gordon et al., 1993). An important conclusion is that increased production of farmed salmon has had a substantial impact on the markets and prices for wild Pacific salmon. Asche et al. (1999) attributed declining prices in the world salmon market throughout the 1990s to the remarkable increases in productivity in the farmed salmon industry. Similarly, Clayton and Gordon (1999) supported the existence of an equilibrium price system in the U.S. market for farmed Atlantic and wild Chinook and Coho salmon.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
Food Prices Link

Farmed fish key to stable fish food prices
The trends of falling prices and increasing concentration of consumption are explained by the fact that growing markets and growing trade will be secured by those who can consistently deliver a high-quality product at stable or declining costs. In the seafood sector, this is what aquaculture producers have been doing for the past few decades. It can also be argued that sector diversity in the future is going to come from the sauce (i.e.; the value-added component of the fish) and from image issues such as ecolabeling, rather than being created through the production of a large number of species (Anderson and Valderrama 2007). Thus, despite the fact that hundreds of different species are harvested - and will continue to be harvested - around the planet, in proportional terms more and more of the supply is going to be concentrated in fewer and fewer species. Likewise, more and more of the diversity is going to come from the marketers because, as they take control of and manage the fish, they can market it better and start selling additional attributes. By contrast, the traditional fisheries sector is going to experience many more difficulties in this category. Aquaculture operations tend to be managed for production and marketing control. Conversely, the wild sector is managed towards restricting access and harvesting the right amount to meet conservation goals. However, they are still failing to manage for quality and the market; yet, it is clear that the sector that manages for these two factors will attain greater market success.
Fish prices will rise

Under these circumstances, Delgado et al. (2003) conclude that prices for seafood, relative to other kinds of meat, will rise by about 20%. The primary driver for this increase will be demand in developing countries, which will occur because capture fisheries have reached the limit of what they can take from the oceans, while aquaculture is unlikely to be able to make up the gap. Moreover, demand for certain food crops to produce biofuel is now leading to price increases in a broad spectrum of food products worldwide. When superimposed on the outlook for seafood, this suggests even larger future seafood price increases as well as higher feed costs for those who grow any sort of livestock.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
Congress Likes Plan

Cutting subsidies for aquaculture is really popular with congress
Paul Molyneaux, Former Professional Fisher, 2004, Aquaculture Moves Offshore, http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF2102/Molyneaux/Molyneaux.html, ACC: 12.28.08, p. online
McVey sees the environmental community as the key obstacle to future development. "The environmental question is what's on everyone's mind," he said. Since 2001, Sea Grant has received an extra $2.6 to 5 million annually for open ocean aquaculture development. But in 2003, the agency lost that funding. Speaking from his Washington, DC, office, McVey blamed the current state of affairs on environmental lobbyists on Capital Hill. "The environmental side has spent millions fighting us," he said. "We don't have anything in our budget to get our side of the story out." The story, according to McVey, is that world fisheries landings have stalled at near 100 million tons annually. If the burgeoning human race, predicted to reach 8 billion by 2025, plans to continue eating seafood, then the additional production will have to come from aquaculture.
MIAMI DEBATE
aquaculture neg
vinson
__ /__
New

No Solvency: Miami Debate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

No Solvency: Miami Debate

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

No Solvency: Miami Debate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MIAMI DEBATE

No Solvency US Not Key

Plan cant solve global aquaculture

World market growth has a larger impact than U.S. aquaculture

No Solvency US Not Key

Aqua Good (Generic)

Aqua Good (Overfishing)

Aquaculture key to solve overfishing

Aqua Good Overfishing Extn

Aqua Good (Food)

Aquaculture key to solve food shortages

Aqua Good Food Extns

Aquaculture key to food production

Aquaculture key to supply fish catch fisheries cant produce

Aqua Good Food Extns

Aquacultures key to stable fish supply

Aqua Good Food Extns

More evidence key to avoid fish shortages

Aqua Good (Crunch)

Aqua Good Crunch Extns

Aqua Good (Trade)

Aqua Good (Environment)

The benefits of aquaculture on key environments far outweighs the negatives

A2 Aqua Hurts Environment

Aqua Good (Poverty)

Aqua Good (Fish Industry)

Aqua Good Fish Industry Extns

Close proximity will allow US aquacultures to dominate the market

US infrastructure offsets any potential market disadvantages for US aquaculture

Aqua Good Fish Industry Extns

Globalization will inevitably effect US fishers regardless of U.S. aquaculture

Aqua Good Fish Industry Extns

Aqua Good Fish Industry Extns

Aquaculture key to the economy

Aqua Good (Energy)

Its not the cold war anymore there wont be a conflict

More ev Magnusson Stevens would solve

US ratification of Law of the Sea is necessary to solve Arctic issues

Food Prices Link

Food Prices Link

Fish prices will rise

Congress Likes Plan

You might also like