Fish Aff (ADI)

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 1
Russell’s Lab Fish Aff
Fish Aff
Fish Aff............................................................................................................................................................................1
1AC (1/12)......................................................................................................................................................................4
1AC (2/12)......................................................................................................................................................................5
1AC (3/12)......................................................................................................................................................................6
1AC (4/12)......................................................................................................................................................................7
1AC (5/12)......................................................................................................................................................................8
1AC (6/12)......................................................................................................................................................................9
1AC (7/12)....................................................................................................................................................................10
1AC (8/12).....................................................................................................................................................................11
1AC (9/12)....................................................................................................................................................................12
1AC (10/12)..................................................................................................................................................................13
1AC (11/12)...................................................................................................................................................................14
1AC (12/12)..................................................................................................................................................................15
Topicality – Subsidies Don’t Include Vessel Decommissioning...................................................................................17
Topicality – Fisheries Includes Aquaculture.................................................................................................................18
Topicality – Subsidies Exclude “Normal Benefits”......................................................................................................19
Topicality – Subsidies are Confusing – Reasonability..................................................................................................20
Topicality – Subsidies are Limited................................................................................................................................21
Topicality – Subsidies – A2: FAO Definition...............................................................................................................22
Subsidies Bad – Overfishing (1/9)................................................................................................................................23
Overfishing – Up Now (1/3).........................................................................................................................................32
Overfishing – A2: SQ Solves........................................................................................................................................35
Overfishing – Solvency – A2: Post-Brink.....................................................................................................................36
Overfishing – A2: Fisheries Resilient (1/2)..................................................................................................................37
Overfishing – A2: Piracy T/O Solvency.......................................................................................................................39
Overfishing – A2: Migration Solves.............................................................................................................................40
Overfishing – A2: Species Extinction Long Timeframe...............................................................................................41
Overfishing – A2: Fish High on Food Chain................................................................................................................42
Overfishing – A2: Other Countries Key.......................................................................................................................43
Overfishing – A2: Warming Key..................................................................................................................................44
Overfishing – Ecosystem Collapse (1/4)......................................................................................................................45
Overfishing – Ecosystem Collapse – Predators Key....................................................................................................49
Overfishing – Ecosystem Collapse – Oceans Impact (1/4)...........................................................................................50
Overfishing – Ecosystem Collapse – Extinction (1/4)..................................................................................................54
Overfishing – Ecosystem Collapse – AT: Resilient: Tipping Point..............................................................................58
Overfishing – Ecosystem Collapse – AT: Resilient: Deep-Water.................................................................................59
Overfishing – Coral Reefs.............................................................................................................................................60
Overfishing – Fish Wars................................................................................................................................................61
Overfishing – Famine....................................................................................................................................................62
Overfishing – Famine – MoB.......................................................................................................................................63
Overfishing – Poverty (1/3)..........................................................................................................................................64
Overfishing – Poverty – Impact....................................................................................................................................67
Trawling Advantage – Subsidies Key...........................................................................................................................68
Trawling Advantage – Destroys Deep Sea....................................................................................................................69
Trawling Advantage – Sharks.......................................................................................................................................70
Trawling Advantage – Marine Species (1/3).................................................................................................................71
Trawling Advantage – Coral Reefs...............................................................................................................................74
Trawling Advantage – Coral Reefs...............................................................................................................................75
Bycatch – Subsidies Key...............................................................................................................................................76
Bycatch – Impacts.........................................................................................................................................................77
Bycatch – US Key.........................................................................................................................................................78
Longlining Advantage – It’s Up....................................................................................................................................79
Longlining Advantage – Subsidies Key........................................................................................................................80
Longlining Advantage – Marine Ecosystems Impact...................................................................................................81
Longlining Advantage – Sea Turtles Impact.................................................................................................................82
Longlining Advantage – Shark Impact.........................................................................................................................83
Salmon Advantage – Subsidies Key (1/3).....................................................................................................................84
Salmon Impacts – Species Loss (1/2)...........................................................................................................................87
Salmon Impacts – Economy (1/2).................................................................................................................................89
Tuna Advantage – US Key............................................................................................................................................91
Turtles Advantage – Trawling Links.............................................................................................................................92
Turtles Advantage – Longlining Links..........................................................................................................................93
Turtles Advantage – Species Impacts............................................................................................................................94
Turtles Advantage – Econ Impacts................................................................................................................................95
Turtles Advantage – US Key.........................................................................................................................................96
A2: Aquaculture Turn – NUQ – Aquaculture Up (1/2).................................................................................................97
A2: Aquaculture Turn – Link Turn: Subsidies Key......................................................................................................99
A2: Aquaculture Turn – No Impact: Ecosystems (1/3)...............................................................................................100
A2: Aquaculture Turn – A2: US Key..........................................................................................................................103
A2: Aquaculture Turn – Impact Turn – Econ..............................................................................................................104
A2: Aquaculture Turn – Impact Turn – Food..............................................................................................................105
A2: Aquaculture Turn – No Impact: Ecosystems........................................................................................................106
A2: Food Prices – Prices Up (1/3)..............................................................................................................................107
A2: Food Prices – Turn: Subsidies Increase Prices.....................................................................................................110
A2: Econ DA – UQ – Fishing Industry Down............................................................................................................112
A2: Econ DA – Link Turn: Fishing Industry (1/7)......................................................................................................113
A2: Econ DA – A2: Access Payments Link................................................................................................................120
A2: Econ DA – No I/L – Fisheries Not Key...............................................................................................................121
A2: Econ DA – Florida Econ Down...........................................................................................................................122
A2: Econ DA – A2: Fishing Key to FL Economy.......................................................................................................124
A2: Econ DA – Florida Resilient................................................................................................................................125
A2: Econ DA – A2: Florida Key to U.S./Global Econ...............................................................................................126
A2: Vessel Decomissioning Good (1/3)......................................................................................................................127
A2: Vessel Construction Subsidies Good....................................................................................................................130
A2: Capacity Reduction Subsidies Good....................................................................................................................131
A2: Conservation Subsidies Good..............................................................................................................................132
A2: Buyback Subsidies Good.....................................................................................................................................133
A2: Vessel Construction Subsidies Good....................................................................................................................134
A2: R&D Subsidies Good (1/2)..................................................................................................................................135
A2: Fuel Subsidies Good (1/3)....................................................................................................................................137
A2: Fuel Subsidies Good – Econ................................................................................................................................140
A2: Fuel Subsidies Good – A2: Coastal Fishing Bad – Deep Sea Fishing Key.........................................................141
A2: Management CP – No Modeling..........................................................................................................................142
A2: Management CP – Subsidies Key (1/2)...............................................................................................................143
A2: Management CP – No Solvency (1/5)..................................................................................................................145
A2: Marine Reserves CP – Perm Solvency.................................................................................................................150
A2: Marine Reserves CP – No Solvency – Overfishing (1/4)....................................................................................151
A2: Marine Reserves CP – No Solvency – Sharks ....................................................................................................155
A2: Marine Reserves CP – No Solvency – Coral.......................................................................................................156
A2: Marine Reserves CP – No Solvency – Land Based.............................................................................................157
A2: Marine Reserves CP – Turn: Bycatch..................................................................................................................158
A2: Marine Reserves CP – Turn: Species Shift..........................................................................................................160
A2: Marine Reserves CP – Turn: Anthropocentrism (1/2)..........................................................................................161
A2: ITQ CP – = Overfishing (1/2)..............................................................................................................................163
A2: ITQ CP – Turn: Bycatch.......................................................................................................................................165
A2: ITQ CP – A2: Solves Subsidies Harms................................................................................................................166
A2: ITQ CP – A2: Industry Net Ben...........................................................................................................................167
A2: ITQ CP – Turn: Small Fishers..............................................................................................................................168
A2: ITQs – Subsidies Key..........................................................................................................................................169
US Key (1/3)...............................................................................................................................................................170
A2: WTO CP – No Solvency – Technical Issues (1/2)...............................................................................................173
A2: WTO CP – No International Agreement..............................................................................................................175
A2: WTO CP – No Solvency: DOHA.........................................................................................................................176
A2: WTO CP – Relations............................................................................................................................................177
A2: WTO CP – Japan/EU Relations...........................................................................................................................178
A2: WTO CP – Japan Relations..................................................................................................................................179
1AC (1/12)
US fish stocks down, overfishing up
PEW 8 (Marine Fish Conservation Network, http://www.oceanlegacy.org/pdfs/ocean-conservation-2008.pdf)

Scientists estimate that fish stocks in U.S. waters have been declining for at least 30 years, and two blue
ribbon panels, the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, recently concluded
that our oceans and fisheries are in crisis. In the United States, problems began in the mid-1950s with the
increased mechanization of commercial fishing. The decades of the ’80s and ’90s followed with the high-
profile collapse of key stocks, including Atlantic bluefin tuna and New England cod. Some stocks may
have plummeted beyond recovery and others may be nearing collapse. Similar miscalculations resulted
in the severe depletion of several species of Pacific rockfish and red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. In
some cases, fishing resumed prematurely when a species was thought to be recovering, only to plunge it back
into decline. In addition to the environmental damage, this repeated boom-or-bust cycle disrupted lives
and livelihoods in coastal communities. In its 2007 Status of U.S. Fisheries Fourth Quarter Report, NMFS
reported that 41 fish stocks were subject to overfishing, nearly a fifth of our most important
commercial fish stocks.7 However, NMFS has not conducted scientific assessments on the majority of fish
stocks.8 Overfishing may be depleting many of these “unknown” fisheries.
Subsidies are the sole cause of overfishing
Saunders 7 (Doug, the chief of the Globe and Mail's London-based European Bureau, “A dose of global cod-liver oil”, May 26 )
th
To find out, Mr. Sumaila spent a decade building up two huge databases, using hordes of research assistants
travelling the world. One database showed the price of each type of fish in every nation since 1955; the other
showed exactly what each country's fishermen were being paid for. This, combined with Mr. Pauly's fish-stocks
databases, allowed him to see why the fish were disappearing. What he discovered, and documented in a series of
fascinating research reports last year, is that the self-balancing nature of fishing is thrown out of kilter by the
widespread government practice of giving fishermen subsidies for boat building and, especially, fuel. This money,
which he described as "bad subsidies," are exactly equivalent to the scale of overfishing - the subsidies make the
difference between a renewable resource and a dying resource. Not only that, but fuel subsidies, he discovered, are
responsible for the continuation of the most devastating practice in fishing, bottom trawling, which tears up the sea
and destroys species. Countries pay $152-million a year in fuel subsidies to trawlers, which accounts for 25 per cent
of their income. And the profit they make is only 10 per cent. "Without subsidies," he concluded, "the bulk of the
world's bottom-trawl fleet [would] operate at a loss, thereby reducing the current threat to ... fish stocks." Without
"bad" subsidies, which amount to $20-billion a year worldwide, there would be fewer people in the fishing business
around the world. But Mr. Sumaila concluded that this process would actually give the world more fish. "There is a
potential to actually increase the catch if we can agree to reduce the scale in the short term," he said, "and avoid
subsidizing the industry too much in the long term." It seems like an ideal solution. Governments don't like paying
taxpayer subsidies to industries - they do it because they believe that without them they'll lose the industry and its
political support.
1AC (2/12)
Even conservation subsidies increase overfishing
Cox 3 [Anthony, Senior Analyst at OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/27/24320313.PDF]

Subsidies for vessel decommissioning are often viewed as one mechanism for overcoming the excess
capacity problem. In general, these subsidies are payments for permanent vessel withdrawal through buyback programs, permanent licence
withdrawal and transfer of vessels to other fisheries (either domestically or internationally). It is one of the largest items of government financial transfers in
OECD countries after expenditure on management, research, enforcement and infrastructure (Figure 2). The design and implementation of decommissioning
and licence schemes varies significantly both between and within countries. For example, some countries require that decommissioning payments be tied to
the physical scrapping of vessels while others allow vessels to be shifted to another fishery (in which case the payment is for the removal of capacity from a
particular fishery rather than reducing the overall capacity in the country or globally). Other schemes are intended to remove latent capacity instead of
capacity that is currently engaged in fishing. Therehas been significant debate about the efficacy of many of these
schemes in achieving their objectives both from an environmental and economic perspective (Arnason 1999; Holland, Gudmundsson and
Gates 1999; Munro and Sumaila 1999). If there are no controls in place in a fishery, then such subsidies will have no effect on
fish stocks as new vessels will enter the fishery to replace the scrapped vessels.10 If there are catch controls, the effect on fish
stocks will be zero as, in the absence of barriers to entry, the vessels being decommissioned would be replaced by new vessels. If the fishery
is initially over-fished, then the subsidies will have no effect on stocks unless the allowable catch is also reduced. Such a
combination of policy changes would have the effect of reducing capacity, reducing catches and increasing stocks. In the case of rights-based regimes, the
effects of vessel decommissioning schemes on fish stocks would be negligible. The owners of the quota or effort rights would primarily benefit from
capacity leaving the fishery. The provision of decommissioning subsidies also has an impact on the risk faced by fishers in their investment and production
decisions. The
existence of vessel and licence buy-back programs can create expectations in the industry
that the government will cover losses that may arise from excess investment in vessels, thereby reducing
the risk-adjusted discount rate used in making investment decisions. Munro and Sumaila (2001, p. 25) conclude that
subsidies used in vessel buyback schemes, if they come to be widely anticipated by industry, “can, and
will, have a decidedly negative impact” on resource management and sustainability.
Capacity reduction subsidies hurt the smallest fishers, exacerbating poverty
Cox & Schmidt 7 (6-4, Andrew & Carl, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/40/2507604.pdf)

Policies aimed at reducing fishing capacity or effort in one fishery can lead to spillover effects
into other fisheries, either within a particular country or to other countries. In many cases, this has been an
unintended consequence of the capacity reduction programmes. In other cases, deliberate policies have
been pursued to shift capacity into other fisheries. The export of capacity to third countries (outside the
OECD) and to the high seas has also been of concern. The extent to which capacity-reduction programmes
implemented by OECD countries have exacerbated these problems is unclear at this stage and requires
further investigation. Such capacity shifts can exacerbate problems in the fisheries to which the excess
capacity relocates. If there are controls on inputs and outputs in the fisheries receiving the excess capacity, it
can be expected that the participants will benefit from cheaper capital and the fishery will not generally be
worse off in terms of resource sustainability (although economic problems such as race-to-fish may persist or
intensify). If, however, the capacity shifts to a fishery where there is ineffective management then there can
be problems with respect to resource sustainability as well as economic profitability. Temporarily solving
the capacity problem in one fishery may be at the expense of another fishery.
1AC (3/12)
Research subsidies make dangerous fishing practices profitable – Their risks outweigh
their benefits

Successful fisheries management plans must be based on knowledge about the fish stocks involved and
the ecosystem in which they are embedded. The better the research the greater is the potential success of
the fisheries management plan, although there are likely to be diminishing marginal returns to research at
some point. In most countries, the government meets the costs of research while some countries, such as
Australia and New Zealand, are recovering some of the costs of research from industry (OECD 2003b). The
government provision of research reduces the costs of the industry as they would otherwise have to
bear the costs themselves. A usual justification for the public provision of research is that it is a public
good and that the benefits from the research flow beyond the fishing sector to the broader community.
While this is true for many kinds of research (such as general research into ecosystem functioning, etc), it
is not necessarily universally the case. Some forms of research may have a significant impact on the
input costs of fishing operators. For example, research into improved gear technology, gear selectivity
and so on is primarily directed at improving the productivity of fishing operations. Much of this
research benefits the industry directly and it is not clear that the public good arguments usually
associated with publicly funded research necessarily apply (Arnason and Sutinen 2003; Cox 2003). The
extent to which research can be classed as a public good is therefore something of a grey area. In the case of
deep-sea fisheries, there is a strong justification for undertaking publicly-funded research into the basic
biology and dynamics of the target fish stocks and supporting ecosystem. In the absence of government
intervention, there is unlikely to be sufficient investment in research into these areas by the private sector.
However, there appears to be less rationale for government support for research aimed at improving
the productivity of fleets targeting deep-sea species, such as research into improved fish-finding
technology, the refinement of gear for deep-water fishing and the exploration of new fishing grounds
Fuel subsidies allow exploitation of deep water fisheries. Destructive techniques threaten
vulnerable species and ancient corrals. Removing fuel subsidies would make deep sea
fishing unfeasible, promoting fishing of more resilient coastal species
Fleming 7 Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent in San Francisco “Scientists call for fuel subsidies ban to protect
fish” 19/02/2007 http://www.seaaroundus.org/newspapers/2007/Telegraph_ScientistsCallForFuelSubsidiesBan.pdf
Scientists have called for a worldwide ban on fuel subsidies paid to deep-sea fishing boats that are
putting vulnerable species at risk and damaging corals. Because many types of fish are declining in
shallow coastal waters across the world, fishing fleets are increasingly active in deep international waters.
Most of the high seas catch from deeper waters is carried out by bottom trawling which involves
dragging massive nets along the sea bed – a practice which can destroy deep- sea corals and sponge beds
that have taken centuries or millennia to grow. Fish such as orange roughy, roundnose grenadiers, black
scabbardfish and deep-water sharks live longer and reproduce later than shallow waters species, and so are
more vulnerable to steep declines in populations. Canadian researchers recently produced a report
showing much deep sea fishing is only profitable because of subsidies. … “From an ecological
perspective we cannot afford to destroy the deep-sea. From an economic perspective, deep-sea fisheries
cannot occur without government subsides. And the bottom line is that current deep fisheries are not
sustainable.” … “With globalised markets, the economic drivers of over-fishing are physically removed and
so fishermen have no stake in the natural systems they affect. “While it may be a good short-term business
practice to fish out stocks and move on, we now see global declines of targeted species. “The solution is not
going into the deep-sea, but better managing the shallow waters where fish live fast and die young but
ecosystems have a greater potential for resilience.”
1AC (4/12)
Fish are a crucial source of global food stocks
UN FAO 6 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ,The State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture - 2006 (SOFIA), http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/A0699e/A0699E05.htm#5.1.3)
Global per capita fish16 consumption has increased over the past four decades, rising from 9.0 kg in
1961 to an estimated 16.5 kg in 2003. China has been responsible for most of this increase: its estimated share of world fish
production grew from 21 percent in 1994 to 34 percent in 2003, when its per capita fish supply stood at around 25.8 kg. If China is
excluded, the per capita fish supply is about 14.2 kg, almost the same as during the mid-1980s. During the 1990s, world per capita fish
supply, excluding China, was relatively stable at 13.2-13.8 kg. this can mainly be attributed to a higher population growth than that of
food fish supply during the 1990s (1.6 percent per annum compared with 1.1 percent, respectively). Since the early 2000s, there
has been an inversion of this trend, with higher food fish supply growth than that of population (2.4 percent per
annum compared with 1.1 percent). Preliminary estimates for 2004 indicate a slight increase of global per capita fish supply, to about
16.6 kg.
Global per capita food consumption has also been improving in recent decades. Nutritional standards
have shown positive long-term trends with worldwide increases in the average global calorie supply
per person (a rise of 16 percent since 1969–71 to reach 2 795 kcal/person/day in 2000-02, with the developing country average
expanding by more than 25 percent) and in the quantity of proteins per person (from 65.1 g in 1970 to 76.3 g in 2003). Yet
distributional disparities continue to exist. In 2001-03, according to FAO estimates, 856 million people in the world were
undernourished, 61 percent of whom were living in Asia and the Pacific and 820 million in the developing countries overall. The highest
prevalence of undernourishment is found in sub-Saharan Africa, where 32 percent of the population were undernourished, while an
estimated 16 percent of the population were estimated to be undernourished in Asia and the Pacific.
Fish is highly nutritious, rich in micronutrients, minerals, essential fatty acids and proteins, and
represents a valuable supplement to diets otherwise lacking essential vitamins and minerals. In many
countries, especially developing countries, the average per capita fish consumption may be low, but,
even in small quantities, fish can have a significant positive impact on improving the quality of dietary
protein by complementing the essential amino acids that are often present only in low quantities in vegetable-based diets. It is estimated that fish
contributes up to 180 kilocalories per person per day, but reaches such high levels only in a few countries where there is a lack of alternative foods, and
where a preference for fish has been developed and maintained (for example in Iceland, Japan and some small island developing states). Generally, on
average, fish provides about 20–30 kilocalories per person per day. The dietary contribution of fish is more significant in terms of fish proteins,
which are
a crucial component in some densely populated countries where total protein intake levels
may be low. For instance, fish contributes to, or exceeds, 50 percent of total animal protein intake in some small island developing states, as well as in Bangladesh, Equatorial
Guinea, the Gambia, Guinea, Indonesia, Myanmar, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Sri Lanka. Globally, fish provides more than 2.8 billion people with almost 20 percent of their average
per capita intake of animal protein. The contribution of fish proteins to total world animal protein supplies rose from 13.7 percent in 1961 to a peak of 16.0 percent in 1996, before
declining somewhat to 15.5 percent in 2003. Corresponding figures for the world, excluding China, show an increase from 12.9 percent in 1961 to 15.4 percent in 1989, slightly
declining since then to 14.6 percent in 2003. Figure 22 presents the contributions of major food groups to total protein supplies.
Starvation kills billions –We have a moral obligation to act
Andre 92 (Claire and Velasquez, Manuel Markkula Center for Applied Ethics Andre and Velasquez are professors at SCU
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n1/hunger.html Spring)
Between now and tomorrow morning, 40,000 children will starve to death. The day after tomorrow, 40,000
more children will die, and so on throughout 1992. In a "world of plenty," the number of human beings
dying or suffering from hunger, malnutrition, and hunger-related diseases is staggering. According to
the World Bank, over 1 billion people—at least one quarter of the world's population—live in poverty.
Over half of these people live in South Asia; most of the remainder in sub-Saharan Africa and East
Asia. Many maintain that the citizens of rich nations have a moral obligation to aid poor nations. First, some
have argued, all persons have a moral obligation to prevent harm when doing so would not cause
comparable harm to themselves. It is clear that suffering and death from starvation are harms. It is
also clear that minor financial sacrifices on the part of people of rich nations can prevent massive
amounts of suffering and death from starvation. Thus, they conclude, people in rich nations have a
moral obligation to aid poor nations. Every week more than a quarter of a million children die from
malnutrition and illness. Many of these deaths are preventable.
1AC (5/12)
Overfishing impoverishes millions globally – Rich nations’ policies depress their income
Hall 6 (Ronnie, Society for International Development. Hall is a member of Friends of the Earth International
www.sidint.org/development 2006)
Negotiations in the fisheries sector show the same entrenched bias towards industrial interests. Global fish
stocks are already in a dire state, primarily because of increased fishing by distant water fishing fleets
from industrialized countries. WTO negotiations to liberalize the sector further may exacerbate an already
serious situation. Yet environmental and developmental concerns get short shrift in the WTO. Little attention
seems to have been paid to the fact that fishing generates food and finance for millions worldwide. Over
38 million people are involved in fisheries globally and over 80 per cent of these are employed in small-
scale artisanal fishing (FAO, 2004a, b), with 20 per cent of the world’s full-time fisherfolk earning less
than US$1per day (Sharma et al 2005). In other words, fisherfolk, especially women fishers, are
overwhelmingly poor and completely dependent on the state of fish stocks. Yet the world’s supply of
fish is already nearly exhausted, with over 70 per cent of wild fish stocks fully exploited, overexploited or
depleted. Any additional overfishing ^ which could be triggered through trade liberalization
agreements ^ will cause species to become commercially extinct and seriously hinder the process of their
regeneration. Local fishers and poor fishing communities will continue to suffer the impact of dying
seas, as large commercial fleets take the highest quality fish. And cheap fish imports will be dumped in
even larger quantities in many coastal countries, making it impossible for fishers to sell their catch
locally.
Poverty is worse than global thermonuclear war and genocide.
Gilligan 96 (James, Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic Gilligan is a faculty member of the Harvard University
Dept of Psychology)
"[E]very fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be
killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as
many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews
over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating,
thermonuclear war, or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the
world."
1AC (6/12)
Marine environments around the United States are now dead zones. Overfishing kills the
top predators unbalancing the food chain leading to a great oceanic collapse
Guterl 3; With Kristin Kovner and Emily Flynn, “Troubled Seas” Newsweek, July 14 Fred)
On the one hand, that means the oceans are interrelated--and thus that the removal of predators can have
far-reaching effects. But it reveals nothing about the lower layers of the food chain. Scientists have only
piecemeal examples of what happens when marine eco-systems become unbalanced. The collapse of the cod
fisheries in the North Atlantic has been a boon to shrimp and sea urchins, the cod's prey. It's given
urchins free rein to devour the kelp forests, turning vast stretches of the sea floor into "urchin
barrens." In a study of coastal ecosystems two years ago, Jackson found overfishing of predators, rather
than pollution and global warming, to be the probable cause of oceanic "dead zones"--areas of complete
ecosystem collapse, where microbes fill the void left by fish and invertebrates.
Dead zones are found in the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay and the Baltic and Adriatic seas, and
they're spreading to the open oceans. Coral reefs in the Caribbean have been hurt by overfishing of algae-eating fish, such as parrot fish.
Sea urchins took up the slack for years, but when a disease outbreak wiped them out the corals grew fuzzy and green with algae, and died.
Since so little is known about marine ecosystems, scientists are reluctant to speculate where all this might lead. It doesn't take much imagination, though, to
If overfishing continues for the big predators, it's possible that many of them
extrapolate from what we do know.
may fall below a critical mass and lose the ability to reproduce, sending populations into a downward
spiral. That would throw millions of people who depend on the fishing industry out of work. If the cod
and herring fisheries are any guide, the damage would take decades to reverse. It would be a global crisis;
treaties would be signed; --the United Nations would be granted the power to enforce fishing bans--and
we'd all wait out the decades hoping the fish would return. But they might not, ever. The removal of so many
big fish could have a ripple effect, killing off invertebrate and microbial life forms we haven't even
heard of yet, but which serve as essential links in the food web. How long would it take--50 years? 100?--
to find that cod, tuna, halibut, mackerel, marlin and other big fish were creatures only of farms or museums?
Specifically, US trawling undermines critical coral reefs and kills unique sea turtle
Oceana 7 (http://www.oceana.org/north-america/what-we-do/stop-dirty-fishing/about/)
Trawls are large, cone-shaped nets that are towed along the bottom of the ocean, sweeping up just about
anything in their path. Through their actions, they clearcut the sea floor, which destroys ecosystems
that may have taken centuries to form (i.e. coral and rocky reefs, seagrass beds, etc.) and eliminates
hiding places that many marine species depend on for protection. It is estimated that trawlers annually scrape close to 6
million square miles of ocean floor. Globally, shrimp trawlers catch and throw back between five and 10 pounds of dead marine life for every pound of
Annually, in the U.S. South Atlantic and
shrimp landed. In all, shrimp fishing accounts for 35 percent of the world's unwanted catch.
Gulf of Mexico, shrimping operations reportedly discard as much as 2.5 billion pounds of fish while
drowning thousands of endangered and threatened sea turtles. Each year as the shrimp fishery season
opens off the coast of Texas, hundreds of sea turtles killed by shrimp trawl nets wash up on south Texas
beaches.
Coral reefs are critical to human survival.
McMichael 3 (Anthony J, National Centre of Epidemiology and Population Health Director,

http://books.google.com/books?id=tQFYJjDEwhIC&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=coral+reefs+critical+human+surv
ival&source=web&ots=PpvyXNZ_Ve&sig=HuTi0RaOUUfhEhs1_zYoDQhJFz0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&re
snum=4&ct=result#PPP1,M1)
Coral reefs are one of the most threatened global ecosystems and also one of the most vital. They offer
critical support to human survival, especially in developing countries, serving as barriers for coastal
protection; major tourist attractions; and especially as a productive source of food for a large portion of
the population (39, 40). Coral reefs supply a wide variety of valuable fisheries, including both fish and
invertebrate species (41). Some fisheries are harvested for food, others are collected for the curio and
aquarium trades.
1AC (7/12)
Sea turtles are keystone species – They perform unique ecosystem services
Sea Turtle Survival League 2k [December 22 Sea Turtle Survival League is a conservation group of marine biologists.]
Why should humans care if sea turtles go extinct? There are two major ecological effects of sea turtle
extinction. 1. Sea turtles, especially green sea turtles, are one of the very few animals to eat sea grass.
Like normal lawn grass, sea grass needs to be constantly cut short to be healthy and help it grow across
the sea floor rather than just getting longer grass blades. Sea turtles and manatees act as grazing animals
that cut the grass short and help maintain the health of the sea grass beds. Over the past decades, there
has been a decline in sea grass beds. This decline may be linked to the lower numbers of sea turtles. Sea
grass beds are important because they provide breeding and developmental grounds for many species
of fish, shellfish and crustaceans. Without sea grass beds, many marine species humans harvest would be
lost, as would the lower levels of the food chain. The reactions could result in many more marine
species being lost and eventually impacting humans. So if sea turtles go extinct, there would be a serious
decline in sea grass beds and a decline in all the other species dependant upon the grass beds for
survival. All parts of an ecosystem are important, if you lose one, the rest will eventually follow. 2.
Beaches and dune systems do not get very many nutrients during the year, so very little vegetation
grows on the dunes and no vegetation grows on the beach itself. This is because sand does not hold nutrients
very well. Sea turtles use beaches and the lower dunes to nest and lay their eggs. Sea turtles lay around
100 eggs in a nest and lay between 3 and 7 nests during the summer nesting season. Along a 20 mile stretch
of beach on the east coast of Florida sea turtles lay over 150,000 lbs of eggs in the sand. Not every nest
will hatch, not every egg in a nest will hatch, and not all of the hatchlings in a nest will make it out of the
nest. All the unhatched nests, eggs and trapped hatchlings are very good sources of nutrients for the
dune vegetation, even the left over egg shells from hatched eggs provide some nutrients. Dune vegetation is
able to grow and become stronger with the presence of nutrients from turtle eggs. As the dune
vegetation grows stronger and healthier, the health of the entire beach/dune ecosystem becomes better.
Stronger vegetation and root systems helps to hold the sand in the dunes and helps protect the beach
from erosion. As the number of turtles declines, fewer eggs are laid in the beaches, providing less
nutrients. If sea turtles went extinct, dune vegetation would lose a major source of nutrients and would
not be as healthy and would not be strong enough to maintain the dunes, resulting in increased erosion.
Once again, all parts of an ecosystem are important, if you lose one, the rest will eventually follow. Sea
turtles are part of two ecosystems, the beach/dune system and the marine system. If sea turtles went
extinct, both the marine and beach/dune ecosystems would be negatively affected. And since humans
utilize the marine ecosystem as a natural resource for food and since humans utilize the beach/dune system
for a wide variety of activities, a negative impact to these ecosystems would negatively affect humans.
Only subsidies allow trawling to persist
Oceana 7 (Oceana press release, 5-4

http://www.seaaroundus.org/OtherWebsites/2007/PR_Inside_USSenatorsCallForWorldwideBanOnDestructiveFishingSubsidies.pdf)
Fisheries subsidies also preserve uneconomic and inefficient practices. A recent study found that high
seas bottom trawling would not be profitable without high levels of government subsidies. This fishing
practice is destructive enough that the United Nations has called for it to be severely restricted - an
action supported by President Bush, Senator Stevens and other members of Congress. Fisheries
subsidies have also been documented to support illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing,
sometimes referred to as "pirate fishing."
1AC (8/12)
United States marine ecosystems are the most diverse in the world
Pew Oceans Commission 3
(http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/environment_pew_ocean
s_socioeconomic_perspectives.pdf)
American fishermen ply waters that boast some of the most diverse and productive ocean habitats of any
nation on earth. These range from the productive high relief areas of Georges Bank off New England to the vast open ocean waters that
characterize the U.S. footprint in the Central and Western Pacific Ocean. They include warm water coral reef ecosystems that
support reef fish assemblages of the South Atlantic, U.S. Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico, and the globally significant and
extremely productive continental shelf ecosystem of the colder North Pacific Ocean off Alaska. Vital nearshore habitats
where many commercially valuable species spend part of their lives extend from the fishery significant
estuaries and inlets of the Mid- Atlantic region to the kelp forests, submarine canyons, rocky reefs, and coral communities off the shores of
California, Oregon, and Washington. These diverse ecosystems give rise to distinct differences in marine life, regional
fisheries, cultures, and communities. Across the regions, fishermen employ a variety of different fishing gear and vessels to catch different
species. The character of fishing operations runs the gamut from small, family-owned businesses to multi-national conglomerates. Fisheries range
from the highly industrialized Alaska offshore pollock trawl fleets to the day-boat lobster fleets of Maine to the traditional indigenous salmon
fisheries of Washington, Oregon, and California. American fishing communities range from truly remote fishery-dependent areas such as St. Paul
Island, Alaska — where 85 percent of the tax revenues come from fishing — to communities closer to urban population centers with a more
diversified economic base. Though fishing occurs off the shores of every U.S. coastal state, diversity is the defining characteristic of
U.S. fisheries.
Loss of marine biodiversity leads renders the oceans defenseless against disasters and
climate change ending human survival
Craig 3 Indiana University, Robin Kundis, Winter, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155, p. 264-266
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments
have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service
coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the
reefs' value for food production. Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. More
generally, "ocean
ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that
represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur,
as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human
degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity
is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in
general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on
its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on
their biodiversity. Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is
higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly
valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef
system. Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem
services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like
the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic
value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical
arguments also have considerable force and merit." At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know
about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect
marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring -
even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef
ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea
and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively
pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we
kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, its
once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's
nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique. The Black Sea is a
microcosm of what is happening to the ocean systems at large. The
stresses piled up: overfishing, oil spills, industrial
discharges, nutrient pollution, wetlands destruction, the introduction of an alien species. The sea
weakened, slowly at first, then collapsed with shocking suddenness. The lessons of this tragedy should not be lost to the
rest of us, because much of what happened here is being repeated all over the world. The ecological stresses imposed on the Black Sea were not unique to
communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of governments to respond to the emerging crisis. Oxygen-starved "dead zones" appear with increasing frequency
off the coasts of major cities and major rivers, forcing marine animals to flee and killing all that cannot. Ethics as well as enlightened self-interest thus
suggest that the
United States should protect fully-functioning marine ecosystems wherever possible - even
if a few fishers go out of business as a result.
1AC (9/12)
Species loss causes ecosystem collapse culminating in extinction
Diner 94 (David, Judge Advocate’s General’s Corps of US Army, Military Law Review, Winter, L/N)
Why Do We Care? -- No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of life and death
-- extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a single-minded
In past mass extinction
determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race.
episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward,
and new species replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now? The prime reason is the
world's survival. Like all animal life, humans live off of other species. At some point, the number of
species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails, and then humans also would become
extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species the world needs to support human life, and to find out
-- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound policy. In addition to food, species
offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind. 68 2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value
that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest, 69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits
certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services -- pollution
control, 70 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. 71 3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value.
-- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. 72 Without
plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is
the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. 73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species
have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating
today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew 74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect
role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. 75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the
main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than

remaining species increases dramatically. 76 4. Biological Diversity. -- The
simplicity. 77 As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally
has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within
species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. 78 [*173]
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow
ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more
complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is
connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched
circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." 79 By causing widespread extinctions,
humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk
of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the
United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically,
each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause
total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like
a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may be edging closer
to the abyss.
Cutting subsidies is key – nothing will be effective without this.
Oceana 7 [“Fisheries Subsidies: The good, the bad, and the ugly,” June 5 2007]
Massive government subsidies to the worldwide fishery industry are one of strongest drivers of the
continued increase of fishing capacity, which exacerbates overfishing and other destructive fishing
practices. These subsidies have produced a worldwide fleet that is up to 250 percent greater than that needed
to fish sustainably. With these levels of subsidies, no level of fishery management will effectively be able
to stop overfishing if these economic incentives continue to exist. Consequently, eliminating global
overfishing subsidies is likely the largest single action that can be taken to protect the world’s fisheries
and the communities that depend on them.
1AC (10/12)
Cutting subsidies for fisheries will solve overfishing and the marine ecosystems that are key
to human life
Oceana 7 (Feb 20, http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/dirty_fishing/

cut_the_bait/2007_Subs_outreach_kit/Oceans_in_Trouble_FINAL.pdf)
Oceans cover more than two-thirds of the globe, and they are as important to us as they are vast.
However, the world’s oceans are at a critical juncture and face a bleak future if nothing is done to
restore them. Global fish fleets are taking too much ocean wildlife from the water– and the laws meant
to manage and conserve the fisheries are often ignored or selectively enforced. The result: declining
fisheries and destruction of marine habitat are threatening the Earth’s largest and most important
natural system, as well as the nearly billion people who rely on fish as their primary protein source and
the tens of millions of people who depend on the sea for their livelihood. Since the 1980s, the global
seafood catch has been falling despite more and better equipped fishing boats in the water. Exacerbating
global overfishing are massive subsidies given by a handful of foreign governments to their fishing fleets
to increase their ability to fish. Eliminating these overfishing subsidies is likely the largest single action
that can be taken to protect the world’s fisheries and the communities that depend on them.
U.S. must take the lead to gain the credibility to force other countries to follow.
Pew Oceans Commission 3 [State of the Oceans, June 4 2003]

The commission believes, however, that this nation must get its own house in order to first provide a
solid foundation upon which to lead internationally. By establishing appropriate standards for
sustaining marine species and ecosystems, the U.S. will be in a better position to use trade pressures – as
it did successfully to protect sea turtles from unsustainable shrimp fisheries – or participate credibly in
negotiations of ocean resource treaties. For example, only by adopting strong conservation standards
for its domestic aquaculture industry can the U.S. establish the moral and legal authority to demand
protective practices in other countries.
US fishing policy is critical to our overall leadership on global issues
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 4 (9-20,

http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_rpt/000_ocean_full_report.pdf)
Many nations border on, or have direct access to, the sea. All are affected by it. People everywhere have a stake
in how well the oceans are managed, how wisely they are used, and how extensively they are explored and understood. For the
United States, this means the oceans provide an ideal vehicle for global leadership. From international
security to ocean resource management, education, scientific research, and the development of ocean-
related technology, the United States can gain respect by demonstrating exemplary policies and
achievements at home and seeking to spread positive results through collaborative efforts around the
world.
1AC (11/12)
Our trading power gives the US unique ability to influence global fishing

The world’s oceans and inland waterways are the highways of choice for the global movement of this
vast international trade. As the world’s largest trading nation, the United States imports and exports
more merchandise than any other country (Table 13.1) and has one of the most extensive marine
transportation systems in the world.1 U.S. marine import-export trade accounts for nearly 7 percent of the nation’s gross
domestic product.2 Domestically, coastal and inland marine trade amounts to roughly one billion tons of cargo, worth more than $220
billion a year.3 The U.S. marine transportation system is a complex public–private partnership with many
participants. It consists of state, territorial, local, and privately owned facilities managed, financed, and operated by federal, state,
territorial, and local governments. The system is a highly complex and interconnected mix of waterways, ports
and terminals, water- and land-based intermodal connections, vessels, vehicles, equipment, personnel,
support service industries, and users. This system provides a number of services, including: supporting
the waterborne movement of foreign and domestic cargo; moving passengers and vehicles through numerous ferry
systems; serving recreational boating, commercial fishing vessels, and cruise liners; and generating millions of jobs for Americans and
for the nation’s international trading partners. The U.S. marine transportation system also plays an important national security role as a
point of entry for foreign shipments and a conduit for the movement of military equipment, supplies, and personnel to and from overseas
locations.
1AC (12/12)
(Insert some K’s Here – You’ll have 1AC time)
Topicality – Fish = Agriculture Support
Fisheries are included in the best USDA definition of agriculture
USDA 8 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA), 73 FR 45106, Vol. 73, No. 149 Rules and Regulations
August 1, 2008
The ERS CGE model uses data from the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP database, version 7.2). The
database represents the world as of 2004 and includes information on macroeconomic variables, production,
consumption, trade, demand and supply elasticities, and policy measures. The GTAP database includes 57
commodities and 101 countries/regions. For this analysis, the regions were represented by the following
country/regions: The United States, Canada, Mexico, the European Union-25 (EU), Oceania, China, Other
East Asian Countries, India, Other South Asian Countries, South America and Central America, OPEC
Countries, Russia, Africa and the rest of the World. The agricultural sector is subdivided into the
following 7 commodity aggregations: Rice, wheat, corn, other feed grains (barley, sorghum), soybeans,
sugar (cane [*45140] and beets), vegetables and fresh fruits, other crops (cotton, peanuts), cattle and
sheep, hogs and goats, poultry, and fish. The food processing sectors are subdivided into the following 6
commodity aggregations, bovine cattle and sheep meat, pork meat, chicken meat, vegetable oils and fats,
other processed food products, beverages and tobacco, and fish. The remaining sectors in the database were
represented by 18 aggregated non-agricultural sectors.
Topicality – Subsidies Don’t Include Vessel Decommissioning

Vessel Decommissioning is not considered a fisheries subsidies
UNEP 6 Gareth Porter “Fisheries Subsidies and Overfishing: Towards a Structured Discussion” 12/11/2006
<http://www.unep.ch/etu/etp/acts/capbld/rdtwo/FE_vol_1.pdf>
The United States scheme deliberately omits vessel decommissioning on the ground that they are
considered as capacity-reducing subsidies.
Topicality – Fisheries Includes Aquaculture

Fisheries include aquaculture
FAO 5 (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4446e/y4446e0k.htm.)

The “fisheries industry” refers to all productive subsectors of the fisheries and aquaculture sector, i.e. all
types of input industry - including transport and other support services - capture fisheries, aquaculture,
processing and marketing. It covers all producers and operators, both small and large-scale, engaged in
recreational, subsistence and commercial activities. For our particular study, we may of course have decided
that we only want to look at one or a few subsectors (see chapter 3).
Aquaculture is a part of fisheries – industry production proves
Colombia Encyclopedia accessed 8 [Results for aquaculture,

http://www.answers.com/topic/aquaculture]
Columbia Encyclopedia: aquaculture, the raising and harvesting of fresh- and saltwater plants and animals.
The most economically important form of aquaculture is fish farming, an industry that accounts for
an ever increasing share of world fisheries production. Formerly a business for small farms, it is now
also pursued by large agribusinesses, and by the early 2000s it had become almost as significant a source of
fish as the as wild fisheries.
Aquaculture is included in fisheries – trade legislation proves

BusinessWorld 8 [GenSan hosts training course on Europe's fishery standards
BusinessWorld March 13, 2008 Thursday, LEXIS]
An outline of the European Union's legislation for fishery products, including aquaculture animals and
products, posted at www.cbi.eu cited food safety as a key issue. Noting deficiencies in complying with its
requirements in 2004, the EU reviewed 13 countries' compliance with its quality and safety controls. Mr.
Macabalang recalled that the Philippines joined 10 out of 13 countries that failed the screening then. The
Philippines passed the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point requirements only in February last year.
Subsidies for fisheries include aquaculture – WTO proves

Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade 5 – New Zealand [Jul 1, New Zealand and the World Trade Organisation,
http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/0--Trade-archive/WTO/0--fish-subsidies/0-
fishsubsidies-1-july-05.php]
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 non-salmon species [19]
Fisheries includes cultivating fish.
Justia No Date [http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title46/46-2.0.1.3.23.1.1.2.html]

"Fisheries includes processing, storing, transporting (except in foreign commerce), planting, cultivating,
catching, taking, or harvesting fish, shellfish, marine animals, pearls, shells, or marine vegetation in the
navigable waters of the United States or in the Exclusive Economic Zone."
Topicality – Subsidies Exclude “Normal Benefits”

Only industry specific supports are considered subsidies – Supports across industries are
excluded

When we say that a fisheries subsidy is an action or inaction that is specific to the fisheries sector, we need to
know what we mean by “specific” in order to be able to distinguish between subsidies and non-specific - or
general - actions and inactions. The best way to do this is to define what is general and use this situation as
the benchmark for “normality” against which specificity is measured, i.e. anything that is different from our
normality reference point is specific and hence a subsidy.
It is conceivable that sometime in the future countries agree on what is “normal” and therefore useful as
benchmarks. Such benchmarks could inter alia include: interest rates for investment loans, standard fuel
prices, and minimum levels of cost recovery for fisheries management, etc. However, because such standards
do not exist and because it will take time to reach agreement about them the Guide suggests - for now - using
standards represented by the overall economic framework of the particular country - or region - under
study.[5] The reference points to be used should refer to other sectors in the country, or group of countries,
i.e. the “normal” situation without subsides is represented by the circumstances industry in general operates
under in the country or region and fisheries subsidies are defined and measured as deviations from these
conditions. For example, in a country where public services are provided so to say free of user charge -
because they are financed through the tax system - it would be considered normal that also the fisheries
industry benefits from certain services without them being defined as subsidies. On the other hand, in a
country where cost recovery is the norm, the same benefits to the fisheries sector are subsidies if not directly
paid for by the industry.
Normal value standards are workable

Sometimes it is difficult to define the norm value and there may be several alternative benchmarks. For
example, there may be a wide range of customs tariffs for different types of products making it virtually
impossible to decide what is the “normal” level. In this case, we may decide to compare the fisheries sector
with one or a few other major economic sectors that are similar to the fisheries sector. With regard to the
example of customs tariffs, the norm value used for fish and fishery products could be the tariff level
applicable to food and agricultural commodities. Another example concerns taxes for which the situation of
small independent artisanal fishers, aquaculturists and traders/processors could be compared with small-scale
farmers while larger fishing, aquaculture and processing companies are maybe better compared with light
manufacturing industry and other food processing industry. In many (developing) countries, the former
belongs to the informal sector whilst the larger operations are part of a more organized business structure,
operating under quite different conditions (for example with regard to VAT registration and refund).
Topicality – Subsidies are Confusing – Reasonability

Err on the side of reasonability – Subsidy definitions are shifting and obtuse
FAO 3 (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/y4647e/Y4647e00.pdf)
The issue of subsidies is also complex in that there is no agreement even on what a subsidy is.
There is no agreement on how subsidies can be measured. There is no agreement on how the
effects of subsidies can be measured. In the policy realm, there is no agreement on when subsidies
are useful and when they are harmful. Part of the reason for the lack of agreement is the
complexity of the problem of evaluating the effects of subsidies on the economy, the
environment, international and internal trade, and the sustainability of fish stocks. Part of the
reason for lack of agreement on such basic issues as the definition of a subsidy is that since
subsidies are now being targeted for elimination, it may be politically unwise for a polity to admit
that a policy implies a subsidy.
Their definitions of subsidies are politically loaded and controversial – Err on middle
ground reasonable definition
To illustrate: a government policy of aiding the fishing industry by offering firms a grant of 50
percent of the purchase price of a fishing vessel on the face of it would constitute a subsidy to
the fishing industry. Yet it is not so simple. Subsidies are only important for their effects. If the
subsidy were accompanied by a rule that the vessel must be built in the home country, then the
grant is possibly not a subsidy to the fishery at all but rather a subsidy to the shipbuilding
industry if that industry were to raise its prices by the amount of the subsidy. There would then
be no advantage to the fishery. Defining subsidies, except loosely, opens all kinds of
controversies, many of which have been discussed in the recent literature.1
The range of possible definitions is extensive, from the narrow “financial aid furnished by a state
or a public corporation in furtherance of an undertaking or the upkeep of a thing”2 to the broad
“government action (or inaction) that modifies (by increasing or decreasing) the potential profits
earned by the firm in the short-, medium- or long-term.”3 Between the one, with its focus on
direct government expenditures and the other, with its focus on the effect of a government’s
policies on a firm’s anticipated profits, lies an abyss, filled with alternative definitions that lie
between the two extremes.
Topicality – Subsidies are Limited

The best definition from the WTO limits the types of subsidies covered

It should be noted that the definition of subsidies used in this Guide is much broader than the one used
in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)
which is perhaps the most commonly cited and practically applied subsidy definition. The SCM
Agreement is WTO’s basic subsidy agreement and the one that currently governs trade disputes regarding the
fisheries sector in this respect. It specifies that a subsidy exists if “there is a financial contribution by a
government or any public body within the territory of a Member” and this contribution fulfils certain
specified conditions, or if “there is any form of income or price support in the sense of Article XVI of
GATT 1994”. Moreover, benefits have to be conferred. For the subsidy to be offending, it also has to be
“specific”, “prohibited” or “actionable” and cause “adverse effect” (WTO 1994 Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures, article 1, also described in Milazzo 1998).
More evidence that the strict WTO definition is best

The use of different definitions can partially be explained by the purpose for which the various
analyses of subsidies have been undertaken. A range of issues can be of interest to policymakers, such as
the impact of subsidies on trade, general economic variables (such as fishing capacity and profitability),
social structure (for example, coastal communities and income distribution) or the environment (for
example, the fish stocks, by-catches and the broader marine ecosystem). What to include, and exclude, in
terms of subsidy programmes that may be analysed may change according to the reason for analysis.
8. The prime example of this is the general definition of subsidies used in the context of the WTO
Subsidies and Countervailing Duties Agreement (the SCM Agreement). This currently serves as the only
internationally agreed definition of a subsidy and was developed to be applied as part of a basic
instrument of international trade law. The SCM Agreement definition of subsidy contains three basic
elements: (i) a financial contribution; (ii) by a government or any public body within the territory of a
member; (iii) which confers a benefit. All three of these elements must be satisfied in order for a subsidy to
exist. The SCM agreement operates with so-called "prohibited subsidies" and "actionable subsides"
The WTO is the most precise, conclusive, legal definition of subsidies
The one exception is that the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures of the World
Trade Organization (WTO) offers a precise definition of subsidies which has legal standing. The
reason for this precision is to avoid ambiguity in the evaluation of subsidies when used to justify
countervailing duties and other disciplines against nations that may violate the Agreement.
Subsidies in the Agreement are defined as direct or potentially direct transfers of funds from
governments to firms or individuals (e.g. grants, loans, loan guarantees, equity infusions),
government revenue foregone (e.g. tax waivers or deferrals), government provision of goods and
services, other than infrastructure, at less than market prices, and government support of prices
They’re employing definitions of economic assistance, which are distinct from subsidies
In work undertaken in 1993 on measuring the economic assistance provided to the fisheries
sector, the OECD’s Committee for Fisheries operated with the concept of ‘economic assistance’ (OECD
1993). The Committee noted that economic assistance goes beyond the usual subsidy programs for
building vessels, modernization, price support, and so on, and includes all policies which improve the
fisheries environment and by that the living of those (that is, fishermen and processors) who are actively
involved in the industry. Every policy that is likely to significantly affect the domestic value of the fish,
such as the introduction of minimum import prices, tariffs, and so on, should be considered as economic
assistance. Institutional arrangements, such as organization of producers, may also have an effect on the
market.
Topicality – Subsidies – A2: FAO Definition

FAO definitions are scattered and inconclusive

FAO has dealt specifically with fisheries subsidies, undertaking an Expert Consultation in
December 2000. It is noteworthy that the meeting could not agree on a common definition on subsidies in
fisheries. Despite extensive discussion on what would be a suitable operational definition of subsidy for the
purpose of analysing the effects of subsidies on trade and resource sustainability, no single definition could
be agreed upon. Instead, the report from the expert consultation (FAO 2000) identified four sets of
subsidies:
Set 1 subsidies corresponds roughly to what the man in the street commonly understands by
the term ‘subsidy’. The experts defined this as government financial transfers that reduce
costs and/or increase revenues of producers in the short term.
Set 2 subsidies are any government intervention, regardless of whether they involve financial
transfers, that reduce cost and/or increase revenues of producers in the short term.
Set 3 subsidies expand upon set 2 subsidies by adding the short-term benefits to producers
that result from the absence or lack of intervention by governments to correct distortions
(imperfections) in production and markets that can potentially affect fisheries resources and
trade.
Set 4 subsidies includes all government actions — including the absence of correcting
interventions — that potentially can affect positively or negatively the benefits of firms active
in the fishery sector, also in the long run.
10. One of the conclusions flowing from the FAO Expert Consultation was that none of the
commonly used definitions of subsidies is adequate for a comprehensive analysis of subsidies’ effects on
trade and sustainability and that future analysis should make explicit which of the four sets of subsidies is
being considered.
Subsidies Bad – Overfishing (1/9)

Subsidies are the sole cause of overfishing
Saunders 7 (Doug, the chief of the Globe and Mail's London-based European Bureau, “A dose of global cod-liver oil”, May 26 )
th
To find out, Mr. Sumaila spent a decade building up two huge databases, using hordes of research assistants
travelling the world. One database showed the price of each type of fish in every nation since 1955; the other
showed exactly what each country's fishermen were being paid for. This, combined with Mr. Pauly's fish-stocks
databases, allowed him to see why the fish were disappearing. What he discovered, and documented in a series of
fascinating research reports last year, is that the self-balancing nature of fishing is thrown out of kilter by the
widespread government practice of giving fishermen subsidies for boat building and, especially, fuel. This money,
which he described as "bad subsidies," are exactly equivalent to the scale of overfishing - the subsidies make the
difference between a renewable resource and a dying resource. Not only that, but fuel subsidies, he discovered, are
responsible for the continuation of the most devastating practice in fishing, bottom trawling, which tears up the sea
and destroys species. Countries pay $152-million a year in fuel subsidies to trawlers, which accounts for 25 per cent
of their income. And the profit they make is only 10 per cent. "Without subsidies," he concluded, "the bulk of the
world's bottom-trawl fleet [would] operate at a loss, thereby reducing the current threat to ... fish stocks." Without
"bad" subsidies, which amount to $20-billion a year worldwide, there would be fewer people in the fishing business
around the world. But Mr. Sumaila concluded that this process would actually give the world more fish. "There is a
potential to actually increase the catch if we can agree to reduce the scale in the short term," he said, "and avoid
subsidizing the industry too much in the long term." It seems like an ideal solution. Governments don't like paying
taxpayer subsidies to industries - they do it because they believe that without them they'll lose the industry and its
political support.

Subsidies encourage pathological incentives to over fishing.
Baden 95 (John A. and Noonan, Douglas S. The Seattle Times Baden, Ph.D. is the chairman of FREE http://www.free-
eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=285
12-06)
Second, and most important, fisheries lack a sustainable system of rationing the valuable, but
increasingly scarce, resources. Today, the world's fisheries are predominantly open-access. It's first
come first serve, almost devoid of rules fostering responsible behavior.
Open-access subjects fisheries to the profound pathologies of the commons. Fisheries suffer from
overexploitation and declining profitability because fishermen behave predictably when access to a
valuable resource is open to all. In such circumstances individually and socially rational behavior
diverges. Self-restraint and conservation is trumped by incentives that encourage overfishing.
Individual fishermen reel in short-term profits from overfishing while society as a whole bears the
costs of economic and environmental waste.
Subsidies aggravate competition and overfishing.
12-06)
Overfishing is exacerbated by another pathology: overcapitalization. The race to reel in more and more
fish encourages fishing capacity far in excess of the fishery's reproductive carrying capacity. Economic
distortions couple environmental degradation with overinvestment in fishing capacity. Unbridled
competition produces bigger vessels, better sonar, and larger nets. Taxpayers subsidize newer boats
and better nets. This only aggravates the situation as national politics fights marine international
ecosystems.
Subsidies create an endless cycle of overcapitalization.
12-06)
Individuals and society will benefit by overcoming the political costs of reform. Fishermen have become
addicted to government subsidies for survival in overcapitalized, overexploited fisheries. Up to now,
policy-makers have lacked the political will to restrain "rugged individualist" fishermen. Increasing
scarcity and environmental degradation are making privatization with monitored and enforceable
rules ever more attractive.
Only eliminating subsidies solve.
OECD 5 (OECD policy brief, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/26/35819133.pdf Dec.)

Moves aimed simply at controlling fishing effort will only be partially successful, as this involves
attempts to regulate diverse elements such as time at sea, vessel size and power, the type of fishing gear
used, the number of people employed, etc, and it is very difficult to effectively regulate all these
aspects. In this situation, transfers will again have the long-term effect of reduced fish stocks, lower
catches and lower profitability.

Subsidies are the key to overfishing
Pauly & Sumaila 7 (Daniel, Fisheries Centre, The University of British Columbia ;U. Rashid, member of Fisheries Economics Research
Unit, Fisheries Centre, The University of British Columbia; Nature, international weekly journal of science; “All fishing nations must unite to cut
subsidies”, 12/13/07, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7172/full/450945a.html) RKB
The threat of overfishing to world fisheries is well documented, but not enough attention has been paid to
government subsidies as an important factor in their decline. Subsidies, or government payments to the
fishing sector, estimated at US$30–34 billion a year, are key drivers of the unsustainable exploitation of the
world's depleted fish populations. Fish are the main source of protein for one fifth of the world's population,
but global fishing fleets are more than double the size the oceans can support.\
Subsidies cause depletion of fish stocks
Geneva Business Wire 8

(7/29, http://www.direktbroker.de/news-kurse/details/International-News/Fish+Lose+in+Doha+Round/18610041) RKB
Subsidies promote overfishing, pushing fleets to fish longer, harder and farther away than would otherwise
be possible. Global fisheries subsidies are estimated to be at least $20 billion annually, an amount equivalent
to approximately 25 percent of the value of the world catch. According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), more than 75 percent of the world's fisheries are currently overexploited, fully
exploited, significantly depleted or recovering from overexploitation.
Empirical evidence proves subsidies encourage overcapacity and overfishing to the point of
depletion
Porter 2k – Gareth, UN Environment Programme

[Fisheries Subsidies and Overfishing: Towards a Structured Discussion, http://www.unep.ch/etu/etp/acts/capbld/rdtwo/FE_vol_1.pdf]
Although open-access, common-pool fisheries are the fundamental cause of fishing fleet overcapacity,
subsidies also play a role in increasing capacity, and in some cases have also contributed significantly
to the velocity and degree of fishing fleet overcapacity and overfishing. The application of economic
theory to the fisheries sector demonstrates that in an open-access fishery, a revenue-enhancing or cost-
reducing subsidy increases marginal profits at each level of fishing effort and therefore leads to an
increased overall fishing effort. This may have the short-term effect of creating additional economic rent
for fishers active in the fishery. However, either new entrants or increased effort by existing fishers
stimulated by the subsidy will shift the level of effort to the point where rent is dissipated. If the fishery is
already at or near maximum sustainable yield, that level of effort will reduce fish biomass (Stone, 1997;
Munro, 1998; Arnason, 1999; Nordstrom and Vaughan, 1999; WTO/CTE 2000b; OECD, 2000b). In other
words, assuming that the management system does not effectively impose a sustainable level of catch, cost-
reducing and revenue-enhancing subsidies will drive the level of overcapacity and overall effort
even further than would an open-access, common-pool fishery in the absence of such subsidies.
Empirical evidence on the impact of subsidies on capacity and overfishing has been found mainly on
case studies of programmes involving loans, grants and risk-reduction programmes for vessel construction
and modernization. These cases, involving programmes from the 1960s through the 1980s, are particularly
important because they show how subsidies can speed up significantly the transition to
overcapacity and overfishing in a given fishery. These cases, which occurred in a con text in which no
fisheries management system maintained sustainable catch levels, subsidies for vessel construction and
modernization through grants and below-market loans or loan guarantees, produced major leaps in fleet
capacity. And those major increases in capacity contributed, in turn, to declining catches or even
collapse of commercial fish stocks. Although cyclical natural fluctuations may have also played a role in
precipitous stock depletion (OECD, 2000), it is clear that fleet overcapacity was the major factor in
stock collapse or decline.

Subsidies encourage over investment in fisheries and encourage fishers to stay in the
industry past the point of depletion

It is not sufficient to ask whether a particular fisheries subsidy leads to increased capacity. It is also important
to know whether or not the subsidy hinders efforts to reduce capacity. Vessel owners tend to delay exit from
the industry by scrapping boats because of high sunk costs (FAO, 1993). But the existence of subsidies
further inhibits the difficult process of capacity adjustment. Just as subsidies attract more
investment to the fishing industry in an under-exploited industry than would have occurred without
subsidies, they have the effect of slowing the exit of capital from the fishing industry, even when
the industry is in serious financial difficulty because of overcapacity and resource depletion
(Beddington and Rettig, 1983; FAO, 1993). An extreme example of the inhibiting effect of subsidies on
withdrawal of capital from an industry that is financially troubled because of declining catches is the case of
the increased Norwegian support for the fishing industry in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This support
masked the decline in fish catches and net value added and resulted in increases in the number of vessels,
fisheries and fleet engine power (OECD, 2000a). High levels of support thus effectively obscure the
signals from the fishery calling for capacity adjustment.
Fishing subsidies cause massive overfishing
Topfer 4 – Klaus, Executive Director of UNEP

[Analyzing the Resource Impact of Fisheries Subsidies,
http://www.unep.ch/etb/publications/fishierSubsidiesEnvironment/AnaResImpFishSubs.pdf]
The majority of commercially valuable fish stocks is either overexploited or near its limits. This
entails serious and sometimes irreparable damage to marine resources and threatens the livelihoods
of many fishing communities. At the core of this crisis is a range of policies that have increased
production and trade in fish, including direct and indirect subsidies to the fishery sector. Fisheries
subsidies can potentially be harmful to fish stocks by contributing to increased fleet capacity and
overfishing, particularly in the absence of effective management. However, fishing subsidies can also
contribute to the achievement of sustainable fisheries if properly designed and effective safeguards are put in
place.
Subsidies are critical to overcapacity problems
Dostal 5 (Derek, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law Dostal is an econ professor at UPenn )
http://www.heinonline.org.ezp.lib.rochester.edu/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/upjiel26&type=Text&id=8
33)
Ninety percent of the large fish population is overfished or depleted. Fisheries subsidies contribute to
overcapacity and distort the natural market equilibrium of the industry. These subsidies undermine many
previously proposed and implemented governmental mechanisms to cope with overcapacity. Additionally,
by minimizing operating costs, subsidies encourage new industry entrants who further aggravate the
overfishing problem. Admittedly, gradually eliminating all fisheries subsidies that contribute to
overcapacity and overfishing will not be a cure for all of the oceans' ills. Nonetheless, the eradication of
subsidies is an essential step in reducing overcapacity.

Subsidies lead to overfishing and water pollution, exacerbating ecosystem harms
Kemi 5 (Lewis, CEPMLP Kemi is a graduate student at the CEPMLP at University of Dundee 2005
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/car/html/car7_article6.pdf)
These subsidies have an adverse effect on sustaining and conserving the global fishing stock. Subsidies to the
fisheries sector has been conservatively estimated at U.S. $14.0 - $20.5 billion, approximately 20-25% of the
fisheries revenues.
The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that the capacity in the main high-value
fisheries (comprising 70% of total catch value) is 30% above the required percentage for sustainable
exploitation.
It has become a major concern over the last years as to the depletion of the world's fisheries stock. The fear
that certain types of fish would become extinct, led to the call by various groups on governments to stop
subsidies to the fishing industry.
Pollution as a result of emission of noxious gases by the large number of boats, and disappearing coastlines,
as depleted fishing stock in one area means the movement of fishers to other unexploited areas, are other
worries and the environmental damage continues.
Eliminating subsidies are necessary to reduce over fishing and market distortions.
Andrei 99 (Mercedes Tira, BusinessWorld, Mercedes Tira Andrei is a D.C. news correspondent for The Filipino Reporter 3-16)
"Put simply, too many boats are chasing too few fish," said Terry Garcia, US assistant secretary of Commerce
for Oceans and Atmosphere. "We need to improve the balance between the fishing industry's productive
capacity and the availability of fish. This must be done by eliminating government subsidies that contribute
to overfishing worldwide."
Fishing efforts and harvesting capacity are at excessive levels, Ms. Barshefsky said in a statement Friday.
These activities "must be restrained to avoid depleting global fisheries stocks. It is also clear that
government subsidies that increase harvesting operations and capacity are a major contributing factor
in these problems."
The World Bank has estimated in a study last year that US$11 billion to $12 billion of environmentally
harmful subsidies are being granted each year by governments around the world to the fisheries sector.
This amount comprises as much as 25% of global fisheries revenues.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization as well as a number of environmental groups have also
highlighted the need to eliminate subsidies that contribute to overfishing. Because such subsidies also
distort trade by reducing harvesting costs and placing downward pressure on world seafood prices, the
five-nation initiative hopes that the WTO could play a constructive role in encouraging governments to
reduce or eliminate these subsidies.
Subsidies cause overfishing
Anderlini 5 (Jamil, South China Morning Post, 12-15)

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that 75 per cent of the world's fishing
stocks are overexploited or seriously depleted. In light of this, WTO members are now close to reaching a
common position on reducing trade-distorting subsidies which encourage overuse.
"It's something where we seem to be having something of a convergence," United States Trade
Representative Rob Portman said yesterday at a press conference organised by the World Wildlife Fund and
UN Environment Programme.
Rich country subsidies for fisheries industries amount to more than $15US billion annually, about 20 per cent
of global fish revenues, according to UN figures.
"Subsidies for infrastructure, capital cost, access to foreign countries' stocks and price support are among the
most damaging," said Monique Barbut, director of technology, industry and economics at the UN
programme. "A consensus is emerging in the World Trade Organisation that it's no longer a question of
whether but of how fisheries subsidy reform should take place."

Subsidies encourage over fishing.
Williams 99 (Frances, National Post (Canada), 8-02)

WWF International, the Swiss-based environmental group that has campaigned for an end to fishing
subsidies, said the move 'sharply raised the chances' of negotiations in the round, due to be launched at a
ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization in the U.S. in November.
'This call for action by some of the world's top fishing nations underscores the devastating impact fisheries
subsidies are having on the marine environment, as well as on the fisheries trade worldwide,' said David
Schorr, head of WWF's anti-subsidy campaign.
The other nations sponsoring the proposal -- which was put forward at a WTO meeting in Geneva last week
to discuss the agenda for the ministerial conference -- are Australia, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Peru and
the Philippines. Argentina, Brazil, Canada and Chile have also said they favour the proposal.
The European Union and Japan, both of which pay out more than $850-million (US) a year in subsidies to
their fishing industries, voiced reservations about the proposal.
The World Bank puts trade-distorting and environmentally damaging fishing subsidies at $14-billion to $20-
billion a year, equivalent to 20-25% of world fisheries sales. According to the WWF, these have helped boost
overcapacity of the global fishing fleet to unsustainable levels and have led to alarming fish stock depletion.
WWF said the inclusion of fishing subsidies in the trade round would mark the first time the WTO had taken
the 'win-win' agenda seriously, negotiating away subsidies in the interests of the environment, sustainable
development and trade.
Reducing subsidies necessary to control depleting fish stock.
Haysom 97 (Ian, The Gazette, Southam News Haysom is a staff writer for the Southam news: The Gazette 6-14)
The oceans, once a vast reservoir of limitless food and jobs, have been plundered continually over the past
four decades, said Berrill.
And now fishing communities in Indonesia, China, Africa, Europe and North America are dying as fish
stocks collapse.
The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Association says that two-thirds of the world's fish stocks are
either in serious decline, fished to capacity or "over-exploited."
It estimates that worldwide a million boats fish the seas and that $ 90 billion U.S. is spent to catch $ 70
billion worth of food. The difference is made up by loans and subsidies, an economic situation it says is
unrealistic and unsustainable.
"There is a global need for food and fish protein. Recreational fishing is wasteful. In terms of an efficient use
of the ocean, it's terrible. Sure, you can allow it in places where fish are plentiful, but not where fish stocks
are threatened."
This includes a radical overhaul of fisheries management, fleet reductions, elimination of subsidies, a
lowering of quotas and the possibility of temporary fishery shutdowns.

Fishing subsidies cause overfishing
WWF 8
(World Wildlife Fund, Accessed 7/31/08
http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/globalmarkets/fishing/item8632.html) RKB
Even as fish stocks dwindle, some of the world’s richest nations are paying billions of dollars to keep
flagging fishing industries afloat through fishing subsidies. The result: a growing series of economic, social,
and environmental crises around the world.
Estimated at tens of billions of dollars per year, these subsidies are equivalent to roughly 20% to 25% of the
value of the landed fish catch worldwide. This scale of subsidization is a huge incentive to expand fishing
fleets and overfish.
Today’s global fishing fleet is estimated to be up to two and a half times the capacity needed to sustainably
fish the oceans. Even as stocks of valuable fish have shrunk, the size of the world’s fishing fleets has
exploded. Fishermen are using bigger and faster boats, with sophisticated devices to locate fish far below the
surface.
Taken all together, larger and more efficient fleets have dramatically raised the world’s fishing capacity, often
leading to excess fishing effort, which puts unacceptable pressure on fish stocks. And with fish more difficult
to find, the average fisherman must work harder to catch less. Government support to the fishing industry
urgently needs to be reduced and reformed.
Despite good intentions, fisheries subsidies must be lifted to solve the overfishing crisis
WWF 8
(World Wildlife Fund, Accessed 7/31/08
http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/globalmarkets/fishing/item8632.html) RKB
The ultimate solution to the global fisheries crisis is better management of national and international
fisheries, using measures such as setting reasonable catch limits and limits on the use of destructive gear. But
better management alone will not solve the problem as long as there are irrational economic incentives to
increase fishing. Some major fisheries remain outside of current management plans, many of which are
inadequate or insufficiently enforced.
At the close of the 20th century, the world’s oceans are rife with illegal and uncontrolled fishing.
Governments can’t be blamed for wanting to encourage investment in a sector that helps provide food
security and that often offers jobs in struggling coastal regions. And some developing countries have a
legitimate need to expand their fishing industry, even as fishing capacity worldwide needs to shrink. Fishery
subsidies can also play an important role in promoting the adoption of environmentally friendly fishing
techniques, such as helping fishermen adapt to new bans on driftnets, or supporting small-scale
environmentally sustainable fishing. In fact, when properly designed, government supports can help reduce
overcapacity.
In short, not all fisheries subsidies are bad But most are far from good. A World Bank study suggests that at
most 5% of all fisheries subsidies have a positive environmental aim. And even subsidies designed to help
fleets shrink – such as ‘vessel buy-back’ or decommissioning programmes – have often failed to achieve their
goals. In several cases, buy-back programmes have actually provided funds that wind up being used for new
technologies that increase overall capacity. In other cases, capacity reductions have been achieved in one
nation’s waters by simply exporting capacity to foreign fishing grounds – a phenomenon that has played a
significant role in the ‘serial depletion’ of commercial fisheries.

Eliminating subsidies reduce excess capacity of large scale industrial fishing sectors/companies.
ICSF 98 (FAO Consultation on the Management of Fishing Capacity, 10-26

http://www.icsf.net/icsf2006/uploads/publications/samudra/pdf/english/issue_21/art10.pdf)
We believe that it is a fundamental right of fishworkers to have a say in the management of the living
aquatic resources on which their livelihoods depend. We feel that while the draft document (Paragraph 23,
page 7) has correctly identified the negative role subsidies can play in increasing capacity, it does not
specifically refer to the significant availability of concessional credit facilities for industrial and large-
scale fisheries. Not least for this reason, most of the subsidies accrue to these fisheries and, therefore,
there is a clear connection between the removal of subsidies and the elimination of excess capacity in
the large-scale, capital-intensive sectors.
Subsidies increase overcapacity and over fishing.
Sakai 7(Courtney, Oceana, Sakai is the campaign direct of Oceana 2-23

http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/dirty_fishing/cut_the_bait/2007_Subs_outreach_kit/Subsidies_Bac
kgrounder_FINAL.pdf )
According a new report “Catching More Bait: A Bottom-Up Re-estimation of Global Fisheries Subsidies,” by
leading scientists Daniel Pauly and Ussif Sumaila of the University of British Columbia, global fisheries
subsidies amount to $30 to $34 billion annually. Many of these subsidies drive increases in capacity, which
in turn results in overfishing and promotes other destructive fishing practices. These large subsidies
have helped produce a worldwide fishing fleet that is up to 250 percent larger than what is needed to
fish at sustainable levels. Some subsidies support beneficial programs, such as management and research.
However, the vast majority of subsidies drive increased and intensified fishing, resulting in detrimental
effects on the fishery resource. The study finds that at least $20 billion of the worldwide subsidies are “bad”
subsidies – those that reduce costs or enhance revenues and promote overcapacity, such as supports for boat
construction and modernization, fishing equipment and inputs, and other operational costs.
Subsidies key to overfishing.
Stewart 8(Robert R., Dept of Oceanography at Texas A&M, Stewart is a professor at Texas A&M
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/policy-fisheries.htm 4-7)
Government subsidies have lead to overcapacity in all important fishing areas. At its core, the crisis in
over fishing stems from the fact that the world now has a substantial overabundance of fishing
capacity. Industrialized fleets aided by sonar, sophisticated satellite technology and highly efficient
gear are now capable of fishing out vast areas of the ocean in very short order. The predictable results
of overcapitalized fleets have been over fishing and depletion of stocks as well as substantial economic
losses. FAO estimates that to rehabilitate fisheries to 1970 abundance levels and catch rates would require the
removal of 23% of the existing gross weight tonnage of the world's fleet.

Cutting subsidies for fisheries will solve overfishing and the marine ecosystems that are key
to human life
Oceana 7 (Feb 20, http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/dirty_fishing/

cut_the_bait/2007_Subs_outreach_kit/Oceans_in_Trouble_FINAL.pdf)
Oceans cover more than two-thirds of the globe, and they are as important to us as they are vast.
However, the world’s oceans are at a critical juncture and face a bleak future if nothing is done to
restore them. Global fish fleets are taking too much ocean wildlife from the water– and the laws meant
to manage and conserve the fisheries are often ignored or selectively enforced. The result: declining
fisheries and destruction of marine habitat are threatening the Earth’s largest and most important
natural system, as well as the nearly billion people who rely on fish as their primary protein source and
the tens of millions of people who depend on the sea for their livelihood. Since the 1980s, the global
seafood catch has been falling despite more and better equipped fishing boats in the water. Exacerbating
global overfishing are massive subsidies given by a handful of foreign governments to their fishing fleets
to increase their ability to fish. Eliminating these overfishing subsidies is likely the largest single action
that can be taken to protect the world’s fisheries and the communities that depend on them.
Subsidies fuel a bloated fishing industry allowing massive overfishing
Oceana 7 (May 24,

http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/dirty_fishing/cut_the_bait/2007_Subs_out
reach_kit/Oceans_in_Trouble_FINAL.pdf)
Despite the precarious state of the oceans, many governments continue to provide significant subsidies
to their fishing sectors to fish longer, harder, and farther away. According to a new study, fisheries
subsidies amount to an estimated $30 to $34 billion annually. At least $20 billion go directly towards
supporting fishing capacity, such as boats, fuel, equipment, and other operating costs. These harmful
subsidies equal more than 25 percent of worldwide fishing revenue.7 The global fishing fleet is already up
to 250 percent larger than is needed to fish to catch what the ocean can sustainably produce.8
Subsidies lead to even greater fishing capacity and create a major economic incentive for overfishing
by making fishing enterprises far more profitable even when the fishery resources are in decline.
Subsidies cause overfishing – excess capacity
Pew Oceans Commission 3

(“Socioeconomic Perspectives on Marine Fisheries in the United States” ,
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/environment_pew_oceans_socioeconomic_perspectives.pdf)
Recent estimates indicate more than half of all federally managed fisheries that have been assessed can be
characterized as overcapitalized — with too much fishing power. Free and open access to fisheries, aggravated by
government development policy and subsidies, caused over-investment in fishing capacity. The amount of capital
and labor in many U.S. fisheries now exceeds that needed to take ecologically sustainable catches and provide
economically viable fishing operations for many fishery participants. This situation is not merely one of “too many
boats chasing too few fish.” U.S. fishing fleets have too much catching capacity, or fishing power, which is a
function of the number of boats, the size of boats, and the increasing effectiveness of their fishing technology. Too
much fishing power accelerates competition for increasingly scarce resources, which in turn produces chronic
economic instability and lowers fishermen’s net incomes. These problems cloud the future of fishing and contribute
to the weakened economic status of U.S. fisheries. A recent analysis of just five U.S. fisheries indicated that the
catching capacity of those fleets was 2.4 times higher than necessary to catch sustainable yields (McCallum, pers.
comm.). Approximately $1 billion in excess capital that could be redeployed more productively in the economy is
currently languishing in these five fisheries alone. Other recent estimates suggest that to achieve fishing levels
commensurate with long-term sustainable catches, the fishing capacity of the New England groundfish fleet would
need to be reduced by 70 percent, the Gulf shrimp fleet by 67 percent, the Alaska crab fleet by almost 80 percent,
and the Pacific Coast groundfish fleet by 50 percent.
Overfishing – Up Now (1/3)

Overfishing has depleted over 90 fish species and the list grows longer
NCMC 8 (National Coalition for Marine Conservation, 2/4/08 http://www.savethefish.org/about_ocean_fisheries_overfishing.htm)
Most everyone is familiar with the plight of the great whales, efforts to save endangered sea turtles, and the tragedy
of dolphins dying in nets set for tuna. Less well known is that tuna and many other species of marine fish are in deep
trouble, too. In fact, an alarming decline in fish populations poses a more disturbing and potentially more dangerous
threat to life in the ocean. As fish decline, so does the sea, into a biologically unproductive and unstable
environment. Strong conservation measures, and broad-based public support for implementing them, are badly
needed. Once man thought the seas held an endless supply of fish and couldn’t be destroyed. We may no longer
believe that, but we continue to behave as if it were true. For decades now we’ve been taking fish from the sea much
faster than it can replace them, with dire consequences. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service (aka
NOAA Fisheries), 90 fish species found off the shores of the U.S. have been depleted. Many are in danger of being
wiped out. Fish and shellfish at risk include bluefin tuna, cod, flounder, swordfish, blue marlin, Atlantic lobster, red
snapper, salmon and a number of sharks, to name just a few from a long list that grows longer every year.
Chronic overfishing is happening now

Conserve Fish.org 7 (12/4/07, http://conservefish.org/site/pdf/2007OverfishingReport_TakingStock.pd)
The Marine Fish Conservation Network today released a report documenting chronic overfishing occurring in U.S.
oceans. The report classifies chronic overfishing as overfishing that has been occurring for more than six years. The
report identifies the failure of most regional fishery management councils to set and enforce science-based annual
catch limits. Exacerbating
the situation, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) often approves councils’ decisions to continue to
overfish. “Not only does chronic overfishing harm fish populations and reduce commercial and recreational fishing
opportunities,” said Gerry Leape, president of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, “but by one estimate,
Americans have lost three billion dollars annually in exports, jobs, recreation and other economic activity.”
Overfishing is still a problem, despite governmental advances
New York Times 8 (5/31/08 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/31/opinion/31sat1.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Troubled%20Oceans&st=cse&oref=slogin)

Five years have elapsed since the Pew Oceans Commission's seminal report urging prompt action to arrest the
alarming decline of this country's ocean resources. Four years have elapsed since a blue-ribbon presidential
commission said much the same thing, urging special attention to problems like overfishing and the deterioration of
coastal wetlands and estuaries. Despite an occasional burst of energy, however, the Bush administration and
Congress have left much to be done. And time is running out. As is true with many environmental issues -- climate
change comes immediately to mind -- the states have done a better job. New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts
have either passed legislation or established a regulatory structure to better manage their coastal waters (states
control the first three miles, the federal government controls the rest until international waters begin 200 miles
offshore). California, always at the leading edge, has begun setting up a network of fully protected zones where fish
can flourish with minimal commercial intrusion. These actions show that progress is possible and challenge the
White House and Congress to do better.

Overfishing up now

After millennia of seemingly inexhaustible bounty, the last 50 years has seen a rapid decline in the oceans’
abundance. Unlike polluted air or clear cut forests, the plight of the oceans went unnoticed for many decades.
Since 1972, however, researchers have documented the global extinction of at least 16 known species of
marine fish and mollusks, birds, and mammals, largely as the result of human actions. Today, many
marine species continue to drift toward extinction. In the most recent global assessment, one quarter of
fish stocks were found to be overexploited, depleted or recovering from depletion due to excess fishing.
In addition, half of the world’s fish stocks are on the verge of being overfished.3 Global commercial
fishing takes billions of pounds of fish and shellfish from our oceans every year. In many cases, fish
stocks are unable to reproduce fast enough to maintain stable populations or rebuild their numbers.
Recent scientific evidence indicates that the stocks of fish we rely on are dwindling. A 2003 study found
that the last 50 years of industrial fi shing had reduced worldwide populations of large predatory fish—
sharks, swordfish, and tuna—by 90%.4 A study in 2006 found that the loss of biodiversity in the marine
ecosystem could cause commercial fish stocks to collapse by the year 2048 if overfishing, pollution and
other environmental stresses were not reversed.
US fish stocks down, overfishing up

Scientists estimate that fish stocks in U.S. waters have been declining for at least 30 years, and two blue
ribbon panels, the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, recently concluded
that our oceans and fisheries are in crisis. In the United States, problems began in the mid-1950s with the
increased mechanization of commercial fishing. The decades of the ’80s and ’90s followed with the high-
profile collapse of key stocks, including Atlantic bluefin tuna and New England cod. Some stocks may
have plummeted beyond recovery and others may be nearing collapse. Similar miscalculations resulted
in the severe depletion of several species of Pacific rockfish and red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. In
some cases, fishing resumed prematurely when a species was thought to be recovering, only to plunge it back
into decline. In addition to the environmental damage, this repeated boom-or-bust cycle disrupted lives
and livelihoods in coastal communities. In its 2007 Status of U.S. Fisheries Fourth Quarter Report, NMFS
reported that 41 fish stocks were subject to overfishing, nearly a fifth of our most important
commercial fish stocks.7 However, NMFS has not conducted scientific assessments on the majority of fish
stocks.8 Overfishing may be depleting many of these “unknown” fisheries.
US fish stocks low

PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP 8 (http://www.oceanlegacy.org/pdfs/ocean-conservation-2008.pdf)
In the United States, problems began in the mid-1950s with the increased mechanization of commercial
fishing. The decades of the ’80s and ’90s followed with the high-profile collapse of key stocks, including Atlantic bluefin tuna and
New England cod. Some stocks may have plummeted beyond recovery and others may be nearing collapse.
Similar miscalculations resulted in the severe depletion of several species of Pacific rockfish and red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. In
some cases, fishing resumed prematurely when a species was thought to be recovering, only to plunge it
back into decline. In addition to the environmental damage, this repeated boom-or-bust cycle disrupted lives and livelihoods in
coastal communities. In its 2007 Status of U.S. Fisheries Fourth Quarter Report, NMFS reported that 41
fish stocks were subject to overfishing, nearly a fifth of our most important commercial fish stocks.7
However, NMFS has not conducted scientific assessments on the majority of fish stocks.8 Overfishing
may be depleting many of these “unknown” fisheries.

We are at a critical crossroads – overfishing must be stopped now to save marine
ecosystems
Oceana 7 (May 24, http://www.oceana.org/north-america/what-we-do/cut-the-bait/learn-

the-facts/)
In May 2007, a group of 125 scientists from 27 countries issued a warning to the world about the
perils of global overfishing and the need to act: There is no longer any question – we have reached a
critical state. The world’s ocean ecosystems are at a tipping point, and overfishing represents one of the
greatest threats to their productivity… There are only decades left before the damage we have inflicted on
the oceans becomes permanent. We are at a crossroads. One road leads to a world with tremendously
diminished marine life. The other leads to one with oceans again teeming with abundance, where the
world can rely on the oceans for protein, and enjoy its wildlife. The choices we make today will
determine our path for the future.2
Overfishing is rampant in the U.S. and rebuilding programs are failing
Rosenberg 6 (Andrew, Institute for the Study of

Earth, Oceans and Space, http://www.loe.org/images/060623/RosenbergsReport.pdf)
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 requires an end to overfishing
and the rebuilding of depleted fishery resources. Now, 9 years later, the progress towards rebuilding
overexploited marine fisheries in the United States is reviewed here. Despite the statutory mandate,
overfishing and depletion of important fish stocks remains a widespread problem in the US. Sixty-
seven fish stocks are currently under rebuilding plans mandated by law. Overfishing, where the fishing
mortality rate exceeds the level that should support the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY), continues
in 45% of the stocks managed in rebuilding plans. Seventy-two percent of these stocks are still
considered overfished, with measurable abundance remaining depleted below a predetermined
threshold according to the standards set by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Regional Fishery
Management Councils. Only three stocks have been rebuilt to levels that should produce maximum
sustainable yield. However, fish stock abundance appears to be increasing in 48% of the stocks under
rebuilding plans. The clearest cause of the lack of progress in rebuilding is the failure of many plans to
reduce exploitation sufficiently to end overfishing.
Now is the time to end overfishing to recover our depleted fish stocks
Rosenberg 6 (Andrew, Institute for the Study of

Earth, Oceans and Space, http://www.loe.org/images/060623/RosenbergsReport.pdf)
We address three basic questions fundamental to reviewing the program: (1) Have the effects of overfishing
been reversed? In this, the 9th year since the mandate, fewer than 5% of fish stocks subject to rebuilding
plans have been rebuilt and only 13% are no longer experiencing overfishing or are overfished (ie they
are no longer depleted due to previous overfishing). However, biomass appears to be increasing in 48% of
the stocks. From our review of all federal rebuilding plans, the basic premise of the theory of fishing holds
that if overfishing is ended, stocks will begin to recover. (2) Why is rebuilding failing to occur for so many
stocks? Nearly half of the stocks for which there are rebuilding plans are still subjected to overfishing,
so that fishing pressure is still too high to allow stock recovery. In many cases, rebuilding timeframes have
been extended, plans have not been adjusted even when catches are clearly too high, and there have been
other delays in implementing effective controls on fisheries. (3) What are the barriers to greater success in
rebuilding fisheries? Ending overfishing immediately is fundamental to rebuilding these resources. Too
often, effective reductions in fishing pressure are subject to protracted political debate, while the
resource continues to decline. It is essential that the fisheries are protected until an adequate rebuilding plan
is in place and if a plan isn’t working, adjustments must occur rapidly to prevent further depletion.
Overfishing – A2: SQ Solves

The government’s declaration that the overfishing is done simply isn’t true
Bangor Daily News 8 (7/21/08 http://bangornews.com/news/t/viewpoints.aspx?articleid=167381&zoneid=34)
As it does every year, the federal government has again painted a rosy picture of the health of the nation's
ocean fish populations. While there has been growth in some species, this is only half the story - literally. The
National Marine Fisheries Service has no idea about the status of half the country’s fish species. Worse, the
number of species that remain overfished in New England is about the same as previous years. There could
be help on the way, however, as NMFS last month proposed to set catch limits and measures to ensure they
are not exceeded. The limits would first be set in 2010 for 41 stocks that are currently overfished. They
would be expanded to all fish stocks by 2011. The strictness of the limits and the severity of penalties for
exceeding them will determine whether they are meaningful. In the recently released 2007 Status of U.S.
Fisheries report, NMFS service trumpeted that last year represents the best single-year improvement in the
number of stocks subject to overfishing, the point at which the catch rate is not sustainable. However, the
number of fish stocks that are overfished, meaning the population of fish left in the ocean is below the level
set by regulators, has dropped to 45 from 47 in 2006; not much of an improvement. In New England, 16 of
34 stocks with a known status, including cod, haddock and yellowtail flounder, were overfished, the worst
percentage in the country’s fisheries regions. An additional fish species, winter skate, was added to the
overfished list. This shows that the current regulations that seek to limit the volume of fish caught by limiting
the number of days fishermen can spend fishing and by putting areas of the ocean off limits to fishing is not
working. Setting firm catch limits is long overdue.
Statistics about fish populations are grossly inaccurate and misleading
Blue Water Society 8 (Jul 11, http://www.blueplanetsociety.org/about14.html)

The threats to our marine environment (which accounts for seventy percent of the Earth's surface) have
had no such large scale, unified effort, and where the scientific data does exist it is often grossly
inaccurate or misleading. Take overfishing for example. The FAO (UN Food & Agriculture Organisation)
maintains the only global database of fisheries statistics collected between 1950 and 2004. Numbers used
are voluntarily reported by individual countries and are taken from sales of fish, rather than scientific
surveys. The system overlooks fish caught and consumed by those who catch them because this leaves
no economic trail. Three and fourfold underestimates are not uncommon. This can have profound
implications for overfishing as some nations sell rights to foreign fishing boats on the basis of these
flawed statistics. Other scientific fisheries data can be equally misleading. In a study by Dalhousie
University, Canada, it was discovered that the true scale of the devastation caused by overfishing has
remained hidden because in most of the world's oceans industrial fishing began long before fisheries
biologists started making accurate estimates of fish numbers.
Overfishing – Solvency – A2: Post-Brink

Preventing overfishing leads to greater harvests and drastically reduces fish prices as
populations reach a sustainable level which can accommodate higher catches
Somma 3 (Angela Natural Resource Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service
“THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND ECONOMIC COSTS OF DEPLETING THE WORLD'S
OCEANS” Economic Perspectives – January, <http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0103/ijee/somma.htm)
Persistent overfishing can lead to the elimination of the largest and oldest individuals from a population or
stock. Overfished populations are characterized by less-productive fish that eventually lead to a decline
in stocks. In the United States, recent average yields of all U.S. fisheries resources are roughly 60 percent of
the best estimate of long-term potential yield from these resources.
Alternatively, if overfishing is curtailed and fishery resources sustainably managed, fisheries become
more productive, the cost per fish harvested declines, and harvests rise substantially. For example, in
1999 the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) established a 10-year
rebuilding program for overfished North Atlantic swordfish. Catch reductions were integral to stock
recovery. Four years into the rebuilding program, the stock size is estimated to be at 94 percent of its
healthy level. With the program well on track, ICCAT was able to increase catch levels at its 2002
meeting. …
In addition to the numerous environmental costs, overfishing has significant economic costs as well. If
fishery resources were sustainably managed, total harvests could rise an additional 10 million metric
tons, adding $16 billion to worldwide gross revenues annually.3 In the United States, rebuilding currently
overfished stocks and preventing overfishing in other fisheries could generate an additional $2.9 billion in
revenue each year. 4 Current revenues are $3.0-3.5 billion. Thus, sustainably managing marine fisheries in
the United States' 200-mile exclusive economic zone (the source of most of the U.S. catch) could nearly
double revenues in this sector of the economy. …
Repealing subsidies solves
The International Herald Tribune 8 (“Where have all the fishes gone?” January 22, Pg. 6)
From time to time, international bodies try to do something to slow overfishing. The United Nations banned
huge drift nets in the 1990s, and recently asked its members to halt bottom trawling, a particularly ruthless form of industrial fishing, on
the high seas. Last fall, the European Union banned fishing for blue fin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean.
The institution with the most potential leverage is the World Trade Organization.
Most of the world's fishing fleets receive
heavy government subsidies for boat building, equipment and fuel, America's fleet less so than others. Without
these subsidies, which amount to about $35 billion annually, fleets would shrink and many destructive practices
would become uneconomic. The WTO has never had a reputation for environmental zeal. But knowing that healthy fisheries are
important to world trade, the group has begun negotiating new trade rules aimed at reducing subsidies. It produced a promising draft in
late November, but there is no fixed schedule for a final agreement.
The world needs such an agreement, and soon. Many species may soon be so depleted that they will no
longer be able to reproduce themselves. As 125 respected scientists warned in a letter to the WTO last year, the world is at a
crossroads. One road leads to tremendously diminished marine life. The other leads to oceans again
teeming with abundance. The WTO can help choose the right one.
Overfishing – A2: Fisheries Resilient (1/2)

Fisheries aren’t resilient in the world of subsidies – too many new fleets and technology
Anyanova 8 – Ekaterina, Lecturer in the law of the sea, I. Kant State University of Russia Ph.D
candidate, Hamburg University, Germany
[Rescuing the Inexhaustible…(The Issue of Fisheries Subsidies in the International Trade policy)∗,
http://www.jiclt.com/index.php/JICLT/article/viewFile/68/54]
The freedom of fishing on the high seas (at least until the 20th century) and high prices for tuna, billfish,
salmon and squid promoted high competition between states and, as a consequence, development of
modernized vessels and more effective fishing methods. Governments, under these conditions of high
competition, increased their fleets’ capacity as much as possible, providing partial subsidies to their fishing
industries. This led to what we have now: fishing fleets that are “overbuilt” (Warren, 1994 p. 2). In other
words, the amount of input money or capital oversteps the oceans’ productive capacity. First, too
many fishing fleets are catching too few fish (overcapitalization). Second, the new, more effective
ways of fishing, like largescale drift nets or advanced gear types and new technologies such as GPS, have
drastically increased the fleets’ capacity. Natural checks on overfishing, such as the “self-renewal”
of fish stocks, no longer help since fish no longer have time to reproduce their numbers (Peel, 1995
p. 1). Fisheries resources are finite—that’s why proper management and certain restrictions upon catches
are unavoidable if fish stocks are to be preserved at any level (Johnston, 1987 p. 3).
More evidence…
NSF 6 (National Science Foundation, 11-2, http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=108149)

“Unless we fundamentally change the way we manage all the oceans species together, as working
ecosystems, then this century is the last century of wild seafood,” says co-author Steve Palumbi of
Stanford University.
The impacts of species loss go beyond declines in seafood. Human health risks emerge as depleted
coastal ecosystems become vulnerable to invasive species, disease outbreaks and noxious algal blooms.
Many of the economic activities along our coasts rely on diverse systems and the healthy waters they supply. “The ocean is a great
recycler,” explains Palumbi, “It takes sewage and recycles it into nutrients, it scrubs toxins out of the
water, and it produces food and turns carbon dioxide into food and oxygen.” But in order to provide
these services, the ocean needs all its working parts, the millions of plant and animal species that
inhabit the sea. The strength of the study is the consistent agreement of theory, experiments and observations across widely
different scales and ecosystems. The study analyzed 32 controlled experiments, observational studies from 48 marine protected areas,
and global catch data from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) database of all fish and invertebrates worldwide from
1950 to 2003. The scientists also looked at a 1000-year time series for 12 coastal regions, drawing on data from archives, fishery
records, sediment cores and archeological data.
Fisheries are not resilient – They have sustainability thresholds
Harrison, Salt, and Reid 6 Brian Harrison Walker, David Salt, Walter V. Reid “Resilience Thinking:
Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World” Island Press, 2006 Google Books Page 36
Besides being inherently unpredictable, complex adaptive systems can also have more than one "stable
state."' A change in a system can move it over a threshold into a different "stability regime," sometimes
called an "alternate stable state"(Scheffer et al. 2001). A social-ecological system based on a wild fishery,
for example, can cross a threshold and experience a catastrophic collapse in fish numbers. The fishing
then stops but the fish population does not recover. The system has moved to a different stable state, a
state in which the commercial levels of the fish population are absent. (The notion of multi-stable states
and thresholds are discussed in greater detail in chapter 3.)
Overfishing – A2: Fisheries Resilient (2/2)

The current rate of overfishing has pushed species past the point of resilience

The domestication of land animals may have also inadvertently saved the remaining wild populations from
being hunted to extinction, a situation that unfortunately does not apply across the board. The exploitation of
wild marine animals continues unabated, mostly without the safety-valve of large scale farming to
reduce pressure on the populations. Perhaps because of the vast and hostile environment in which they
inhabit marine animals have, until recently, shown remarkable resilience to over 100 years of industrial
scale exploitation. But there are now numerous unmistakeable indicators that this is no longer the case.
Ninety percent of all commercial fish species are in dire trouble. Fished well beyond sustainable limits
for decades some experts predict that 'wild seafood', as such, will cease to exist by 2050. Fish and jellyfish
essentially compete for similar nutrient resources and with the fish gone the jellyfish thrive. Jellyfish
populations have exploded all across the world, overtaking fish in terms of total biomass in many areas.
There have been an increasing number of reports where whales, porpoises, seals and seabirds have
been found starving to death through lack of enough fish to eat and Namibia are culling 86,000 Cape fur
seals this year to protect their overexploited and dwindling fish stocks.
Even if fish are naturally resilient, fishers don’t give them the time to replenish themselves

Populations of large commercial fish species tend to level off at about ten percent of their pristine
numbers after prolonged industrial exploitation as they no longer become viable to catch at this level.
Fisheries managers may be unaware of the initial plenty and come to see this reduced population as
normal, sometimes even regarding the fishery as healthy as the population remains relatively stable
when it is actually only a shadow of its former self. On this basis it would be fair to assume that the world's
oceans may have once held ten times as many fish as they do today, a sobering thought which makes a
mockery of the so-called 'sustainable' industrial scale commercial fisheries.
Overfishing undermines reslience

Our oceans are resilient. If we act responsibly now, they can recover, but they cannot do so if we
continue to take more fish than nature can replace. Nor can our oceans’ health be restored if
irresponsible fishing practices continue to damage marine habitats. We must fully implement the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and adopt a new precautionary ethic to conserve ocean ecosystems and their bounty.
Overfishing – A2: Piracy T/O Solvency

Fishing subsidies lead to piracy, a major contributor to overfishing
Oceana 7 (June 1,
reach_kit/Impacts_on_US_Fishermen_FINAL_01.doc)
The impact of overfishing is reflected in the decline in U.S. landings of pelagic species such as tunas,
swordfish, oceanic sharks and dolphinfish, which decreased dramatically from 186,000 MT in 1980
(worth $247 million) to 47,000 MT in 1985 (worth $90 million). These landings were at an all-time low of
25,000 MT in 2005 (worth $108 million). Fishing subsidies have been linked to the promotion of illegal,
unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing. In the past two years, Oceana’s research vessel, the Ranger,
has caught numerous boats deploying illegal driftnet gear in the Mediterranean Sea. Many of these boats
were the recipients of subsidies from the European Union - totaling over 200 million Euros ($240 million) -
to convert to a more selective, legal gear. This case, which is now with the European Anti-Fraud Office and
the Italian authorities, is just one example of the misuse of subsidies in the European Union.
Overfishing – A2: Migration Solves

Overfishing has forced species to migrate into concentrated hotspots, and fishers are
pursuing them there
Chambers 1 (Jim, fisheries ecologist, http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=256)

As any population declines in abundance, its distribution collapses around those areas most critical to
its survival - spawning grounds and important feeding areas. Thus our "hot spots" may actually be the
last refuges for these species. Certainly, the areas most heavily fished by the commercial fleets are their
key spawning and feeding grounds (for maps showing these areas in the Atlantic, see our website at
www.Chambers-Associates.org).
Environmental hotspots key to life on the planet
Kunich 1 (Associate Professor of Law at Roger Williams University School of Law

[John Charles, Hastings Law Journal, August, 52 Hastings L.J. 1149, LN] bg)
many of the world's species have either gone extinct or are on the
It is rather well known, even beyond the scientific community, that
road to extinction. It is much less well known, but equally important, that enormous numbers of
these species are confined to a few "hotspots" of biodiversity, far beyond the norm for the average
region of comparable size. These hotspots are the key to the future of life on this planet. To understand why, we
must first examine the degree of risk to which earth's biodiversity is exposed today.
No part of the Ocean is unaffected by overfishing and human influence
Clausen 8 (August, Rebecca, Doctoral student studying Environmental Sociology at the University of Oregon The Oceanic Crisis,
Capitalism and the Degradation of Marine Ecosystems, EBSCOHost)
At the start of the twenty-first century marine scientists focused on the rapid depletion of marine fish, revealing that
75 percent of major fisheries are fully exploited, overexploited, or depleted. It is estimated “that the global ocean has
lost more than 90% of large predatory fishes.” The depletion of ocean fish stock due to overfishing has disrupted
metabolic relations within the oceanic ecosystem at multiple trophic and spatial scales.2 Despite warnings of
impending collapse of fish stock, the oceanic crisis has only worsened. The severity is made evident in a recent
effort to map the scale of human impact on the world ocean. A team of scientists analyzed seventeen types of
anthropogenic drivers of ecological change (e.g., organic pollution from agricultural runoff, overfishing, carbon
dioxide emissions, etc.) for marine ecosystems. The findings are clear: No area of the world ocean “is unaffected by
human influence,” and over 40 percent of marine ecosystems are heavily affected by multiple factors. Polar seas are
on the verge of significant change. Coral reefs and continental shelves have suffered severe deterioration.
Additionally, the world ocean is a crucial factor in the carbon cycle, absorbing approximately a third to a half of the
carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. The increase in the portion of carbon dioxide has led to an increase in
ocean temperature and a slow drop in the pH of surface waters—making them more acidic—disrupting shell-
forming plankton and reef-building species. Furthermore, invasive species have negatively affected 84 percent of the
world’s coastal waters—decreasing biodiversity and further undermining already stressed fisheries.
Overfishing – A2: Species Extinction Long Timeframe

If we keep overfishing, species will be pushed to the point of no return which sparks the
death spiral to extinction
Chambers 1 (Jim, fisheries ecologist, http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=256)

As any fish's population declines further, it will eventually reach a critical point at which there are no
longer enough adults remaining to find each other during their annual spawning period. From this
point onward, fewer and fewer young will be produced each successive year and the population will spiral
downward until it disappears completely. After it passes that critical point, the species is simply unable
to save itself. Fewer and fewer individuals remain each year until the "death spiral" begins and
eventually there are none left.
Overfishing – A2: Fish High on Food Chain
Subsidies have led to fishermen catching organisms much lower on the foodchain. Also lower
organisms are caught and killed in the bycatch. Unless subsidies are removed, krill and
zooplankton will soon be harvested.
Myers and Kent 1 Norman Myers and Jennifer Kent, International Institute for Sustainable Development,
“Perverse Subsidies: How Tax Dollars Can Undercut the Environment and the Economy” Google Books Page 154-
5. 2001
In addition, subsidies encourage gross wastage. Fishermen make enough profit on their subsidized
operations, albeit at the cost of progressively depleted fisheries, that they throw away many fish that
could be marketed but do not command best prices. (For details on this bycatch, see Box 7.1.) Because
the most favored species have often been exploited to commercial extinction, many fishermen are now
content to catch "trash" fish for sale, with several such species now fetching $3 or more per kilogram. But
again, trash fishing means that the structure of marine food webs, that is, the proportion of organisms
at each trophic level, is shifting. To cite a leading analyst, Elliott None, "We've eliminated the marine
equivalent of lions and bears, and we are moving towards taking rats, cockroaches and dandelions." If
current trends continue, fishermen could eventually find themselves obliged to catch jellyfish, krill, and
even zooplankton.
Every fourth creature taken from the sea is unwanted. Worldwide, these discards total at least 27 million
tonnes per year, equivalent to one-third or even one-half of fish landings. Discards, or bycatch, could he as
much as half of the entire catch by weight, but nobody really knows because they do not have to be
recorded and it is in the fishermen's interests to keep quiet about them. In fact, if we were to include all sea
urchins, sponges, and other marine life hauled up with commercial fish and then discarded, the
amount would readily be several times greater.' Discards of king crab in the Bering Sea in 1990 amounted
to 16 million individuals, more than five times the number landed and weighing 340,000 tonnes. Off the
northern coast of Norway in the 1986-1987 season, as many as 80 million cod, weighing almost 100,000
tonnes, were discarded because they were too small. In Europe's North Sea, about half of the haddock and
whiting caught for human consumption each year is discarded, usually because the fish are too small or of
inferior quality.; In some U.S. shrimp fisheries, 10 tonnes or even IS tonnes of fish arc dumped for every
1 tonne of shrimp landed, making up 175,000 tonnes per year; in the Gulf of Mexico during the past twenty
years, this bycatch has contributed to an 85 percent decline in populations of seafloor species such as
snapper and grouper. Most of the bycatch is thrown back either dead or in such a weakened state
that it forms easy prey for predators.
Overfishing – A2: Other Countries Key

Subsidies cause international fishing pressures – Fishers move into other countries’ waters
12-06)
When fish cross boundaries, pathologies multiply. There is no guarantee that fish leaving one nation's
waters will ever return, so the impetus is to catch as much as possible before the fish migrate.
Fishermen play one area off against the other. The jurisdiction with the weakest regulations becomes
the most popular -- and the anarchic "high seas" beats them all. Some fishermen fill their quota at
home, then travel to foreign waters and fish again.
There is a fisheries crisis indeed. The pathologies involve ecology, ethics, economics, and politics. Dozens
of fisheries are depleted, many have collapsed. Subsidies, price supports, dislocated fishermen, and
sportsfishing restictions all take their toll. The fisheries crisis caused nearly thirty international
conflicts in 1994 alone.
Avoiding the problems and preventing the tragedy of the commons requires institutional reform. Currently,
institutions usually reward fishermen for lobbying to increase subsidies and quotas, for increasing fleet
capacity, for entering a fishery, and for maximizing landings in the short term.
But there is reason for cautious hope. The astronomical costs of maintaining fisheries commons present
political entrepreneurs opportunities to innovate. Market forces and property rights have proven effective
tools for sensitive and sensible resource management. Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs), as a sort of
private-property fishing rights, are finding success in New Zealand and some Alaskan fisheries.
United States waters are dangerously overfished – commercial species are on the brink of
collapse
The Ocean Conservancy 2

(May 1st, “NOAA Report Shows A Number Of U.S. Fish Stocks Still In Peril”,
http://www.charitywire.com/charity38/02972.html)
Conservationists Seek Stronger Laws and Enforcement to End Overfishing. The number of fish stocks in need of
stronger conservation in U.S. coastal waters continues to be alarming, despite laws requiring federal fisheries
managers to stop overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. According to the Commerce Department's new 2001
Report to Congress: Status of Fisheries of the United States, 93 of 304 fish stocks are in peril. These include such
important species as Atlantic cod, red snapper, and Pacific rockfish. The Ocean Conservancy, a national science-
based advocacy organization, believes that the government must move quickly to put an end to overfishing.
Advancing technology has brought virtually the entire ocean within reach of fishing gear. Without protective
regulations, fish have no place to hide. Areas that were previously lightly fished have changed dramatically, and the
largest, most desirable fish are now gone. Historically, remote and unfishable natural refuges helped to sustain fish
stocks for centuries. With their loss, fisheries are in crisis, ecosystems are changing, biodiversity is being lost, and
numerous fish species have been driven to the brink of extinction. Mark Powell, Acting Director of Fish
Conservation at The Ocean Conservancy, explains why this report is so alarming, "Progress has been slow because
too often the fishing industry favors short-term profits over long term sustainability. It's time for managers to end
overfishing and rebuild our depleted fish populations." Ever since Congress passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act
(SFA) in 1996, fishery managers have been trying to rebuild depleted fish stocks. Each year they propose limits on
when, where, and how fishermen can fish. In many cases, those management measures are weakened based on
complaints from the fishing industry about economic hardship and the viability of the industry. And each year
overfishing continues on some of the most important fish stocks in United States waters. A study of fisheries in the
North Atlantic released in February revealed that catches of preferred food fishes--such as cod, tuna, flounder,
haddock, and hake--had declined by half over the past 50 years, even though fishing effort had tripled.
Overfishing – A2: Warming Key

Overfishing is a greater threat than global warming
Festa, Regas, and Boomhower 8 (DAVID, Dir of Science and Tech; DIANE, Mang Dir of Science and Tech
; JUDSON, Fellow of Environmental Defense; “Sharing the Catch,Conserving the Fish” Science and Technology,
http://www.issues.org/24.2/festa.html)
Two major blue ribbon commissions, the U.S. Gommission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Gommission, concluded that the
United States faces an ocean crisis. And although climate change is a serious threat to future ocean
productivity, overfishing bas had a bigger impact. The United Nations-mandated Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, the most thorough look at Earth's ecosystems ever, concluded that overfishing is "having
the most widespread and the dominant direct impact on food provisioning services, which will affect
future generations."
Fisheries subsidies keep the unprofitable practice of longlining afloat.
Ovetz 5 [Roberts, PhD Sea Turtles Restoration Project, “Saving Sea Turtles is Good for the Economy”]
Subsidies Obscure the True Costs of Longlining. Globally, governments are estimated to subsidize
fishing at a rate of 20-25 cents for every dollar earned by fishermen. Members of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) plus China account for approximately 75 percent of the $14-$20 billion7 in subsidies that are doled out each year.
This estimate may be extremely low, as the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) found in 1993 that such subsidies may amount to as much as $50
billion.8 The European Union and its member states provide an estimated $1.5 billion in annual subsidies, Japan close to $3 billion, and the United States
an estimated $2.5 billion per year is
$868.43 million, $150 million of which consists of tax rebates on marine diesel fuel. 9 In all,
pumped into the multinational North Atlantic fleets alone. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization,
worldwide fishing revenue amounted to only $70 billion while total operating costs totaled $85 billion.
As we will see, a significant proportion of the U.S. longline fleet has been unprofitable in recent years. An even
larger portion would have been unprofitable without the government subsidies that cushion potential
losses. Such losses do not include additional significant direct and external costs to the ocean ecosystem
and coastal communities that rely upon it.
Longlining is a massive contributor to global climate warming.
Longlining is also a major contributor of climate warming carbon dioxide gases. The fisheries in this
study consumed a staggering 1 billion liters of diesel fuel, each liter of fuel producing 2.66 kilograms of
CO2. The very small island nations that rely on meager royalties from the foreign longline catch in their EEZ
are caught in a paradox. Threatened by rising sea levels from global climate change, they rely heavily on
royalties from an industry that is a significant contributor of CO2 responsible for creating climate
change.
Overfishing – Ecosystem Collapse (1/4)

Over fishing leads to species loss
UN News Centre 3 (12-3, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=9051&Cr=biodiversity&Cr1)
Despite its crucial importance for the survival of humanity, agricultural biodiversity is in ever-greater
danger, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warned today. At the 32nd session of its governing conference in Rome, FAO also
reported that illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing worldwide appears to be increasing as fishers seek to avoid stricter rules in many places in
response to shrinking catches and declining fish stocks, and efforts to combat the practice must be intensified. The agency stressed that of the estimated
7,000 to 8,000 species that have been used in 10,000 years of agriculture, only 150 are cultivated today and no more than four – wheat, maize, rice and
potato – account for more than half of our food calories from plants. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, adopted in 2001, aims to protect
the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and the fair and equitable benefits from their use. When signature
closed on 4 November 2002, 77 countries and the European Union had signed the treaty. Some 33 States have currently ratified, accepted, approved or
acceded to the accord. The Treaty will enter into force 90 days after the 40th country ratifies it. To draw attention to the treaty’s importance, FAO organized
a side-event to the conference today to answer questions about it in preparation for its entry into force, probably in early 2004. With regard to IUU, the
agency warned in a report presented yesterday: "The
situation is particularly grave and forbidding given that some 75
per cent of world fisheries are already being fully exploited, overexploited, or depleted." Some IUU
fishers operate in areas where fishing is not permitted while others employ banned technologies,
outlawed net types, or flaunt fishing regulations in other ways, FAO noted. Yet others under-report
how big their catches are – or don't report them at all. In some cases, in fact, catches of commercially
valuable fish species may be surpassing permitted levels by over 300 per cent due to IUU fishing,
according to reports made to FAO.
Overfishing has left large fish are in critical condition. The destruction of these predator
species will bring about disastrous effects for marine ecosystems
Hinman 5, Ken Hinman, National Coalition for Marine Conservation, NCMC Issue Paper “ECOSYSTEM
PRINCIPLES, OVERFISHING AND BYCATCH IN MARINE FISHERIES” 06/23/2005
<http://www.savethefish.org/PDF_files/ecosystem_principles.pdf>
The ocean’s giant fishes are among the most threatened animals in the sea. Virtually all species of large
pelagic fish in the Atlantic Ocean are overfished or approaching that condition. In September of last
year, the National Marine Fisheries Service released a Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries. Of
the 86 species designated as “overfished,” 26 are Atlantic large pelagics: bluefin tuna, swordfish, blue
marlin, white marlin, and 22 species of large coastal sharks. Bigeye tuna, following a November 1997
stock assessment, will be added to the list later this year. The billfishes, sharks and tunas are keystone
predators in the sea. They help maintain a healthy balance in marine ecosystems by contributing to
stability, structure and predictability. By removing so many of these predators, we are weakening an
entire tier at the top of the food chain, with unpredictable but certainly unhappy ecological
consequences, far beyond the social, economic and moral costs of depleted fisheries. Never before has
such a broad range of large ocean pelagics been exploited so heavily, or have their numbers been so low.
What effect could widespread depletion of these big predators have on the ocean ecosystem? On other
species of fish? We’ve entered uncharted waters. Overexploitation of large predators could conceivably have
a greater, more enduring impact on the stability of an ecosystem than removing species farther down the
chain, according to the late Canadian fisheries biologist Peter Larkin. Predators are generally longer-lived
than their prey, and are thus slower to respond to changes in their environment, or to fill niches left by
the disappearance of other predators. (Larkin 1979) In addition, says Larkin, because fisheries for
predators usually harvest a range of predators - and that’s certainly true in the opportunistic and nonselective
longline fisheries for tunas and swordfish - increased exploitation means the total amount of predation in the
ecosystem is reduced. The resultant increase in prey species could dramatically alter the makeup of
their ecological tier, with some species thriving at the expense of others, or trigger an environmental
backlash of parasites, disease and depletion of forage species. These changes could in turn interfere
with our efforts to rebuild predator populations. Pauley et al recently noted a global trend toward
fishing down marine food webs, to lower and lower trophic levels as populations at higher tropic levels
are overexploited. He postulates that this trend, if it is allowed to continue, could lead to widespread
fisheries collapses. (Pauley 1998)

Overfishing of one species can lead to the collapse of the whole ecosystem due to the
complex relationships of marine biodiversity
Somma 3 (Angela, Natural Resource Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service “THE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND ECONOMIC COSTS OF DEPLETING THE WORLD'S OCEANS” Economic Perspectives –
January <http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0103/ijee/somma.htm>
Overfishing can have broader adverse effects on the ecosystem as well. As noted above, in the 1990s total
world catch reached a plateau. In some cases, this plateau in production was maintained by changes in
species composition and by "fishing down the food chain." Top predatory species tend to be fished for first.
Once depleted, fishing moves down the food chain and can simplify the marine ecosystem. This, along with
environmental changes to important habitat areas, can affect future fish production levels. Overfishing can
cause changes in marine food webs, adversely affecting other species. For example, the decline of Steller
sea lions in Alaska has been attributed in part to overfishing of the Stellers' main food sources: pollock,
cod, and mackerel. Overfishing also has the potential to indirectly change ecosystems such as coral reef
ecosystems. When plant-eating fish are removed from coral reef ecosystems, grazing is reduced,
allowing the algae that coexist with corals to flourish and potentially take over, especially if the water
contains high levels of nitrogen. Because they often reduce light that enters the water, these algae
contribute to the loss of corals, which depend upon light.
Marine environments around the United States are now dead zones. Overfishing kills the
top predators unbalancing the food chain leading to a great oceanic collapse
Guterl 3; With Kristin Kovner and Emily Flynn, “Troubled Seas” Newsweek, July 14 Fred)
On the one hand, that means the oceans are interrelated--and thus that the removal of predators can have
far-reaching effects. But it reveals nothing about the lower layers of the food chain. Scientists have only
piecemeal examples of what happens when marine eco-systems become unbalanced. The collapse of the cod
fisheries in the North Atlantic has been a boon to shrimp and sea urchins, the cod's prey. It's given
urchins free rein to devour the kelp forests, turning vast stretches of the sea floor into "urchin
barrens." In a study of coastal ecosystems two years ago, Jackson found overfishing of predators, rather
than pollution and global warming, to be the probable cause of oceanic "dead zones"--areas of complete
ecosystem collapse, where microbes fill the void left by fish and invertebrates.
Dead zones are found in the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay and the Baltic and Adriatic seas, and
they're spreading to the open oceans. Coral reefs in the Caribbean have been hurt by overfishing of algae-
eating fish, such as parrot fish. Sea urchins took up the slack for years, but when a disease outbreak wiped
them out the corals grew fuzzy and green with algae, and died.
Since so little is known about marine ecosystems, scientists are reluctant to speculate where all this might
lead. It doesn't take much imagination, though, to extrapolate from what we do know. If overfishing
continues for the big predators, it's possible that many of them may fall below a critical mass and lose
the ability to reproduce, sending populations into a downward spiral. That would throw millions of
people who depend on the fishing industry out of work. If the cod and herring fisheries are any guide, the
damage would take decades to reverse. It would be a global crisis; treaties would be signed; --the United
Nations would be granted the power to enforce fishing bans--and we'd all wait out the decades hoping the
fish would return. But they might not, ever. The removal of so many big fish could have a ripple effect,
killing off invertebrate and microbial life forms we haven't even heard of yet, but which serve as
essential links in the food web. How long would it take--50 years? 100?--to find that cod, tuna, halibut,
mackerel, marlin and other big fish were creatures only of farms or museums?

Overfishing destroys marine biodiversity
PPI 4 – Progressive Policy Institute

[Jan 28, Fish Subsidies Are $15 Billion a Year, http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=108&subsecID=900003&contentID=252352]
The natural consequence is rising environmental pressure -- according to the biannual report of the
U.N.'s Food and Agricultural Organization, about two-thirds of world marine fishery stocks are either
fully exploited or fished so heavily as to cause permanent damage. The heavy fishing of recent
decades can: (1) create extremely severe threats to high-value single species such as the Caspian
sturgeon (source of beluga and sevruga caviar), or the slow-growing deep-sea Patagonian toothfish; (2)
bring about the long-term collapse of historic fishing grounds for pollock, cod, sardines, and
similar staples; and (3) lead to indirect and unexpected effects on other parts of ocean systems --
i.e. loss of seabirds and mammals that feed on fish, or explosions in reef-eating sea urchins once
controlled by fish. Sometimes quotas and limits help fish recover; but not always -- despite a decade of
strict limits, Atlantic cod fisheries have yet to recover.
Overfishing will lead to global famine and loss of crucial biodiversity

Ibsen 99 – Thorir, Iceland Ministry for Foreign Affairs
[SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES: THE LINKAGES WITH TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT,
http://www.iisd.ca/journal/ibsen.html]
There is a growing concern in the world community about the state of fish stocks, ocean habitats
and marine biological diversity. This concern centers not least on the issue of overfishing. This apprehension is
understandable in the light of the importance of the oceans for the world community. Indeed, the living resources of the oceans are
the single most important source of food for humankind, they provide for the livelihood of millions of
people in coastal communities and even of whole nations, and they are of critical importance to the world’s
biological diversity. Hence the crucial importance that these resources be conserved and used
sustainably for the benefit of both present and future generations.
Overfishing outweighs all other threats to marine biodiversity
EPA 7
[Nov., Threats to Aquatic Biodiversity, http://www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/aquatic/threats.html]
Human activities are causing species to disappear at an alarming rate. It has been estimated that between 1975 and
2015, species extinction will occur at a rate of 1 to 11 percent per decade. Aquatic species are at a higher risk of extinction
than mammals and birds. Losses of this magnitude impact the entire ecosystem, depriving valuable
resources used to provide food, medicines, and industrial materials to human beings. While freshwater and marine
ecosystems face similar threats, there are some differences regarding the severity of each threat. Runoff from agricultural and urban areas, the invasion of
exotic species, and the creation of dams and water diversion have been identified as the greatest challenges to freshwater environments (Allan and Flecker
1993; Scientific American 1997). Overfishing
is the greatest threat to marine environments, thus the need for
sustainable fisheries has been identified by the Environmental Defense Fund as the key priority in
preserving marine biodiversity.

Overfishing destroys marine biodiversity which is key to human survival – outweighs every
other threat to biodiversity
Nuttall 6 – Nick, Head of Media Services, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya
[Overfishing: a threat to marine biodiversity, http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyID=800#]
Despite its crucial importance for the survival of humanity, marine biodiversity is in ever-greater
danger, with the depletion of fisheries among biggest concerns. Fishing is central to the livelihood
and food security of 200 million people, especially in the developing world, while one of five people on this planet
depends on fish as the primary source of protein. According to UN agencies, aquaculture - the farming and stocking of aquatic
organisms including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants - is growing more rapidly than all other animal food producing sectors. But amid facts
and figures about aquaculture's soaring worldwide production rates, other, more sobering, statistics reveal that global
main marine fish
stocks are in jeopardy, increasingly pressured by overfishing and environmental degradation. “Overfishing
cannot continue,” warned Nitin Desai, Secretary General of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable
Development, which took place in Johannesburg. “The depletion of fisheries poses a major threat to the food
supply of millions of people.” The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation calls for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), which
many experts believe may hold the key to conserving and boosting fish stocks. Yet, according to the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) World
Conservation Monitoring Centre, in Cambridge, UK, less than one per cent of the world’s oceans and seas are currently in MPAs. The
magnitude
of the problem of overfishing is often overlooked, given the competing claims of deforestation,
desertification, energy resource exploitation and other biodiversity depletion dilemmas. The rapid growth
in demand for fish and fish products is leading to fish prices increasing faster than prices of meat. As a result, fisheries investments have become more
attractive to both entrepreneurs and governments, much to the detriment of small-scale fishing and fishing communities all over the world. In the last
decade, in the north Atlantic region, commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock and flounder have fallen
by as much as 95%, prompting calls for urgent measures. Some are even recommending zero catches to allow for
regeneration of stocks, much to the ire of the fishing industry. According to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 70% of the
world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. The dramatic increase of destructive
fishing techniques worldwide destroys marine mammals and entire ecosystems. FAO reports that illegal,
unreported and unregulated fishing worldwide appears to be increasing as fishermen seek to avoid stricter rules in many places in response to shrinking
catches and declining fish stocks. Few, if any, developing countries and only a limited number of developed ones are on track to put into effect by this year
the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. Despite that fact that each region has its Regional Sea
Conventions, and some 108 governments and the European Commission have adopted the UNEP Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the
Marine Environment from Land based Activities, oceans are cleared at twice the rate of forests.
Overfishing destroys ecosystems – predatory species, marine food webs, and competing
species prove
Somma 3 (Angela, Natural Resource Specialist,

Office of Sustainable Fisheries, http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0103/ijee/somma.htm)
Overfishing can have broader adverse effects on the ecosystem as well. As noted above, in the 1990s total
world catch reached a plateau. In some cases, this plateau in production was maintained by changes in
species composition and by "fishing down the food chain." Top predatory species tend to be fished for
first. Once depleted, fishing moves down the food chain and can simplify the marine ecosystem. This,
along with environmental changes to important habitat areas, can affect future fish production levels.
Overfishing can cause changes in marine food webs, adversely affecting other species. For example, the
decline of Steller sea lions in Alaska has been attributed in part to overfishing of the Stellers' main food
sources: pollock, cod, and mackerel. Overfishing also has the potential to indirectly change ecosystems
such as coral reef ecosystems. When plant-eating fish are removed from coral reef ecosystems, grazing
is reduced, allowing the algae that coexist with corals to flourish and potentially take over, especially if
the water contains high levels of nitrogen. Because they often reduce light that enters the water, these
algae contribute to the loss of corals, which depend upon light.
Overfishing – Ecosystem Collapse – Predators Key

Predators are key to biodiversity- without them prey would face extinction.
Wilson 9 Edward O. Wilson, Pellegrino University Research Professor in Entomology for the Department of
Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University “The Diversity of Life” 1999 Google Books Page 176
To the forces that increase biodiversity, add predators. In a celebrated experiment on the seacoast of
Washington state, Robert Paine discovered that carnivores, far from destroying their prey species, can
protect them from extinction and thereby salvage diversity. The starfish Pisaster ochraceus is a keystone
predator of mollusks living in rock-bound tidal waters, including mussels, limpets, and chitons. It also attacks
barnacles, which look like mollusks but are actually shellencased crustaceans that remain rooted to one spot.
Where the Pisaster starfish occurred in Paine's study area, fifteen species of the mollusk and barnacle species
coexisted. When Paine removed the starfish by hand, the number of species declined to eight. What occurred
was unexpected but in hindsight logical. Free of the depredations of Pisaster, mussels and barnacles
increased to abnormally high densities and crowded out seven of the other species. In other words, the
predator in this case was less dangerous than the competitors. The assembly rule is this: insert a
certain predator, and more species of sedentary animals can invade the community later. Still another
dimension of complexity is added by symbiosis, defined broadly as the intimate association of two or more
species. Biologists recognize three classes of symbiosis. In parasitism, the first, the symbiont is dependent on
the host and harms but does not kill it. Put another way, parasitism is predation in which the predator eats the
prey in units of less than one. Being eaten one small piece at a time and surviving, often well, a host
organism is able to support an entire population of another species. It can also sustain many species
simultaneously. A single unfortunate and unmedicated human being might, theoretically at least, support head
lice (Pediculus 1114M117114S CapitiS), body lice (Pediculus humarius humanus), crab lice (Pthi- rus pubis),
human fleas (Pulex irritans), human bot flies (Dermatobia hominis), and a multitude of roundworms,
tapeworms, flukes, pro- tozoans, fungi, and bacteria, all metabolically adapted for life on the human body.
Each species of organism, especially each kind of larger plant or animal, is host to such a customized fauna
and flora of parasites. The gorilla, for example, has its own crab louse, Pthirus gorillae, which closely
resembles the one on Homo sapiens. A mite has been found that lives entirely on the blood it sucks from the
hind feet of the soldier caste of one kind of South American army ant. Tiny wasps are known whose larvae
parasitize the larvae of still other kinds of wasps that live inside the bodies of the caterpillars of certain
species of moths that feed on certain kinds of plants that live on other plants.
Overfishing – Ecosystem Collapse – Oceans Impact (1/4)

Oceans are critical to biodiversity and influence terrestrial habitats
WWF 8 (2-29, http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/blue_planet/index.cfm)

Life began in the oceans, and continues to thrive in its diverse habitats. With as many as 100 million species -
from the largest animal that has ever lived on Earth, the blue whale, to the tiniest bacteria - marine
biodiversity far outweighs that on land. And new species are being discovered all the time.
The oceans also have a huge influence on us landlubbers. They produce 70% of our oxygen, absorb heat and
re-distribute it around the world, and dominate the world's weather systems.
Oceans are critical to human survival – Many reasons
WWF 8 (2-29, http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/blue_planet/open_ocean/ocean_importance/index.cfm(

Oxygen: It’s not just ocean life that depends on phytoplankton. These tiny marine plants are estimated to produce over
half the oxygen that we, and all other land animals, breathe.
CO2 sink: Ocean waters have the capacity to absorb vast amounts of the greenhouse-warming gas carbon dioxide (CO2),
and thus have helped to buffer human-caused global warming and climate change. Indeed, nearly half the CO2 produced
by human activities in the last 200 years has dissolved into the ocean. Phytoplankton also lock CO2 away. Like land
plants, these microscopic algae use CO2 to grow. When they die, this CO2 sinks as organic matter to the bottom of the
ocean, keeping it out of the atmosphere.
Temperature and weather control: The surface layer of the ocean absorbs over half the heat reaching the Earth from the
sun. By distributing this heat around the world, ocean currents - which flow for thousands of kilometres, both at the
surface and far below - are extremely important in determining the climate of the world’s continents.
For example, the Gulf Stream carries warm water from the Gulf of Mexico all the way to western Europe. This water
warms the air above, which is then blown across to the land. As a result, northwest Europe is much warmer than other
lands at the same latitude.
Hurricanes and cyclones can be destructive when they hit land, but these tropical storms also help distribute heat from the
tropics to higher latitudes through the atmosphere.
Water cycle: The oceans are also an integral part of the water cycle. Vast amounts of water evaporate from the ocean
surface, rising into the atmosphere as water vapour. When this vapor collides with colder air, it condenses to form clouds
and rain.

Oceans are key to human survival
Earle 4 [Dr. Sylvia. Our oceans, ourselves. October, 2004. Earth and Sky. <http://www.earthsky.org/article/sylvia-
earle-interview> Accessed: July 16, 2008 10:59 PM]
Earle: The ocean is our life–support system. It’s the source of most of the oxygen in the atmosphere. With
every breath we take, we should be grateful that there is an ocean out there. For every drop of water that we consume, we should be grateful that there is an
97% of Earth’s water is in the ocean. What falls on the land and sea as rain, and sleet
ocean out there, because
and snow, ultimately originates, largely, out there in the sea. So, if we want to take care of ourselves, we
need to start by taking care of the ocean. Salazar: You’ve spent a great deal of your life studying the oceans. What are some
of the changes you’ve seen in that time? Earle: In my lifetime, since the time that I was a little girl living along the shores of the Gulf of
Mexico, I personally have witnessed the decline of coral reefs, of sea grass meadows, of the kinds of systems that really lend a good
health to the ocean. I’ve also seen the disappearance of many things that once were common – things such as nassau groupers, pink
conch, and a lot of small creatures that once abounded in near shore waters that are simply gone. These are not signs of good health. In
fact, we’ve seen in 50 years, the loss or serious decline of half the coral reefs around the world. We’ve seen
the loss of 90% of the big fish – they’re simply gone – in 50 years, as a direct consequence of both how many we’re taking, and the
destructive techniques that disrupt the places that fish require to recover. Not just fish, but shrimp and lobster and the whole suite of
organisms that we tend to like to eat. Now, that doesn’t mean that we can’t figure out ways to basically have our fish and eat them too.
But we’re not doing it now. We need to be much more assertive about protecting broad areas of the ocean that fish and other marine life
require, that the ocean itself requires in order to maintain integrity, the health of the systems. Right now, most of the ocean is
up for grabs. It’s being over–fished, it’s being over–polluted, and the consequences are not just a matter of
concern if you care about dolphins and whales and things. But, it should be a fundamental concern to everybody on the
planet, no matter where they live, because the ocean is the cornerstone of what makes this blue planet
function as it does. Anyone who looks over the shoulders of astronauts considers the world from afar, Those
images from space show that this planet is mostly ocean. Without oceans, consider what we would have
instead, a planet much like Mars, where people may someday set up housekeeping, but not six billion of us,
and not anytime soon. Water is fundamentally the cornerstone, the key. But it’s life in the ocean that drives
the way the world works. It generates the oxygen, absorbs carbon dioxide that shapes the chemistry of
the planet itself. Without life in the ocean, Earth would still be a fairly barren place. There was plenty of
life a billion years ago, entirely microbial. It’s only in the last half billion years or so that Earth has become
hospitable to the likes of us, when enough oxygen was generated to make the planet a place that we can
simply enjoy, without special space suits or spacecraft, or habitations that are protected from the outside,
whatever it is. Earth owes its existence as we know it, the congenial, healthy, friendly atmosphere,
because there is an ocean, and it is filled with life.
Oceanic biodiversity loss could be devastating to humans
Novacek & Cleland 1 [Michael J. Novacek American Museum of Natural History, New York and Elsa E.
Cleland, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University. The current biodiversity extinction event:
Scenarios for mitigation and recovery. May 8, 2001. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 May 8; 98(10): 5466–5470.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=33235 Accessed: July 16, 2008 8:49 PM]
The devastating impact of the current biodiversity crisis moves us to consider the possibilities for the
recovery of the biota. Here, there are several options. First, a rebound could occur from a natural
reversal in trends. Such a pattern would, however, require an unacceptably long timescale; recoveries
from mass extinction in the fossil record are measured in millions or tens of millions of years (10).
Second, recovery could result from unacceptably Malthusian compensation—namely, marked
reduction in the world population of human consumers. Third, some degree of recovery could result from
a policy that protects key habitats even with minimal protection of ecosystems already altered or encroached
on by human activity (i.e., protecting “hotspots”).

Healthy oceans are key to human survival; oceans provide us with food and wealth, and
moderate our climate.
The Ocean Foundation 05 [The Ocean Foundation. We are the Ocean Planet. 2005.
<http://www.oceanfdn.org/index.php?tg=articles&topics=32> Accessed: July 16, 2008 11:27 PM]
The health of the ocean is essential to human survival. The ocean is a major source of food, medicine,
and jobs. Fish from the ocean currently are the primary source of protein for one in six people on
earth. And, nearly a million people in the US have jobs that directly depend on the ocean and that add
$12 billion to our GDP. However, while the ocean supports the greatest diversity of life and ecosystems on
our planet, it is largely unexplored.
The ocean is a major influence on weather and climate. In fact it is the ocean that makes our planet
habitable. Without the ocean as a heat sink, our days would be unbearably hot, and our nights would
be freezing cold. The ocean naturally recycles our water and our air, constantly cleaning it for us to use
over and again 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In fact, 86% of the water we drink comes from the
ocean; and the ocean produces more oxygen than the rainforests. It even absorbs 48% of the carbon
that we humans put into the atmosphere. The ocean is the best protection we could hope for. We must
be good stewards of this part of our living world.
The overarching threat to the ocean is of course climate change. We cannot stop climate change, but we can
reduce the amount by which the planet warms. Aside from the threat of climate change, the biggest direct
threat to the ocean is overexploitation of its resources. The public has not yet caught up with these realities
and 87% view pollution, and oil spills in particular, as the most challenging threats to the ocean.
The ocean touches everyone and everything. It is essential to life and human survival. We all have a
strong, personal connection to the ocean (whether we realize it or not). Protecting the ocean protects
our health, our economy, and our children’s future.

The ocean is key to life on the planet – the coasts are the lynchpin
Weber 94 (Peter, The Environmental Magazine,

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1594/is_n3_v5/ai_15388179?tag=rbxcra.2.a.2)
Since the beginning of life on Earth, the oceans have been the ecological keel of the biosphere. The
marine environment, from the brackish waters where rivers flow into the sea to the deepest depths,
constitutes roughly 90 percent of the world's inhabited space. The oceans cover nearly 71 percent of the
Earth's surface, and their deepest trenches plunge lower below sea level than Mount Everest climbs above
it. They hold 97 percent of the water on Earth, more than 10,000 times as much water as all the world's
freshwater lakes and rivers combined. The oceans' seminal contribution to the planet was life itself. The
first living organisms on Earth are thought to be bacteria that developed in the depths of the seas some four
billion years ago. Not only are they the evolutionary ancestors of us all, but they created the oxygen-rich
atmosphere - a key to our existence - as a by product of their photosynthesis. Even today the oceans are a
foundation of global climate, and they are home to a unique array of species, many of which cannot be
found on land. Remarkably, deep sea dredges indicate that the ocean floor may contain as many species as
the world's tropical rainforests. Many of the species brought to the surface cannot be identified because
they have never been seen before, and are unlikely to be caught again. Scientists are increasingly turning to
the sea because of its unique biological diversity. They have derived anti-leukemia drugs from sea
sponges, bone graft material from corals, diagnostic chemicals from red algae, anti-infection
compounds from shark skin and many more useful agents. Time and evolution have distanced us from our oceanic origins,
but we still bear the traces of our saltwater heritage in our blood. We have an almost universal fascination with the timeless procession of waves, the smell
of salt water, the call of seabirds, the sheer scale of the sea. From the vantage point of a beach or a coastal cliff, the oceans look limitless and unchanged
from the way they appeared thousands of years ago. Throughout most of human history, we have seen only this view, and our governments have made few,
if any, attempts to protect the marine environment. Today, however, with technologies that allow us to penetrate the salt water depths, we have discovered
that the oceans, too, are vulnerable to the unsustainable trends that degrade the environment on land. Rapid population growth, industrial expansion, rising
consumption and persistent poverty are causing levels of marine pollution, habitat destruction and depletion of marine life that constitute a global threat to
If we were to declare war against the oceans, the most destructive strategy would be to
the marine environment.
target the coasts, the regions of most highly concentrated biological activity. Tragically, that is what we are already
doing - not by deliberate attack, of course, but through overcrowding of coastal areas and unsustainable economic development. Here is where agricultural
and urban waste pours in from the land, smoggy clouds pour out their contaminants, ships flush their tanks, and cities bulldoze wetlands to extend their land
seaward. Over half the people in the world now live within 100 kilometers of the coast, while coastal cities make up nine of the 10 largest cities and over
two-thirds of the top 50 in the world. As these cities continue to grow, developers drain wetlands that once served to trap nutrients, sediments and toxins, so
that runoff from construction, city streets, sewage plants and industrial facilities now flows unimpeded into coastal waters.
Overfishing – Ecosystem Collapse – Extinction (1/4)

Loss of Marine Biodiversity will result in extinction- probability is much higher than nukes
Norse 93 Chief Scientist at the Center for Marine Conservation, 1993 Ed. Global Marine Biological Diversity, p. xvii-xix Elliott
As the 20th century ends, the Cold War that drained so much of the world’s resources is finally over. Although we are by no means free of political strife
and there is deepening concern about nuclear proliferation, thespecter of nuclear holocaust enveloping our entire planet has
all but vanished. For this, all humankind can celebrate. Nonetheless, the joy of celebration dims as we realize that the Cold War diverted attention
from global threats even more grave than nuclear war. In trying to fulfill our needs, as individuals and nations, we have been ruining our home. The
Earth’s living resources are showing unmistakable signs of breaking down: Biological diversity is
decreasing sharply and our planetary metabolism is being pushed ever further out of equilibrium. How
to accommodate our material needs and growing desires while not degrading the life-support systems of a world that was not designed to accommodate
billions of us is the greatest challenge facing human species….This document differs from the Global Biodiversity Strategy in that it contains more
background information (Chapters 1 through 8) and less specific prescription (Chapter 9) because the need for conserving life in the sea and the principles
for doing so are less appreciated than for the land; marine conservation lags terrestrial conservation by roughly two decades. Even a book-length document,
however, cannot delve very deeply into a topic as marine biodiversity. Furthermore, although CMC has made every effort to make this a truly global
Strategy, a disproportionate amount of information comes from the USA. Given a few more years, this document undoubtedly would be better…but the
health of the marine environment would be even worse, and our options for curing the ills would be even fewer. The Strategy, therefore, is a first attempt to
lay out basic principles and recommendations for people whose decisions affect the health of the seas. Of course, understanding is of little value unless it is
a prelude to action. As the UN Conference on Environment and Development showed, there is an urgent need for decision makers worldwide to build
networks to put these principles into action. It is now clear that the
threat to the biological integrity of our planet is an
unequal emergency: We have the whole world in our hands. We can destroy it or coexist in it. If this document and others like it inspire our
leaders to protect, study, and sustainable use biological diversity, people will continue to benefit from the products and services of life on Earth. There is an
encouraging precedent for success: Our species managed to end the Cold War before we destroyed ourselves. Now we must work together to
end the destruction of our planet, lest we follow a different path to the same fate.

Marine microbes are the pillars of the biosphere. Upsetting the delicate balance of these
organisms could lead to human extinction
American Academy of Microbiology 5 “MARINE MICROBIAL DIVERSITY: THE KEY TO EARTH’S

HABITABILITY” <http://www.asm.org/ASM/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000001902/MarineDiversity.pdf>
Marine microbes are uniquely important to life as we know it. Since life most likely began in the oceans,
marine microorganisms are the closest living descendants of the original forms of life. They are also major
pillars of the biosphere. Their unique metabolisms allow marine microbes to carry out many steps of
the biogeochemical cycles that other organisms are unable to complete. The smooth functioning of
these cycles is necessary for life to continue on earth. …While it is true that marine microbial systems
drive the biogeochemical cycles that make life possible on this planet, marine microbes also have more
direct, immediate effects on human health and the well-being of the ocean ecosystem. Many of these
direct effects are the result of fragile microbial equilibria, balancing points between opposing trends that
could lead to serious repercussions for humans and our environment. The equilibrium between
bacteria and viruses in the oceans is an example of the kind of critical balancing act microbes perform
every day. Changes in water temperature and ultraviolet radiation (UV), two factors known to be impacted by
human activities, are known to disturb the relative numbers of bacteria and viruses in the oceans, with
possibly disastrous results for human health. The virulence of a virus that preys on the bacterium responsible
for cholera (Vibrio cholerae), for example, is affected by subtle changes in temperature. Hence, coastal
temperature is a key determinant of the burden of cholera in coastal waters—an important matter to humans
who live near those areas. Studies indicate UV can convert viruses between active and dormant forms, so
atmospheric changes that increase the amount of light in these wavelengths that reaches the oceans can upset
the balance between viruses and their hosts, possibly leading to uncontrolled epidemics in fish,
invertebrates, or humans. Microbial communities in the oceans also maintain the balances that can
keep harmful algal blooms in check. Algal blooms can poison humans and wildlife that consume
shellfish tainted by the algae. It is now known that nutrient pollution can disturb coastal marine microbes,
triggering these blooms. Symbiotic equilibria between marine microbes and their hosts could also be upset by
human activities. Increases in water temperature, for example, compel corals to drive out their bacterial
symbionts. Marine microbes mediate the nutrient ratios in seawater, and releases of nutrients from runoff,
wastewater treatment facilities, or other sources that upset those ratios can seriously unbalance ecosystem
health. Marine systems are highly connected with one another— more so than terrestrial systems. As a
result, altering microbially- mediated equilibria in one part of the ocean will often have impacts on
adjacent areas and far-flung regions. The coupling between the sediment (called the benthic zone) and
water (called the pelagic zone) in coastal areas is particularly tight and changing one of those components
will inevitably affect the other. Similarly, the deep ocean collects material from the upper ocean—the two
are somewhat separate but inextricably linked.

Marine biodiversity is rapidly declining but it’s not too late – action now key to preventing
ecosystem collapse
ScienceMag 6 (Nov., Global Loss of Biodiversity Harming Ocean Bounty)

Environmental groups often argue that biodiversity offers tangible benefits to people. Now, a group of
ecologists has put that argument to the test with the most comprehensive look yet at the human impact of
declining marine biodiversity. On page 787, they report that the loss of ocean populations and species has
been accompanied by plummeting catches of wild fish, declines in water quality, and other costly
losses. They even project that all commercial fish and seafood species will collapse by 2048. “It’s a gloomy
picture,” says lead author Boris Worm of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada. Yet the team provides a
glimmer of hope, concluding that people still have time to recoup these ecosystem benefits if they
restore biodiversity. Although none of these points is new, some experts say the study strengthens the case
for the practical value of biodiversity by marshaling multiple lines of evidence and taking a global look.
“This is a landmark paper,” says Jane Lubchenco of Oregon State University in Corvallis. Others aren’t
convinced yet. “It falls short of demonstrating that biodiversity losses are the primary drivers of why the
services have declined,” says Donald Boesch of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental
Science in Cambridge. Past studies of so-called ecosystem services have demonstrated, for example, that a
rich array of pollinators creates greater yields for coffee farmers (Science, 20 August 2004, p. 1100). But
proving that such benefits exist on a global scale has been difficult, particularly for the oceans, which remain
poorly studied. To gauge whether the loss of marine biodiversity matters, Worm and his co-authors
reviewed all the data they could find on the issue. They discovered a consistent pattern. In 32 small-
scale experiments, higher diversity of either marine plants or herbivores led to benefits such as greater
ecosystem stability and 80% more biomass. A review of 12 estuaries and other coastal ecosystems found
the same trend. Those with more species had lower rates of collapse of valuable fisheries than systems
that were relatively species-poor to begin with. The team also argues that loss of filter feeders led to a
decline in water quality, including depletion of oxygen, in regions such as the Chesapeake Bay. Data for
64 large marine ecosystems showed that fisheries are collapsing at a higher rate in species-poor
ecosystems than in species-rich ecosystems. “Within my lifetime, I might see global cessation of wild
fisheries,” Worm says. The good news is that closing fisheries and establishing protected areas boosted the
number of species in these regions by 23% on average and increased catch-perunit effort four-fold in nearby
waters, although overall yield didn’t increase much.

Marine biodiversity is on the decline from current fisheries practices – recovery is key to
prevent ecosystem collapse and a global economic downturn
Worm et al 6 (Nov, Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Impacts of Biodiversity

Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services)
Conclusions. Positive relationships between diversity and ecosystem functions and services were found
using experimental (Fig. 1) and correlative approaches along trajectories of diversity loss (Figs. 2 and 3)
and recovery (Fig. 4). Our data highlight the societal consequences of an ongoing erosion of diversity
that appears to be accelerating on a global scale (Fig. 3A). This trend is of serious concern because it
projects the global collapse of all taxa currently fished by the mid–21st century (based on the
extrapolation of regression in Fig. 3A to 100% in the year 2048). Our findings further suggest that the
elimination of locally adapted populations and species not only impairs the ability of marine
ecosystems to feed a growing human population but also sabotages their stability and recovery
potential in a rapidly changing marine environment. We recognize limitations in each of our data sources,
particularly the inherent problem of inferring causality from correlation in the largerscale studies. The
strength of these results rests on the consistent agreement of theory, experiments, and observations across
widely different scales and ecosystems. Our analysis may provide a wider context for the interpretation of
local biodiversity experiments that produced diverging and controversial outcomes (1, 3, 24). It suggests that
very general patterns emerge on progressively larger scales. High-diversity systems consistently provided
more services with less variability, which has economic and policy implications. First, there is no
dichotomy between biodiversity conservation and long-term economic development; they must be viewed
as interdependent societal goals. Second, there was no evidence for redundancy at high levels of diversity;
the improvement of services was continuous on a log-linear scale (Fig. 3). Third, the buffering impact of
species diversity on the resistance and recovery of ecosystem services generates insurance value that
must be incorporated into future economic valuations and management decisions. By restoring marine
biodiversity through sustainable fisheries management, pollution control, maintenance of essential
habitats, and the creation of marine reserves, we can invest in the productivity and reliability of the goods
and services that the ocean provides to humanity. Our analyses suggest that business as usual would
foreshadow serious threats to global food security, coastal water quality, and ecosystem stability,
affecting current and future generations.
Overfishing – Ecosystem Collapse – AT: Resilient: Tipping Point

Ecosystems are not infinitely resilient. Instead there is a tipping point where abrupt and
irreversible damage occurs. Unless steps are taken, the tipping point may occur anytime
Scientific Consensus Statement 6 “Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem-Based

Management” Prepared by scientists and policy experts to provide information about coasts and oceans to U.S.
policy-makers. October 18, 2006 <http://www.compassonline.org/pdf_files/EBM_Consensus_Statement_v12.pdf>
• The key interactions among species within an ecosystem are essential to maintain if ecosystem services
are to be delivered. Ecosystems are highly interactive and strongly linked. Removing or damaging some
species can dramatically affect others and disrupt the ability of the system to provide desired services.
However, not all interactions are equally important. The consequences of some species’ interactions strongly
influence the overall behavior of ecosystems. Small changes to these key interactions can produce large
ecosystem responses. For example, the absence of large-bodied predators at the apex of marine food
webs can result in large-scale changes in the relative abundances of other species. Ecosystem-based
management therefore entails identifying and focusing on the role of key interactions, rather than on all
possible interactions.
• The dynamic and complex nature of ecosystems requires a long-term focus and the understanding that
abrupt, unanticipated changes are possible. The abundances of species are inherently difficult to predict,
especially over longer time periods, in part because they may change abruptly and with little warning. For
example, decadal-scale changes (such as the North Atlantic Oscillation or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation)
significantly alter ecosystem dynamics and population sizes. Such long-term changes tend to be less
predictable because they are associated with large-scale environmental changes. Management must thus
anticipate and be able to adjust to these changes.
• Ecosystems can recover from many kinds of disturbance, but are not infinitely resilient. There is often a
threshold beyond which an altered ecosystem may not return to its previous state. The tipping point for
these irreversible changes may be impossible to predict. Thus, increased levels of precaution are
prudent as ecosystems are pushed further from pre-existing states. Features that enhance the ability of an
ecosystem to resist or recover from disturbance include the full natural complement of species, genetic
diversity within species, multiple representative stands (copies) of each habitat type and lack of degrading
stress from other sources.
• Ecosystem services are nearly always undervalued. Although some goods (fish and shellfish) have
significant economic value, most other essential services are neither appreciated nor commonly assigned
economic worth. Examples of services that are at risk because they are undervalued include protection
of shorelines from erosion, nutrient recycling, control of disease and pests, climate regulation, cultural
heritage and spiritual benefits. Current economic systems attach no dollar values to these services; they are
typically not considered in policy decisions and many are at risk.
Overfishing – Ecosystem Collapse – AT: Resilient: Deep-Water

The life cycles of deep-water fish make deep-sea ecosystems fragile. Top predator species
are dangerously close to extinction.
Royal Society 7, Veronica B. Garcıa, Luis O. Lucifora and Ransom A. Myers, Department of Biology, Dalhousie
University. 5 October 2007 <http://www.fmap.ca/ramweb/papers-total/Proc_R_Soc_B_in_press.pdf>
Regardless of the model used, our results indicate that the life-history traits and the extinction risk of
chondrichthyans are highly associated with habitat. Deep-water chondrichthyans have longer turnover
times (i.e. slower growth, later age at maturity and higher longevity) and, as a consequence, higher
extinction risk than oceanic and continental shelf chondrichthyans. Also, chondrichthyanstend to have a
higher extinction risk if they are matrotrophically viviparous (i.e. embryos are nourished by their mothers
during development) and, less importantly, have large body size. As extinction risk, as well as age at
maturity, was highly correlated with phylogeny the loss of species will be accompanied with a loss of
phylogenetic diversity. Extinction risk was significantly affected by reproductive mode; it was lowest for oviparity, increased
with lecithotrophic viviparity and was highest in adelphophagic, oophagic, histotrophic and placental viviparity. This sequence implies
that non-matrotrophic modes have the lowest extinction risk. Matrotrophy increases the energetic cost of reproduction to females
andmakes them less able to reproduce more often or have larger litters than non-matrotrophic modes (Wourms & Lombardi 1992). Thus,
an increased reproductive output by non-matrotrophic females results in a lower extinction risk at the population level. Our estimate
indicates that an average fishing mortality approximately 58 and 38% of that applied to continental
shelf and oceanic species, respectively, is sufficient to drive deep-sea chondrichthyans to extinction.
Remarkably, the pattern is apparent without incorporating the putatively less productive deep-water chondrichthyans in the analysis (i.e.
sleeper sharks Somniosus spp., bramble sharks Echinorhinus spp., sixgill shark Hexanchus griseus, bigeye sand tiger shark Odontaspis
noronhai, goblin shark Mitsukurina owstoni, false catshark Pseudotriakis microdon, some longnose skates Dipturus spp. and giant
stingaree Plesiobatis daviesi ) for which no data on age at maturity are available (Kyne et al. 2006). We acknowledge that life-history
variation among species within the same major marine habitat may exist, as documented for other taxa. Mesopelagic, bathypelagic and
seamount-associated fishes differ in their growth, maturity and longevity (Childress et al. 1980) and a similar situation may occur
between benthic and pelagic continental shelf fishes. Future information on chondrichthyan life history will make possible to group
species in a more fine-scale habitat categorization representing the wide range of chondrichthyan ecological variation (Compagno 1990).
The evidence linking body size to extinction risk in cartilaginous fishes is contradictory. Smith et al. (1998) estimated the rebound
potential (a measure of resilience to exploitation) of 28 shallow-water Pacific sharks. They found that there was a continuum of
resilience with age at maturity and body size, with the earliest-maturing and smallest species being more resilient
than late-maturing and larger ones. Dulvy et al. (2000) studied changes in species abundance and species composition of
skate communities of the Northeast Atlantic after prolonged exploitation and found that large species tended to decrease in abundance
and to be replaced by smaller species. Finally, Dulvy & Reynolds (2002) showed that among body size, latitudinal and depth range, only
body size predicted extinction risk in skates. By contrast, Corte´s (2002) found no correlation between the intrinsic rate of increase and
body size for 38 species of shallow-water sharks. Frisk et al. (2001) calculated the intrinsic rate of increase for 34 species of shallow-
water sharks and skates, and found that body size was only loosely correlated to it (r 2Z0.17). These contrasting results regarding
therelationship between body size and extinction risk are probably due to the correlation between body size and many other, more
meaningful, life-history traits, such as age at maturity, litter size or longevity (Blueweiss et al. 1978; Purvis et al. 2000). Our results
suggest that body size has a slight effect on extinction risk (probably due to a correlation with age at maturity) that may become apparent
at the extremes of the body size range. Our analysis identified the clades containing the order Lamniformes (mackerel sharks) and
Squaliformes (dogfishes) as the most extinction-prone groups. Mackerel sharks comprise some of the largest
chondrichthyans and some of the species most seriously threatened with extinction, such as the sand tiger shark
Carcharias taurus, the basking shark Cetorhinus maximus, the porbeagle Lamna nasus and the white shark Carcharodon carcharias
(Compagno et al. 2005). Dogfishes are generally small species (excluding sleeper sharks Somniosus spp.) that inhabit almost exclusively
deep-sea ecosystems, the habitat associated with the highest extinction risk. Management and conservation measurements are usually set
based on indirect proxies of extinction risk like body size, when information on life-history traits or population trends are unavailable
(Reynolds et al. 2005). Nevertheless, we found vulnerable species at both extremes of the size continuum, from
the big mackerel sharks to the small dogfishes. Focusing conservation efforts only on large species will
leave highly vulnerable species without any protection. Given their high extinction risk, we recommend
that all deep-water chondrichthyans should be given high conservation priority regardless of its size.
Deep-sea fisheries are expanding rapidly and the very low levels of fishing mortality needed to drive
deep-sea chondrichthyans to extinction may have already been reached in some areas (Graham et al.
2001; Devine et al. 2006; Morato et al. 2006). In addition, deep-sea fisheries appear to have already
reached the maximum depths attainable by chondrichthyans, leaving them without any depth refuges
(Priede et al. 2006). Minimizing fishing mortality in deep-water habitats already exploited and
preventing new deep-water ecosystems to be exploited are necessary to avoid the extinction of these
species.
Overfishing – Coral Reefs
United States overfishing could destroy all coral reefs by 2050

Maui Weekly 8 (7/24/08 http://www.mauiweekly.com/localnews/story7285.aspx)
Evidence that our coral reefs are in trouble is literally all around us. In 1972, the reefs near Ma‘alaea Bay on Maui
were described as being “striking in their diversity and in the presence of rare coral species.” But by 1993, according
to officials at the state Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), that coral cover had degraded to 50 to
75 percent. Today, they estimate the coverage to be only 8 percent. The collapse of our reefs, they said, is occurring
on a global basis.
The state of our reefs and steps that can be taken to protect them were addressed at the Kihei Community
Association (KCA) meeting on July 15. Officials from DLNR, the University of Hawai‘i, the Coral Reef Alliance
and Maui County attended to share information and hear concerns about the reefs from community members. “We
are seeing a lot of stress and decline in our reefs,” said Russell Sparks, an education specialist with the Aquatic
Resources Division of DLNR. “We need to make ‘social changes’ in the way we do things. When it rains, dirt
washes onto the reefs. When we irrigate, fertilize, even flush our toilets, the reefs are affected.” We can dramatically
reduce these actions without large monetary investments, he explained. Brian Parscal of the UH Botany Department
shared information about his team’s efforts to remove alien algae from coral utilizing an experimental tool he calls a
“supersucker,” which has been utilized successfully at Kaneohe Bay on O‘ahu. Residents and visitors may see the
team in South Maui in the future attempting to remove algae that has washed up on beaches. Liz Foote of the Coral
Reef Alliance urged the public to become aware, informed and involved in preserving the reefs. “Half of the coral
reefs under U.S. jurisdiction are in poor or declining condition,” she said. “Pollution, over-fishing, climate change
and coastal development are taking a toll. We want people to get involved and make a statement.” “If the present
rate of destruction continues, 70 percent of all coral reefs could be destroyed by 2050,” said Kuhea Paracuellas,
environmental coordinator for Maui County. “The reefs provide an estimated $375 billion worldwide in goods and
services,” she explained, ranging from food and pharmaceuticals to tourism, livelihoods and other revenues.
Overfishing is leading to coral destruction
CBC News 8 (7/7/08 http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/07/07/coral.html)

Half of all coral reefs off U.S. coastlines are in either poor or fair condition, say scientists who warn that marine life
in the Pacific and Caribbean oceans depends on the reefs. Garbage, overfishing and water pollution are the main
culprits, with reefs closest to urban centres suffering the most. Researchers with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration sounded the warning Monday at the International Coral Reef Symposium in Fort
Lauderdale. "We need to redouble our efforts to protect this critical resource," NOAA administrator Conrad
Lautenbacher said in a release. The report singled out the threat of coral bleaching, which occurs when the reef is
under stress, from increased water temperature, for example, and it releases photosynthesizing algae that live within
its tissue. The algae are responsible for the coral's distinctive colour, and once they are lost, the reef deteriorates.
American coral reefs have been declining for several decades, according to the report's authors. Since the last status
report was released in 2005, two species — Elkhorn and Staghorn corals — have become the first ever listed as
threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.
Overfishing – Fish Wars

Fish Wars as destructive as religious, political, and social wars
Pomeroy et al 7 (Robert, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics/CT Sea Grant, University of Connecticut,” Fish wars:
Conflict and collaboration in fisheries management in Southeast Asia”, March,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VCD-
4NVK1YP1&_user=56861&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059542&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=568
61&md5=3a83d3333f2fabb6f84edd1b77663538)
Conflicts and wars related to the rights over the use of land and water have been important human
issues throughout recorded history. Although many of us are probably more aware of wars fought over
religious freedom, political ideologies and social issues, conflicts over fishing rights and resources are
just as common, if less reported. Since the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) were established in the 1970s,
disputes have become more frequent and more violent than ever before. Due to the establishment of EEZs,
access to the world’s oceans has been radically reorganized and the access rights of foreign fishing vessels have been curtailed.
Negotiations, international fisheries agreements (such as those between European and African countries), and recourse to an
international tribunal have sometimes succeeded in resolving conflicts. More often than not, however, foreign boats from territorial
waters and EEZs or migrant fishermen from other locations in the country are expelled by force. Vessels are boarded and crew
imprisoned. Occasionally, weapons are used and people are killed. Fights have broken out, for example,
between Vietnam and Cambodia and between the Philippines and China over access to territorial
waters. Thousands of Indonesian fishers have been incarcerated as a result of illegal fishing in
Australian waters. While sovereignty issues are generally at the root of, they are also the manifestation of
competition for access to fish stocks, in coastal waters as much as on the high seas. In addition, the use of flags
of convenience serves to exacerbate the problem. The country where a boat does not necessarily identify its country of origin, and this
loophole enables fishing companies to flout international fishing and labor conventions with impunity.
Overfishing creates cycle of fish wars
Pomeroy et al 7 (Robert, Grant, University of Connecticut, John Parksb, Richard Pollnacc, Tammy Campsond,
Emmanuel Genioe, Cliff Marlessyf, Elizabeth Holleg, Michael Pidoh, Ayut Nissapai, Somsak Boromthanarati, Nguyen Thu Huej ” Fish wars:
Conflict and collaboration in fisheries management in Southeast Asia”, March,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VCD4NVK1YP1&_user=56861&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&v
iew=c&_acct=C000059542&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=56861&md5=3a83d3333f2fabb6f84edd1b77663538)
The result of overfishing and multiple sources of fishing pressure in Southeast Asian coastal waters is the reduction or
collapse of important fishery populations, leading to high levels of conflict among different users over
remaining stocks [12]. A complex, negative feedback cycle is created in this situation, whereby rapid population growth paralleled
by fewer economic opportunities and access to land increases the number of people living in the coastal zone dependent on fishery
resources and thus the number of fishers. Increased fishing pressure results in fish population declines and stock
collapses and increased resource competition, both between fishers and scales of fishing operation (e.g., small vs.
commercial). The result is reduced income and food security, increased poverty, and a lower overall
standard of living and national welfare. This in turn drives users to employ more destructive and over efficient fishing
technologies in the ‘‘rush’’ to catch what remains, thereby further depleting fishery populations. These factors lead to further
increased user competition, and thus higher rates and probabilities of human conflict, over remaining
stocks. This destructive cycle leads to a pattern of self-reinforcing ‘‘fish wars’’ with deteriorating social
and environmental consequences. Decreasing fish stocks combined with increasing conflict are driving some people out of
the fishery. This is leading to increasing unemployment in many rural areas. This added level of instability is thought to fuel national
levels of social unrest and political instability, thereby acting as a powerful and destabilizing risk factor to regional and global security
concerns.
Overfishing – Famine
Seafood is critical to the global food supply and general health
Halweil 8 (Brian, World Watch institute http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:i5Kv3Y1Rr7sJ:www.worldwatch.org)

People around the world ate about 156 million tons of seafood in 2004, the last year for which there are data.1
This is a relatively large jump from the preceding year—almost 9 million tons—about half of which was
satisfied by a rebound in certain wild fish populations, with the other half representing continued rapid growth in fish farming.2 (See
Figure 1.) (Since seafood is generally consumed fresh or within a few months of being caught, statistics on consumption and
production are nearly identical.)
Since 1950, seafood consumption has jumped almost eight times.3This rise in global consumption
comes even as seafood becomes scarcer. In 2006, scientists tracking historical changes in the world’s
major fish populations estimated that all major fish stocks could be commercially extinct—less than 90
percent of their historic levels—by the middle of this century if current trends continue.4
On average, each person ate three times as much seafood in 2004 as in 1950 (see Figure 2)—but the amount and type of seafood
consumed vary widely.5 The Chinese consume about a fifth of the world’s seafood, eating per person roughly five times as much
seafood as they did in 1961.6 Total Chinese fish consumption has increased more than 10-fold in that time.7 (See Figure 3.) Over the
same period, U.S. seafood consumption jumped 2.5 times.8 The Japanese consume the most seafood per person, about 66 kilograms
each year.9 In Europe, the average person eats about 26 kilograms a year, slightly more than the average Chinese does.
For people in wealthy nations, seafood is an increasingly popular health food option; given its high levels of
fatty acids and trace minerals, nutritionists recognize it as essential to the development and maintenance of
good neurological function, not to mention reduced risk of cancer, heart disease, and other debilitating
conditions. In poorer nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, people are also eating more fish, if
they can afford it or can fish for it themselves. 12 For more than 1 billion people, mostly in Asia, fish
supply 30 percent of the protein they consume, compared with just 6 percent worldwide.
More and more poor people are becoming reliant on fish for sustenance – especially in
developing countries
Tibbets 4 (John, Environmental Health Perspectives 112.5 (April): pA282, “Eating away at a global food source: the state of the oceans, Part 1”)
Seafood has long been a primary source of protein, vitamins, minerals, and essential fatty, acids for the world's poor.
Human populations have risen significantly in many developing countries where fish consumption patterns have
historically been high, says Nikolas Wada, a senior research assistant at the Washington, D.C.-based International
Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and coauthor of the October 2003 report Outlook far Fish to 2020: Meeting
Global Demand. As populations become increasingly urbanized, per capita fish consumption tends to rise because of
exposure to new markets and dietary patterns. Moreover, Wada says, FAO and IFPRI studies have shown that as
incomes rise, people consume more fish on average. "Since the past several decades have seen tremendous growth
in the urban populations of poor countries with traditional fish diets, along with income growth in these
populations," he says, "it is no surprise that fish consumption has exploded." And in wealthier nations--where heart
disease, obesity, and other "diseases of affluence" run rampant--people are seeking healthier sources of animal
protein. But with this explosion in consumption has come an explosion in environmental health consequences.
Among these are exhaustion of many wild fish stocks, pollution associated with aquaculture, marine habitat
destruction, spread of seafood-borne diseases, exposure to pollutants that bioaccumulate in fish, and growing
disparity between who in the world can afford to eat fish and those who cannot.
Overfishing – Famine – MoB

There is a moral obligation to act against starvation.
Rugman 8 (Jonathan, Channel4.com Rugman is a reporter for channel 4 news 4-22)

Gordon Brown calls an emergency summit on world food shortages, declaring that everyone has a
"moral obligation" to act. One hundred million people could face starvation because of soaring food
prices across the world. Now Gordon Brown has backed calls for urgent action across the world.
Developed countries have a responsibility to reduce hunger.
ITN 8 (International News Limited, Channel4.com 4-14)

Hundreds of thousands of people face hunger and starvation as the cost of food rises, the World Bank
has warned. Senior officials said the rapid rise in the price of staples like wheat and rice could also spark
global unrest and push millions of people into poverty. The crisis has been debated at a meeting of leaders
of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Washington. The IMF also sounded the alarm, saying
that if food prices don't fall there will be dire consequences for those living in developing countries like
Africa. The calls are now on the international community to take action to help increase food
productivity in low income countries. © Independent Television News Limited 2008. All rights reserved.
Overfishing – Poverty (1/3)

Overfishing causes poverty and starvation.
Nickerson 94 (Colin, The Boston Globe Nickerson is a Boston Globe staff writer 12-11)
That grim argument is heard again and again in saltwater communities all across Asia, Africa and other parts
of the Third World, where rapacious overfishing together with the destruction of coral reefs, coastal
mangrove forests and other critical sea-life habitats are wiping out the fish stocks upon which tens of
millions of the earth's poorest people depend for employment and sustenance.
According to the United Nations, the world's 15 million fishermen and 23 million tons of fishing vessels
represent twice as much fishing power - the ability to catch fish - as major stocks can sustain.
Most of the tonnage, of course, belongs to the fishing fleets of rich nations. Most of the fishermen are
poverty-stricken inhabitants of developing countries. Driven by greed, on the one hand, and desperation
on the other, both the too-effective machinery of modern fishing and the too-many fish catchers in the Third
World are busily destroying a precious resource.
In the Philippines, by contrast, there are fishing communities where already 50 percent of the children suffer
from serious malnutrition. In Bangladesh, Ecuador, Tanzania and other countries, levels of poverty and
malnutrition in fishing communities are even worse.
In the rural Third World there are no factory jobs, no fallback, no social safety nets.
"In poor countries, people who depend on fishing are extraordinarily vulnerable," said Thomas
Kocherry, an activist who works with subsistence fishermen in southern India. "For people in this low social
strata, the only alternative to going hungry is going hungrier."
"And the alternative to going hungrier?" Kocherry asked. "Starving. Going dead. This happens."

Foreign fishing subsidies cause unemployment of the artisanal fishing industry.
Hall 6 (Ronnie, Society for International Development. Hall is a member of Friends of the Earth International
www.sidint.org/development 2006)
In the Philippines, for example, the artisanal fishing industry has already fared extremely poorly in the
face of trade liberalization. The Filipino fishing sector employs 1.6 million artisanal fisherfolk, and
approximately 6 million people depend upon the industry for their livelihoods. Over the past decade,
the Philippines has slashed tariffs from 30 to 5 per cent, and this has paved the way for foreign fishing
fleets increasingly to fish offshore, bringing their catch into Filipino ports. Although the government of
the Philippines attempted to limit the dumping of fish imports with its Fisheries Code of 1998, which banned
the sale of imported fish on wet markets, this law is rarely enforced and smuggling is common. All in all, it is
estimated that 20 per cent of small and medium- scale commercial fishers have lost their livelihoods in
the Philippines. Poverty rates among fishers are higher than among the total population, and the majority of
the poorest provinces are coastal ones (Tan, 2002).
US subsidies lead to poverty of farmers in less developed nations.
Williams 2 (Frances, Financial Times (London,England) Williams is a writer for the Financial Times 8-23)
At the Bali preparatory meeting in June, poor countries accused the US, European Union and other
industrialised nations of hypocrisy in pushing their free trade agenda while maintaining high trade
barriers to developing country exports of farm goods and textiles.
Developing countries complained that while they have been forced, often under IMF-World Bank
programmes, to slash tariffs and open markets, the industrialised world is paying out more than Dollars
1bn a day to support their farmers and another Dollars 1bn a week in fishing subsidies.
As environmental groups point out, these subsidies not only damage the livelihoods of poor farmers and
fishermen by undercutting prices in domestic and foreign markets. They also damage the environment
by stimulating agricultural overproduction and depleting fish stocks to dangerously low levels.
At the launch of global trade talks in Doha, Qatar, last November, WTO ministers agreed to negotiate big
reductions in agricultural subsidies and "improved disciplines" on fishery subsidies.
But the EU and Japan, the biggest subsidisers, are dragging their heels, and the US, which has led the
campaign for slashing farm supports, has angered trading partners with a new law extending some
Dollars 170bn in subsidies to US farmers over 10 years.
Subsidies cripple third world fisheries.
Camacho 5 (Keite, Brazil Magazine Camacho is a writer for the Brazil Magazine 4-18
http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/2085/54/)
The overexploitation of the fishing sector in the last years has caused a reduction in world fish stocks,
especially in the North of the planet, where developed countries are located.
"There is an international movement for the decrease of subsidies countries offer for the development of
world fishing activity. These subsidies must be eliminated, as per this world understanding, because the
high subsidies offered by developed countries to fishing activities, including fleet construction and
infrastructure financing, created a super production, a super exploitation with a consequent stock
reduction in several regions of the world," explained Minister José Fritsch, of the Special Secretariat for
Aquiculture and Fishing (Seap).

Fish stock necessary to fight poverty in lesser developed countries.
Kourous 7 (George, FAO Kourous is head of media relations for the FAO 4-27
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2007/1000544/index.html)
The rights of poor fishermen to harvest and manage local fish stocks need to be strengthened in order
to fight poverty and reduce overexploitation of threatened coastal and inland fisheries, FAO said today.
"While fishing's role in helping people in the world's poorest communities feed themselves and stave off
destitution cannot be understated, our studies reveal that despite the food and income that fishing provides
many fisherfolk still live in poverty, while social ills and health problems are disturbingly prevalent in
their communities," said Ichiro Nomura, Assistant Director-General of FAO's Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department.
"Stronger efforts to tackle the diverse factors underlying this reality are needed, or else these
communities will simply continue to tread water, surviving from day to day, living in poverty, and not
managing local fish stocks as well as they might," he added.
Fisheries subsidies destroy community resilience towards econ fluctuations.

Fisheries financial transfers can have an impact on individual capabilities and human capital through
improving education and skills of fishers and families, improving their health and reducing poverty.
However, they can also serve to reduce individual and community resilience and the flexibility to
respond to changes in economic and natural conditions. Expectations of ongoing government support
can become embedded in decision-making processes of fishers and their communities, insulating the
sector from necessary adjustments, and further reducing the incentive to diversify economic activities.
This is a serious policy challenge in many coastal regions of OECD countries where there are few
alternatives to fishing.
Subsidies depress fish prices which puts poor African fisherman out of work
The Wall Street Journal 7

(July 18th, John W. Miller, “Rich Send Trawlers; A Dearth of Octopus”,
http://www.seaaroundus.org/newspapers/2007/WSJ_GlobalFishingTrade_18July2007.pdf)
Wealthy countries subsidize their commercial fishermen to the tune of about $30 billion a year. Their goal is to keep
their fishermen on the water. China, for example, provides $2 billion a year in fuel subsidies; the European Union
and its member nations provide more than $7 billion of subsidies a year. Such policies boost the number of working
boats, increase the global catch and drive down fish prices. That makes it more difficult for fishermen in poor
nations like Mauritania, who get no subsidies, to compete. The end result: African waters are losing fish stock
rapidly, with ramifications both to the economies of Africa’s coastal nations and to the world's ocean ecology. Over
the past three decades, the amount of fish in West African waters has declined by up to 50%, according to Daniel
Pauly, a researcher at the University of British Columbia. On Africa's coast, thousands of fishermen have been put
out of work. Some have been using their boats to try to migrate illegally to Europe. The economic effect extends
beyond fishermen to the many women who sell fish in markets in coastal communities.
Overfishing – Poverty – Impact

Poverty is the equivalent of an undending thermonuclear war against the poor and is the
root cause of all other forms of violence.
Gilligan 96 (James, Professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School and Director of the Center for the Study
of Violence, and a Member of the Academic Advisory Council of the National Campaign Against Youth Violence,
“Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and Its Causes,” p191-196
The deadliest form of violence is poverty You cannot work for one day with the violent people who fill our
prisons and mental hospitals for the criminally insane without being forcible and constantly rcminded of the
extwme poverty and discrimination that characterizes their lives. Hearing about their lives, and about their
families and friends. you arc: forced to recognize the truth in Gandhi's observation that the deadliest form of
violence is poverty. Not a day goes by without realizing that trying to understand them and their violent
behavior in purety individual terms is i~npossible and wrong-headed.- Any theory of violence, especiallya
psychological theory, that evolves from the experience of nlcn in maximum security prisons and hospitals for
the criminally insane must begin with the recognition that these institutions are only microcosms. They are
not where the major violence in our society takes place, and thc perpetrators who fill them are far from being
the main causes of most violent dcaths. Any approach to a theory of violence needs to begin with a look
at the structural violence in this country. Focusing merely on those relatively few men who commit what
we define as murder could distract us examining and llearning from those shuctural causes of violent
dcath that are far more significant from a numerical or public health. or human, standpoint. By
"structural violence" 1 mean the increased rates of death. and disability suffered by those who occupy the
bottom rungs of society, as contrasted with the relatively lower death ratcs experienced by tho% who arc
above them Those exLxss deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of class
structure: and that structure is itself a product of society's collective human choices. concerning how to
distribute the collective wealth of the socicty. These are not acts of God. 1 am contrasting "structural"
with "behavioral violence," by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by
specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we anribute to homicide,
suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on. Structural violence differs from behavioral
violence in at least three major respects. *The lethal effects of structural violence operate continuouslv,
rather than sporadically. whereas murders, suicides, executions. wars, and other forms of behavioral
violence occur one at a time. *Structural violence operates more or less independently of individual
acts; independent of individuals and groups (politicians, political parties, voters) whose decisions may
nevertheless have lethal consequences Cor others. "Structural violence is normally invisible. because it
may appear to have had other (natural or violent] causes. [Continued... (9 Paragraphs Later...)] The finding
that structural violence causes far more deaths than behavioral violcnce does is not liinilcd to this
country. Rohler and Alcock attempted to anive a[ the number of excess deaths caused by sociorcvnomic inequities on a worldwide basis. Swedcn was
their modcl of the nation that had come closes to eliminating structural violence. It had the least inequity in incom and living standards, and the lowest
discrepancies in death rates and life expectancy; and the highest overall life expectancy in the world. When they coinparcd the life expectancies of those
living in the other socioeconomic systems against Swdcn, they found that 18 million deaths a year could be attributed the "structural violence" to which the
During the last decade, the discrepancies between the rich and poor
citizens of all the other nations were being subjected.
nations have increased dramaticallv and alarmingly. The 14 to I8 rniilion deaths a vear caused by
structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this
frequencv of deaths from structural violence to the frequencv of those caused by major military and
political violence, such as World War I1 (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, includin~
thosc bv genocide-or about eight million per year, 1939-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps
575,000) deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear
exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R . (232 million), it was clear that even war cannot begin to
compare with structural violence. which continues vear after year. In other words, every fifteen years,
on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed by the Nazi genocide
of the Jews over a six-year veriod. This is, in effect. the equivalent of an ongoing, unending~ in fact
accelerating. thermonuclear war, or genocide. perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of everv
decade. throughout the world. Structural violence is also thc main cause of behavioral violence on a
socially and epidemiologically significant scale (from homicide and suicide to war and genocide). The
question as to which of the two forms of violcnce-structural or behavioral-is more important,
dangerous, or lethal is moot, for they are inextricably related to each other, as causc to effect.
Trawling Advantage – Subsidies Key

Fuel subsidies are critical to trawling – Trawling is uniquely harmful to marine ecosystems
causing irreparable damage
Seas at Risk 7 (http://www.seas-at-risk.org/news_n2.php?page=109)

Trawls and dredges kill non-target creatures living on the seabed and destroy coral reefs and other hard
seabed habitats; they also stir up sediment which then drifts back to the seabed smothering wildlife.
According to Drs. Van Houtan and Pauly, the scientists who published the photograph, repeated trawling can
permanently modify the seabed and alter the ecosystem for creatures living in the water column above. They
are now working with satellite data to try and quantify the amount of sediment that is churned-up and the
scale of the subsequent harm done to marine ecosystems by this kind of fishing.
Trawling is also a very energy-intensive method of catching fish, and the contribution that fisheries make to
CO2 emissions should not be underestimated. Recent research has shown that in the conventional trawl
fishery for Norway lobster, 9 litres of diesel fuel is burnt per kg of landed lobster; this could be significantly
reduced by switching to passive fishing techniques. Another example is the Danish flat-fish fishery where the
amount of diesel fuel per kg of caught fish could be reduced by a factor of 15 by switching from beam-
trawling to the Danish seine.
The absence of duty on marine diesel and direct subsidies for fuel (estimated at US$4.2-8.5 billion per year
globally) promote the use of active instead of passive fishing gear. The most direct and obvious way to
encourage a shift towards fisheries with less environmental impacts would be to ban direct fuel subsidies and
bring duty levels up to those paid by other users of diesel fuel.
Fuel subsidies independently promote bottom trawling
Oceana 7 (May 24, http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/dirty_fishing/cut_the_bait/

2007_Subs_outreach_kit/Oceans_in_Trouble_FINAL.pdf)
Fisheries subsidies also promote other destructive fishing practices. For example, high seas bottom
trawling—a practice so environmentally-destructive that the United Nations has called on countries to
severely restrict it—would not be profitable without its large subsidies for fuel. Subsidies have also been
documented to support illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing – a serious impediment to
achieving sustainable fisheries.
Trawling Advantage – Destroys Deep Sea

Trawling destroys deep sea ecosystems and leads to species extinction.
Gianna 4 [Matthew, The World Conservation Union Advisor, World Wildlife Fund, 2004]
The development of new fishing technologies and markets for deep-sea fish products have enabled
fishing vessels to begin exploiting these diverse but poorly understood deep sea ecosystems. By far the
most widespread activity affecting the biodiversity of the deep-sea is bottom trawl fishing. A number of
surveys and studies have shown bottom trawl fishing to be highly destructive to the biodiversity
associated with deep-sea ecosystems and concluded that it is likely to pose significant risks to this
biodiversity, including species extinction. The conservation and management of fisheries and the protection
of biodiversity within Exclusive Economic Zones is largely a matter of coastal state responsibility. However,
the international community as a whole has a collective responsibility to ensure the conservation of fish
stocks and the protection of biodiversity on the high seas.
Trawling subsidies risks destruction of deep sea biodiversity hotspots.
This paper presents summary findings on the extent, location, and current governance of high seas bottom
trawl fishing, drawing on available sources. It highlights the need for urgent action to protect seamounts,
deepwater corals and other biodiversity hotspots from high seas bottom trawl fishing and to avoid the
serial depletion of commercially exploited species of fish in these areas while gaps in knowledge and
governance are addressed. The key findings, which will be elaborated in the full report are as follows: Given
the localized distribution and high degree of endemism associated with seamount and other deep-sea
ecosystems, a large percentage of species belonging to these ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to
extinction. High seas bottom trawl fishing poses a major threat to the biodiversity of vulnerable deep-
sea habitats and ecosystems. High seas bottom trawl fishing has often led to the serial or sequential
depletion of targeted deep-sea fish stocks.
Longlining and deeptrawling destroy coral.
The three major gear types used in deep-sea bottom fishing – gillnets, longlines, and bottom trawls --
are all believed to have some degree of impact on corals and other bottom dwelling organisms. Bottom
trawling, which consists of dragging heavy chains, nets and steel plates across the ocean bottom, is
considered by far to be the most damaging and is the most common gear used in deep-sea bottom
fishing throughout the world. Its destructive impact has been clearly documented in a number of areas
of the Northeast Atlantic and Southwest Pacific Oceans, both on seamounts as well as along the
continental slope.1
1
Trawling Advantage – Sharks

Trawling and longlining threatens to push sharks to extinction.
Oceana 8 [July 2008, http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/Sharks/Predators_as_Prey_FINAL_FINAL.pdf]

Some fisheries directly target sharks as their intended catch, but other fisheries capture sharks incidentally
as “bycatch”, a term used for unintended catch. Unwanted sharks are then thrown overboard, with many
of them left dead or injured. Trawl fisheries are responsible for the largest bycatch numbers in coastal
areas, while longlines capture the majority of sharks as bycatch on the high seas. It is estimated that tens
of millions of sharks are caught as bycatch each year, which is nearly half of the total shark catch
worldwide.27 These startling numbers demonstrate the extreme threat that commercial fisheries pose
to the survival of these top predators. Remarkably, bycatch estimates fail to appear in most fishery
statistics, resulting in the continued mismanagement of shark bycatch
Sharks key to preventing ocean collapse.
Oceana 8 [July 2008, http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/Sharks/Predators_as_Prey_FINAL_FINAL.pdf]

Sharks have unfortunately fallen victim to the man-hungry stereotype society has created for them.
However, what the world should really fear is a world without sharks. Each year, humans kill more than 100
million sharks worldwide. This includes the tens of millions of sharks that are caught annually for their fins,
which are one of the world’s most expensive seafood products. As top predators, sharks help to manage
healthy ocean ecosystems. And as the number of large sharks declines, the oceans will suffer
unpredictable and devastating consequences. Sharks help maintain the health of ocean ecosystems,
including seagrass beds and coral reefs. Healthy oceans undoubtedly depend on sharks.
Trawling Advantage – Marine Species (1/3)

Trawling kills centuries old marine life
Science Codex 7 (2-17, http://www.sciencecodex.com/ecologists_ask_to_abolish_fuel_subsidies_that_help_deep_sea_fishing)

In international waters beyond the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of coastal countries, many of the fisheries are
virtually unregulated. Here fishing fleets operate like roving bandits, using state of the art technologies to plunder the depths. Deep-
water trawlers or draggers account for about 80% of the bottom fishing catch from the high seas. In a
few hours, the massive nets that drag the bottom and weigh up to 15 tons, can destroy deep-sea corals
and sponge beds that have taken centuries or millennia to grow. The trawlers target fish such orange
roughy and grenadiers for food, and sharks for the cosmetic industry. These fish are generally long-
lived, slow growing and late maturing so their populations take decades, even centuries to recover. And
because most deep-sea fishing occurs on the high seas (international waters) far from the watchful eyes of regulatory agencies – its
impacts on species and ecosystems is generally neither monitored nor controlled. "The unregulated catches by these roving bandits are
utterly unsustainable," says Robert Steneck, of the University of Maine. "With globalized markets, the economic drivers of over-fishing
are physically removed and so fishermen have no stake in the natural systems they affect," says Steneck. "While it may be a good
short-term business practice to fish out stocks and move on, we now see global declines of targeted
species." Ironically, this highly destructive form of fishing would be unprofitable without heavy government support. Rashid
Sumaila and Daniel Pauly of the University of British Columbia Fisheries Centre recently examined subsidies paid to bottom trawl fleets
around the world. They found that over $152 million US are paid to deep-sea fisheries. Without these subsidies, global deep-sea fisheries
would operate at a loss of $50 million a year. Most of these subsidies are for fuel. The fishing vessels have to travel beyond the 200 mile
limit to fish on the high seas and dragging the weighted nets consumes enormous amounts of fuel. "There is surely a better way for
governments to spend money than by paying subsidies to a fleet that burns 1.1 billion liters of fuel annually to maintain paltry catches of
old growth fish from highly vulnerable stocks, while destroying their habitat in the process," says Pauly. "Eliminating global subsidies
would render these fleets economically unviable and would relieve tremendous pressure on over-fishing and vulnerable deep-sea
ecosystems," says economist Sumaila. Currently, the tendency is to fish to depletion, even when catching the
dwindling stocks becomes harder and more expensive. "You get a signal from the stock – I am old, I am rare and I am
depleted, " says Pauly. "Subsidies allow you to overlook that signal and keep on fishing to the end. For the gains to be gotten, it
makes no sense to destroy centuries old growth fish and habitat."
Trawling in the Gulf of Mexico destroys marine ecosystems there and produces excessive
bycatch
Nature 7 (May 10, Mudtrails Bottom Trawling)

The long plumes of sediment churned up by their nets — ‘mudtrails’ — are a highly visible sign of the
disturbance to sea-bottom ecosystems that they leave in their wake. Conservation ecologist Kyle Van
Houtan of Duke University in North Carolina, and fisheries expert Dan Pauly of the University of British
Columbia in Vancouver, have identified many such mudtrails in satellite images available through Google
Earth. From the Gulf of Mexico to Malaysia, remote-sensing imagery captures details ranging from the
number of trawl nets dragged behind a boat to the white dots of seabirds flocking nearby to feast off
the unwanted bycatch that is dumped overboard. This particular image was taken by the QuickBird
satellite on 20 February 2003, off the coast of Jiangsu province near the mouth of the Yangtze River; ten
trawlers cover each square kilometre of ocean. Van Houtan and Pauly are now working with Quickbird,
Landsat and other satellite data to quantify exactly how much sediment is churned up by these boats to try to
get a handle on the toll taken by fishing. Repeated trawling, they say, can permanently modify the seabed
and alter the ecosystem for creatures living in the upper metres of the ocean. “Imagining is one thing,
but imaging is something else,” says Van Houtan. “When we see an image, it really crystallizes the impacts
and an attitude towards the sea.”

Current trawling in the U.S. ravages coral and marine biodiversity
Oceana accessed 8 (http://www.oceana.org/north-america/what-we-do/stop-dirty-

fishing/about/)
Trawls are large, cone-shaped nets that are towed along the bottom of the ocean, sweeping up just about
anything in their path. Through their actions, they clearcut the sea floor, which destroys ecosystems
that may have taken centuries to form (i.e. coral and rocky reefs, seagrass beds, etc.) and eliminates
hiding places that many marine species depend on for protection. It is estimated that trawlers annually
scrape close to 6 million square miles of ocean floor. Globally, shrimp trawlers catch and throw back between
five and 10 pounds of dead marine life for every pound of shrimp landed. In all, shrimp fishing accounts for
35 percent of the world's unwanted catch. Annually, in the U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico,
shrimping operations reportedly discard as much as 2.5 billion pounds of fish while drowning
thousands of endangered and threatened sea turtles. Each year as the shrimp fishery season opens off
the coast of Texas, hundreds of sea turtles killed by shrimp trawl nets wash up on south Texas beaches.
The U.S. trawls in the Southeast and Gulf destroying fish species and sea turtles
Blue Ocean accessed 8 (http://www.blueocean.org/seafood/species/157.html)

Penaeid Shrimp species are short-lived and highly fecund. In the Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern United
States, shrimp abundances vary according to environmental conditions and the fishery is well-managed.
However, shrimp trawling damages benthic habitat and results in large amounts of bycatch, including
commercially important fish species and threatened and endangered sea turtles.
The U.S. trawls for shrimp in the Southeast and Gulf which destroys marine biodiversity
and coral
Oceana accessed 8 (http://www.oceana.org/north-america/what-we-do/stop-destructive-

trawling/)
Destructive trawls and dredges used for commercial fishing have destroyed and continue to destroy
entire seafloor environments necessary to conserve, protect and restore healthy oceans and healthy fish
populations. Oceana is campaigning to protect deep sea corals and sponges and other vulnerable
seafloor habitat, and to prevent bottom trawling from expanding into new areas. Deep Seafloor
Ecosystems of New England and the Mid-Atlantic A wealth of marine life dwells on the seafloor in specific
deep water locations offshore from the Northeast United States. Read the report Deep Sea Trawl Fisheries of
the Southeast US and Gulf of Mexico Although most bottom trawl and dredge fisheries in the Southeast
US and Gulf of Mexico stay close to shore, three trawl fisheries have developed in the deep sea in search
of rock shrimp, royal red shrimp, and calico scallops.

Trawling in the U.S. is destroying coral on almost every coast
Oceana 7
(http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/reports/NewEnglandTrawlReport_low.p
df)
Deep sea corals are extremely sensitive to destructive fishing practices because of their fragile branches
and extremely slow growth. Fishing gear that disturbs the seafloor can be fatal to these corals, and is
especially harmful to deep coral ecosystems, sponges, and sea whips when conducted on a large scale. In the
Northeast United States and around the world, bottom trawl and dredge fisheries have wreaked havoc
wherever they overlap with deep sea corals [ Figure 1 ]. Bottom trawling is a method of fishing that
involves dragging weighted nets and trawl doors - large, flat metal panels weighing several hundred pounds -
across the ocean floor. The fish are captured in the back of the net which is held open by the two trawl doors
several yards apart from each other. When the trawl doors are dragged along the seafloor, everything in
their path is disturbed or damaged if not completely destroyed. Fragile and slow-growing deep sea
corals are extremely sensitive to this physical disturbance. In addition to the trawl doors, weighted metal
balls called bobbins or hard rubber wheels called rollers are often attached to the foot rope of the net, to
plow through any obstacles in their path.64 This heavy trawl gear will reduce most coral to rubble,
with little chance of recovery. The effect of trawling on all seafloor habitats is homogenization of the
physical environment,55 destruction of any attached living coral, and disturbance of associated fish and
marine life. Dragging bottom trawl gear reduces the complexity and upright structure of the seafloor
and limits the possibilities for regrowth. One of the most notorious examples of adverse impacts of
bottom trawling is on the Oculina Banks of Florida, the only known location of extensive reef-building
by the ivory tree coral, Oculina varicosa, in the world. These reefs were explored by submarine, and later
expeditions documented destruction of the majority of the reefs. Bottom trawl tracks could be seen
through the coral in some cases.50 Trawling for undersized rock shrimp in this area is thought to be
responsible for the destruction of Oculina colonies up to ten feet in diameter50 and the majority of a unique
deep sea coral reef bank. A study of trawl impacts in the Gulf of Alaska found that seven years after a
single trawl in a habitat with deep sea coral, seven of 31 colonies in the area were missing 80-99 percent
of their branches. The boulders in the area, which had provided habitat for coral, had been detached
and dragged, removing the fragile coral and disrupting the delicate ecosystem. All damage was
restricted to the path where the trawl net had been dragged.84 When the coral is destroyed, regeneration is
often impossible or so slow that it is difficult to measure. Additional research from the North Pacific
found that sea whips can also be broken or uprooted by trawl gear.6
Trawling Advantage – Coral Reefs

Trawling kills coral reefs
Science Codex 7 (2-17, http://www.sciencecodex.com/ecologists_ask_to_abolish_fuel_subsidies_that_help_deep_sea_fishing)

Ancient deep-sea corals suffer collateral damage from bottom trawlers. "In some places skippers have
replaced their nets with chains, to take out the corals so they don't tear the nets. Then they go back and
scoop up the fish," says Murray Roberts of the Scottish Association for Marine Science. Some living corals
may date back 1800 years and reefs may be older than the Egyptian pyramids. Scientists are losing climate
records, contained in corals, of the past centuries. "If we lose them, we are erasing invaluable historical
records," says Roberts. "And we are not only losing our past – on one coral mound off Ireland we found 8 species new to science in
just a few samples. These are real biodiversity hotspots." "The bottom line is that mistakes made now could take over a century to
recover, if they are at all reversible," says Baker. Baker and Richard Haedrich of Memorial University in Newfoundland looked at the
complete deep-sea fish fauna of the North West Atlantic – one of the first attempts to do so. They found that 40% of the deep-sea species
for which data are available, are in decline. "This is a steady decline, just down and down until the cupboard is almost bare," says Baker.
"Given the documented declines and the lack of life history data to know what recovery times would even be, conservation measures in
the deep-sea are urgent now." On December 8, 2006 the UN General Assembly reached an agreement for a new regime for the regulation
of fisheries on the high seas. Many countries including Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Netherlands, Norway, and the
United States called for a moratorium on unregulated bottom trawl fishing on the high seas. Canada, Iceland, Japan and Russia resisted
the call. In the end, a compromise was reached that calls on high seas fishing nations to conduct environmental impact assessments of
deep-sea bottom fishing and to declare high seas areas where deep-sea corals, sponges and other vulnerable species are likely to occur
closed to bottom fishing unless fishing nations can prove that their activities will cause no harm. On February 2, 2007, Japan, Korea, and
Russia, together with the US agreed to phase in a provisional management regime by 2008 for the deep-sea fisheries on seamounts north
of Hawaii in the international waters of the Northwest Pacific. "This is encouraging," says Matthew Gianni of the Deep-sea
Conservation Coalition and a former fisherman and trawler. "Full implementation of this new United Nations General Assembly
agreement plus an end to subsidies for deep-sea fisheries on the high seas is essential to conserving and protecting deep-sea ecosystems
from unregulated high seas exploitation. But it will take international cooperation and a real commitment on the part of the high seas
fishing nations to make it happen.""From an ecological perspective we cannot afford to destroy the deep-sea.
From an economic perspective, deep-sea fisheries cannot occur without government subsidies. And the
bottom line is that current deep fisheries are not sustainable," says Sumaila.
Trawling Advantage – Coral Reefs

Deep sea trawling damages coral reefs
Pickrell 4 (John, National Geographic News, 2-19, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0219_040219_seacorals.html)

Typically imagined as explosions of color in shallow, warm, azure tropical waters, coral reefs are often
regarded as the rain forests of the sea. It wasn't until recent years that scientists realized that reefs at
much greater and darker depths also teem with life—and may be home to the majority of coral species.
Yet even before these deep reefs have been fully explored and documented, they are being destroyed by
unregulated deep-sea trawling. Concerned that many species may be lost before they are identified, a group of 1,136 scientists
from 69 countries is appealing for new laws to protect deep-ocean corals and sponges. "Based on current knowledge, deep-
sea coral and sponge communities appear to be as important to the biodiversity of the oceans and the
sustainability of fisheries as their analogues in shallow tropical waters," said a statement released earlier this week
at both the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle and the United Nations Convention on Biological
Diversity held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. "We urge the United Nations and appropriate international bodies to establish a moratorium
on bottom trawling on the high seas," the scientists said. They include Harvard University's renowned ecologist Edward O. Wilson and
former head of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, D. James Baker. Great Depths Scientists first
discovered deep-sea coral forests in the 19th century but only recently realized how widespread and
important they are. Growing to hundreds, or even thousands of years old, deep-sea corals are filter-
feeding organisms that can form dense reefs in cold and deep waters as far apart as Alaska, Tasmania, Ireland, and
Colombia. Dated at 1,800 years old, one slow-growing deep-sea coral may rival some kinds of pine trees as the world's oldest organism.
Some of these corals even resemble trees, growing up to 10 meters (33 feet) in height. They have been discovered as deep as 3.5
kilometers (2.2 miles). Lophelia coral reefs in cold North Atlantic waters can harbor 1,300 invertebrate species, and 850 species of coral
have been found on underwater plateaus of the Tasman and Coral Seas. These forests provide habitats for huge numbers
of important deep-sea species, the scientists said Individual corals could produce chemicals potentially useful for treating high
blood pressure, cancer, and chronic pain. However, many species are being discovered only as they are destroyed
by fishing, said Lance E. Morgan. Morgan is chief scientist with the U.S.-based Marine Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI), the
nongovernmental organization responsible for organizing the petition. "Norway only found that it had these corals because of surveys for
oil," Morgan said. "So they were discovered and significantly damaged at the same time." Though oil and gas prospecting, deep-sea
mining, and global warming are all significant threats, today's greatest danger comes from fishing trawlers, the scientists wrote.
Indiscriminate Destruction Trawlers are fishing vessels that drag enormous and heavily weighted fishing nets at great depths across the
seafloor. These can be weighted with rollers or chains that crush everything in their path, Morgan said, smashing corals and sponges and
killing enormous quantities of nontargeted animals as well as the fish (including Chilean sea bass, orange roughy, and cod) and shrimp
the nets are set to catch.
Trawling harms coral reefs
EST 2 (Environmental science and technology, 3-18, http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2002/mar/science/mb_reef.html)

Modern fishing equipment that is dragged along the seabed has severely damaged coral reefs in the
northeast Atlantic, report a team of British, French, and Norwegian researchers. Because deep-water
trawling destroys patches of coral and flattens the seafloor, damaging or wiping out delicate species
that live there, legislation to create conservation areas to protect deep-water habitats and the fish they
support is urgently needed, they say. Although coral reefs are primarily associated with warm, well-lit waters off tropical
coasts, the researchers describe these reefs in the cold, grey Atlantic as Econtinental shelf. The researchers, led by Jason Hall-
Spencer of the University of Glasgow’s Marine Biological Station in Millport, United Kingdom, analyzed commercial fish
caught off Ireland and Scotland by two trawlers using otter boards—large metal plates on either side
of the net mouth, which plough across the seabed. The nets contained a range of reef creatures, including sponges and
pieces of broken coral up to one square meter in size. This is the first time scientists have examined trawler catches from these reef
areas. The team also investigated two Norwegian reefs using a remotely operated submersible vehicle. Only one had been intensively
trawled. The trawled reef was littered with coral rubble, and otter boards had left trenches 5–10 cm
deep. There was no sign of damage to the untrawled reef. (Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. B 2002, 269,
10.1098/rspb.2001.1910)
Bycatch – Subsidies Key

Subsidies cause bycatch and worsens over fishing.
12-06)
This process spawns other pathologies. Bycatch, the incidental landings of unsellable species, wastes
enormous quantities of fish every year (Discards in shrimp fisheries can outweigh shrimp landings eight to
one.). Many fishermen practice high-grading, throwing out less valuable fish. Fishermen lack
incentives to conserve the discarded fish, because they do not bear the costs of waste.
Subsidies increase bycatch.

But financial transfers which lead to increased effort and catches may also result in increased bycatch –
the catching of non-target species. In recent years, many OECD countries have introduced policies to
reduce bycatch, often including support to buy, install and operate more “environmentally-friendly” fishing
techniques and gear. However, by providing transfers that encourage increased fishing while at the same
time offering transfers that seek to reduce bycatch, governments risk sending mixed messages to
fishers.
Bycatch – Impacts
Bycatch worsens conservation and biodiversity.
Harrington 5(Jennie M., et. al. Fish and Fisheries Harrington et. al. are professors at various US universities
http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/Big_Fish_Report/faf_201.pdf)
The unintentional capture of non-target species of fish, mammals, turtles, birds and invertebrates is a well-
recognized feature of fisheries around the world. Usually termed by-catch, some of the captured organisms
may be retained for sale or use, while others are discarded back into the sea because of either low value or
regulatory requirements. Survival rates for discarded by-catch are highly variable (Chopin and Arimoto 1995;
reviewed in Alverson et al. 1994; Davis 2002), as are the impacts of by-catch on marine ecosystems (Hall et
al. 2000), but it is widely accepted that the ecological impacts of by-catch are substantial (Kelleher 2005).
By-catch, particularly discarded by-catch, is a serious conservation problem because valuable living
resources are wasted, populations of endangered and rare species are threatened, stocks that are
already heavily exploited are further impacted and ecosystem changes in the overall structure of
trophic webs and habitats may result (Alverson and Hughes 1996; Crowder and Murawski 1998; Morgan
and Chuenpagdee 2003). Discarding also results in substantial waste of potential food resources. As
global marine fisheries catches have begun to decline (Watson and Pauly 2001) and competition for
increasingly depleted stocks has intensified, the ecological, social and economic arguments to decrease
by-catch have received greater attention from policy makers, industry and the general public (Pitcher
and Chuenpagdee 1994; Alverson and Hughes 1996; FAO 2005; UN 2005).
Bycatch is high and is the greatest threat to ocean life – it exists as long as there is fishing.
WWF 6 [World Wildlife Fund, “Species fact sheet: Bycatch” 2006]

The numbers are truly frightening. For example: • Bycatch is also waste. Many millions of tonnes of marine life are still
unintentionally caught each year, either to be thrown away, or in some cases, utilized. • Over 300,000 small
whales, dolphins, and porpoises die from entanglement in fishing nets each year, making bycatch the
single largest cause of mortality for small cetaceans and pushing several species to the verge of extinction • Over
250,000 endangered loggerhead turtles and critically endangered leatherback turtles are caught annually on longlines set for tuna,
swordfish, and other fish • 26 species of seabird, including 17 albatross species, are threatened with extinction
because of longlining, which kills more than 300,000 seabirds each year • 89 per cent of hammerhead sharks and 80 per cent of
thresher and white sharks have disappeared from the Northeast Atlantic Ocean in the last 18 years, largely due to bycatch • Shrimp
trawlers catch as many as 35 million juvenile red snappers each year in the Gulf of Mexico, enough to have an impact on the population
Wherever there is fishing, there is bycatch. And the sheer numbers of animals being needlessly killed
makes bycatch one of the greatest and most pervasive threats to life in the oceans.
1/3 of all US fish tonnage are discarded, higher than FAO estimates for other countries.
This analysis shows that the estimated discarded tonnage of fish for all federally managed USA fisheries
combined was 28% of the landed tonnage or 1.06 million metric tons. This number is higher than FAO’s
estimate that 8% of the world’s landed catch is discarded (Kelleher 2005), but is comparable to the FAO
estimate of by-catch for the USA (927 599 tonnes or 21.7% of the total nominal catch).
Bycatch – US Key
US has the highest by-catch rates in the world.
Our estimate may be higher than the global fisheries by-catch estimate because in many world fisheries, there
is a substantial amount of landed bycatch in addition to discards (Zeller and Pauly 2005). In addition,
according to the FAO report on by-catch (Kelleher 2005), small-scale fisheries tend to have lower by-catch
rates than industrialized fisheries, particularly trawl fisheries for shrimp and ground fish. As the USA
fishery consists of a high number of these higher by-catch fisheries, the USA may have higher discard
rates than the rest of the world.
Longlining Advantage – It’s Up

U.S. is using longline fishing now which threatens turtle and seabird populations
Blue Ocean accessed 8 (http://www.blueocean.org/seafood/species/97.html)

With a life history strategy with high potential for resilience to fishing pressure, supply of mahimahi to the
U.S. marketplace is primarily imports from modern industrial distant-water pelagic longline fleets from Asia
and from coastal longline fleets from the eastern tropical Pacific. Bycatch of marine turtles and
seabirds is a concern. Pirate pelagic longline vessels, flying flags of convenience, with many owners based
in Taiwan, is a large concern. Little is known about mahimahi abundance status and trends
The U.S. is longlining now, destroying massive amount of marine species
Oceana accessed 8 (http://www.oceana.org/north-america/what-we-do/stop-dirty-

fishing/about/)
Longlines are fishing lines up to 40 miles long, with each containing hundreds of deadly hooks.
Longlines hook and kill numerous fish species such as the severely depleted white marlin, and hundreds
of thousands of endangered and threatened turtles, marine mammals, and sea birds each year.
Researchers estimate that 200,000 loggerhead and 50,000 leatherback turtles were caught worldwide by
pelagic longline fishing gear in 2000. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 75
percent of the loggerhead turtles and 40 percent of the leatherback turtles taken by U.S. longliners in
the Atlantic are caught by just a few boats on the Grand Banks in the North Atlantic. Dirty fishing by
longliners also accounts for 70 percent of U.S. blue marlin deaths and 94 percent of U.S. white marlin
deaths.
Longlining Advantage – Subsidies Key

Subsidies key to making longline fishing profitable
Steiner 5 (Todd, biologist and director of Turtle Island Restoration Network,

http://www.greens.org/s-r/36/36-01.html)
Technological advances have given humans the ability to harvest fish beyond the capacity of species to
sustain themselves, and longlining can be considered a poster child of high tech advances. Longlining
fishing gear consists of a 60-mile main line attached to 2,000 branch lines, each up to 1,200 feet long and
which have deadly hooks baited with squid or fish. Utilizing giant winches, these vessels can haul in the
more than 500 miles of line deployed each set, laden with hundreds of fish and other marine species. …
longlining is often a marginal commercial enterprise at best. With a small crew of three to four people, these
powerful vessels can remain at sea for months, freezing their massive catches. These vessels have a vast
range, and use high tech sonar and communication tools to locate and chase fish around the globe. High seas
(pelagic) longlining primarily targets swordfish and tuna. Recent economic studies show that longlining is
often a marginal commercial enterprise at best. On average, Atlantic longliners lose $7,000 a year after all
costs are added up, including depreciation on the vessel. Because longline fishers must pay off huge
mortgages on their vessels, they continue to fish, hoping for a big catch. The net losses are on average;
some efficiently operating longliners do make handsome profits. Fishing subsidies, such as low or no
interest loans to purchase vessels and subsidized fuel costs, keep many of these vessel owners afloat.
Government subsidies lead to new technology and more longlining
New York Times 96

(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3D91538F936A35752C1A96095826
0&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print)
Even if a technological fix is found, it will mean just that many more fish caught, adding incrementally
to the long lines' pressure on fish stocks. The pressure promises to increase as developing countries move
into long-lining and as fishing nations around the world, supported by government subsidies, build more
and more long-line vessels, Mr. Bartle said. As long as that happens, he said, ''there are going to be real
big problems.''
Longlining Advantage – Marine Ecosystems Impact

Longlining leads to overfishing and inadvertently kills many species key to marine
ecosystem survival
Steiner 5 (Todd, biologist and director of Turtle Island Restoration Network,

Among the greatest of the threats to our future is the decline of our planet’s greatest resource, the
oceans. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reports that 70% of marine fish species are
on the brink of collapse due to overfishing. Meanwhile, globally, 44 billion pounds of fish are discarded
every year—25% of the entire world catch. A primary threat to those ocean resources comes from
industrial longline fishing, an industry that sets over 5 million baited hooks every day (almost 2–10
billion annually), creating a curtain of death. These lines catch anything that bites or is unfortunate
enough to get hooked while swimming in their path. In addition to the impact this fishing technology
has on target fish species, the collateral damage is enormous and includes sea turtles, seabirds,
dolphins, whales, sea lions, marlins, and sharks. These marine species, critical to ecosystem dynamics,
are viewed as expendable by an industry that seeks to maximize profits without taking into account the
tremendous environmental costs of its practices. The collateral damage does not end here. Humans are
victims, too, and include the coastal communities in the developing world whose fishers are finding
their local fishing grounds devoid of fish, and, surprisingly, US consumers who are being offered a regular
year-round supply of mercury-poisoned fish.
Longlining Advantage – Sea Turtles Impact

Longlining is reducing sea turtle populations at a fatal rate

Longlining is decimating the billfish and pelagic bird populations. The iconic marlin, sailfish and swordfish
are now in grave danger of disappearing off the face of the earth forever and the accidental bycatch of
pelagic seabirds and turtles, such as the albatross and hawksbill, is reducing populations so quickly that
there is virtually no hope of their breeding quickly enough to maintain healthy populations.
Longlining is pushing sea turtles quickly to extinction
Ovetz 5 (Robert, PhD, Save the Leatherback Campaign Coordinator,

“Dirty” fishing gear like longlines, monofilament lines stretching up to 60 miles and baited with
thousands of hooks, catch and kill large numbers of non-target catch. The first to suffer the
consequences are ocean wildlife and local subsistence fishermen. A recent report estimates that longlines
catch and kill an estimated 4.4 million sharks, sea turtles, seabirds, billfish and marine mammals in the
Pacific each year. Scientists warn that the endangered Pacific leatherback sea turtle, often caught on
longlines, could go extinct in the next 5–30 years unless the threat of longlines is reversed.
Longlining Advantage – Shark Impact

Longlining is wiping out shark populations which are key to marine ecosystems
Ovetz 5 (Robert, PhD, Save the Leatherback Campaign Coordinator,

The most significant cause of the decline of sharks and marlin is industrial longline fishing. “Dirty”
fishing gear like longlines, monofilament lines stretching up to 60 miles and baited with thousands of
hooks, catch and kill large numbers of non-target catch. Most of the world’s longline vessels originate
from Taiwan and Japan although dozens of other countries, including the US, have much smaller fleets.
Longline fishing for tuna and swordfish just doesn’t come close to recreational angling when it comes to
generating cash. According to the US government, in the late 1990s in Hawai’i industrial longline fishing
generated $47.4 million compared to recreational fishing’s trip-related expenditures ranging from $130–
$347 million. Scientists warn that the rapid decline of top-of-the-food-chain species such as tuna, shark
and billfish may have far reaching consequences for the ocean ecosystem. With these predators out of
the way, new species such as stingrays are moving into their niches causing a wide range of unforeseen
problems. In addition to a significant decline in population, the actual size of fish caught has declined by
more than 50%.
Salmon Advantage – Subsidies Key (1/3)

Fishing subsidies lead to overfishing and threaten salmon
WWF 8 (“Threats”, https://secure.worldwildlife.org/oceans/threats.cfm)

In order to save the tapestry of life on Earth, we must combat the widespread processes that drive biodiversity loss on a global scale. The combined stresses
of overfishing, wildlife trade, pollution and climate change are imperiling our seas and the plant and animal species they sustain. Entanglement Scientists
believe that accidental drowning in fishing gear is the single greatest threat to the survival of many of the world's 86 species of whales, dolphins, and
porpoises. The most recent study on entanglement estimates that it kills more than 300,000 whales, dolphins, and porpoises annually. Partnering with WWF,
a group of leading scientists agreed to form a global rapid response team -- the Cetacean Bycatch Task Force -- that will provide expert assistance to regions
where species are in crisis. Working on the ground, they will join with fishermen, governments and other stakeholders to find solutions that work for
many of the
individual fisheries. Learn more about cetacean bycatch in WWF's Species Section. Overfishing According to the United Nations,
world's major fisheries are overfished or on the edge of collapse. Almost inconceivably, staples such
as tuna, swordfish, Atlantic salmon, and even cod will soon be threatened and the industries they
support, crippled. Inefficient fishing practices waste a high percentage of each year's catch, with
twenty-seven million metric tons of bycatch every year carelessly swept up and discarded by
commercial fishing operations. WWF aims to reverse this global threat to marine fishes and their ocean
habitat. Using market forces and consumer power to promote well-managed, healthy fisheries, WWF helped
establish the Marine Stewardship Council to create an international certification scheme for sustainable
fisheries as well as markets to purchase their products. WWF is working around the world to reform
policies, such as fishing subsidies, that encourage overfishing. We are also fighting unsafe commercial
practices of dynamite fishing and cyanide fishing, which threaten not only noncommercial fish, but other
marine life, including coral.

Subsidies kill US salmon stocks
Burns 3 WWF (“AMERICA'S STAKE IN THE CONSERVATION”

OF FISHERIES AND THE GLOBAL OCEANS,
<http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0103/ijee/burns.htm>)
Managing the world's fisheries in a sustainable way would assure their productive capacity for the
millions who work in them and the many more who depend on them for food, says Scott Burns of the
World Wildlife Fund. What the oceans need now, he says, are stronger management of migratory fish
stocks, reduction of fishing fleet overcapacity by eliminating subsidies, and strict protection for the
most biologically important marine regions. The fate of the earth's oceans is inextricably tied to U.S. economic and national
security interests. The oceans provide a source of employment and income for millions worldwide. When sustainable management of marine resources is
ignored, the long-term interests of coastal communities suffer and the economic engine upon which so many people depend is undermined. In major
fisheries around the world, critically important resources are being depleted, and coastal economies threatened. Managing marine resources sustainably,
however, will maximize economic return, strengthening local communities and our national economy. As we look abroad, as ocean resources are depleted,
we have seen that competition between countries or sectors intensifies and can trigger confrontations, including violent ones. The recent incident at the
maritime boundary between North and South Korea -- triggered by a disagreement over access to fishing grounds -- is a case in point and underlines the
strong U.S. interest in peaceful resolution of maritime disputes around the world. The well being of some of our country's most important allies will be
determined in part by how successful they are in conserving ocean wildlife. The Philippines, for example, is located at the heart of the world's most
biologically important coral region. Corals and the remarkable diversity of ocean life they support are an essential element in the Philippines economy. Yet,
these critical coral communities are disintegrating, part of a global collapse of coral ecosystems. Human activities threaten nearly 90 percent of Southeast
Asia's coral reefs, jeopardizing their biological and economic values to the local people. Left unchecked, this coral crisis can only have a further
destabilizing impact on coastal nations in the tropics, nations that are already in some cases politically and economically fragile. Alarming Trends The trends
in international fisheries are truly alarming. Notable cases include depletion of bluefin tuna populations worldwide, rampant -- and often illegal --
overfishing of Patagonian toothfish populations, and depletion of coastal fish populations in some of the poorest regions of the world by distant-water
vessels from Europe and elsewhere. In
the United States, foreign fishing has a direct impact on some of our most
important fish populations. The pollock, salmon, and other species caught in Alaska make up
roughly half the U.S. fish catch. Yet many of these important fish populations are shared with Russia, and illegal fishing in the Russian
waters of the Bering Sea poses a significant threat to the continued viability of these fisheries. As consumers, as employers, as citizens, we all depend on
oceans and their resources. The sea's bounty ranges from the ubiquitous fish fillet sandwich to limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL), a compound derived from
the blood of horseshoe crabs used to test all injectible drug products and medical devices for the presence of endotoxin -- a bacterium that can be fatal to
humans. If we use the sea wisely, the benefits it provides can increase over time. Unfortunately, the threats facing ocean wildlife and ecosystems have never
Of the world's major fisheries, more than 70 percent are either overfished or fully
been greater.
exploited. Addressing the problems of our oceans requires a shift in priorities: a redoubled effort to strengthen the international management of
migratory fish populations, new initiatives to create market signals that are consistent with ocean sustainability, and a global program to protect the most
biologically important marine regions for future generations. Improving International Fisheries Management For every example of effective fisheries
management there are too many cases of mismanagement, overfishing, and depletion. There is no single formula or solution to this problem. Wise fisheries
management requires a combination of political will, prudent thinking, adherence to scientific advice, and a focus on what makes sense over the long term
rather than what is merely expedient today. Unfortunately, current international fisheries management regimes fall short of what's needed to address these
concerns. Acquiescence to overfishing is the rule rather than the exception. In too many instances fishery managers have chosen to maximize short-term
returns and put the long-term potential of the fisheries they manage at risk. Recently, the United States played a leadership role in shaping the new United
Nations agreement that governs fishing for highly migratory and straddling fish stocks (the U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement). The agreement embodies
important principles meant to assure the sustainability of fish stocks and the protection of marine life and mandates new measures to promote more effective
and timely international cooperation and assure transparency in decision-making. But present regional fisheries conventions -- and the organizations that
implement them -- are often directly at odds with the ideals of the U.N Fish Stocks Agreement. The International Convention for the Conservation of
The North
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), for example, has been a vehicle for mismanaging some of the Atlantic Ocean's most valuable fish populations.
Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) has regularly ignored scientific advice and
presided over the demise of once-important commercial fisheries and the extinction of many
historic salmon runs. The U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement also explicitly calls on regional fisheries management organizations to do business in a
transparent fashion. These bodies have done business behind closed doors for too long. A lack of public scrutiny has encouraged shortsighted decision-
making. Exposing international fisheries governance to the light of day can only help assure accountability and better protect the fisheries resources. The
United States was one of the first major fishing nations to ratify the U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement. This lack of harmony is most pronounced in the fisheries
sector, where economic incentives encourage the expansion of fishing fleets that are already too large and stimulate a race for fish that is neither biologically
sound nor economically prudent. The United States should play a stronger role in encouraging the development of measures to address the problem of
fishing fleet overcapacity. Overcapacity is a root cause of the collapse of New England's cod population and is at the heart of the crises in the Pacific
rockfish and Alaska crab fisheries. It also poses a major threat to the health of international fisheries that are of critical importance to U.S. fishermen and
markets. Overcapacity, spurred by massive government supports on the scale of $15 billion to $20 billion annually, also is linked to poverty and
subsidies have helped
underdevelopment where subsidized fleets from developed countries compete with fledgling local industries. The
underwrite cycles of mismanagement that have ultimately left thousands of fishermen in
developing countries unemployed. Where overcapacity exists, fishermen must fish harder and
spend more to catch fewer fish but earn less. Overcapacity also increases habitat destruction and
the bycatch of marine life. While reducing the size of fleets is perhaps the single most important step that can be taken to improve the long-
term viability of fisheries and protect biological diversity and the economic interests of fishermen, international efforts to better manage fleet size have
made little progress.of the latest science convinces us that well-designed protected areas can help secure the long-term objectives of all parties.

Salmon loss due to subsidies leads to biodiversity destruction
Levin Institute 6 (12-07, “Collapse: End of Global Fish Stock by 2050?”, <
http://www.globalization101.org/index.php?file=news1&id=75>)
Declining Stocks A study published in the November 3 issue of Science has raised the alarm about the declining number of fish species in the world. Using
historical analysis, it projects the collapse of all fish stock by 2048. This was the first study on a global scale to investigate the role of biodiversity in marine
ecosystems. The four-year study was conducted by an international group of ecologists and economists at the National Center of Ecological Analysis and
Synthesis (NCEAS), at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The scientists examined fish catch reports from 1950-2003 for 64 ocean-wide regions
The biodiversity of 48 marine reserves and areas near fishing
that represented 83 percent of fish species in the world.
grounds were then examined.1 The results show that the “collapse”, a decline of over 90 percent of
stock, of one fish species can threaten an entire marine system. The reduction of biodiversity
impairs an ecosystem’s ability to recover from environmental stresses and promotes instability.
This can lead to the collapse of other species in that system. The study shows that deterioration of
an ecosystem happens more rapidly in low-diversity regions compared to high-diversity ones,
suggesting that deterioration toward overall fish stock collapse accelerates as the number of species
in a marine system starts disappearing. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), over
70 percent of fish species are currently in danger of collapse. Monitoring 600 groups of fish
species, the FAO deems 52 percent to be fully exploited, 17 percent overexploited, 7 percent
depleted, and 1 percent recovering.2 The FAO estimates that global capture of fish totaled 95 million tons in 2005.3 In recent years, fish
capture have remained at maximum levels, putting many fish population in serious jeopardy and further ending existing stocks.4 Increasing Consumption
Pollution, habitat destruction, and climate change are all cited as reasons for declining fish stock5 but it is human demand for fish that has contributed most
significantly to the threat of global fish collapse. Faced with higher aggregate and per capita demand globally, fish consumption has doubled since 1973.6
In developed countries, both wealth and health concerns have contributed to changing diet preferences in favor of fish. With higher income levels, people
now regard fish as an everyday meal choice. Health issues too are causing people to turn to fish as a source of protein. Fish as a proportion of animal protein
intake has increased over the decades and currently accounts for a 16 percent share in the average global diet.7 In recent years, the amount of fish consumed
in developed countries has stabilized due to lower population growth and calorie saturation of diets. Further growth in consumption will likely come from
developing countries. In Thailand, China, and Bangladesh, fish consumption already represents 70 percent of average animal protein intake.8 Because fish
is often more expensive than other sources of protein, rising income from low levels should increase the demand for fish. Studies have also shown that
urbanization leads to higher per capita consumption of fish.9 The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) projects an increase of 40 million tons in annual
fish consumption by 2015.10 Growth in Aquaculture One possible solution to future fish demand is aquaculture, or fish farming. Aquaculture has grown
from nine percent of fish production by weight in 1980 to 43 percent or 45.5 million tons in 2005.11 Over 90 percent of global aquaculture occurs in Asia,
commercial aquaculture is used to supply popular seafood items such
mostly in small ponds.12 In North America,
as salmon and shrimp. However, the industry has faced increasing scrutiny in recent years. North American
fish farms raise seafood in ocean cages that are rarely closed from its ocean environment. Inadequate waste
treatment leads to high nitrogen levels. This promotes algae bloom and creates “dead zones”
around fish farms. In addition, sea lice common in salmon farms have impacted other species, in
some cases killing 95 percent of the juvenile wild salmon in surrounding areas.13 Farmed salmon
contributes to the worsening global fish stock situation in another way. It generally requires
between two to five kgs of wild fish to grow one kg of farmed salmon.14 Consequently, some have advocated the
farming of herbivores like carp and tilapia, two species that have been cultivated for thousands of years in Asia.15 Policy Responses Increasingly, policy
makers are dealing with the world’s declining fish stock. The 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) saw leaders commit
to restoring fish stock to sustainable yield levels by 2015.16 The FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) has been a leader in international fish stock policy. In
the United States, the Magnuson-Stevens Act is the primary federal legislation governing fisheries management, setting out requirements to prevent
overfishing, minimize bycatch, and protect fish habitats.17 The current WTO Doha Round of international trade negotiations includes proposals to limit
Total subsidies to support the $90 billion global fishing industry are estimated
subsidies to fishing industries.
to be around $15 billion.18 Limiting subsidies would be a step forward to reducing overcapacity in
fishing. In some fish industries with species collapse, e.g. North Atlantic cod, subsidies to support
jobs in fishing communities continue to encourage overcapacity and overfishing. Despite these policy efforts,
both national laws and international treaties have been difficult to enforce. FAO has become increasingly concerned with “IUU fishing” (illegal, unreported,
unregulated).19 The International Plan of Action (IPOA-IUU) was developed by the FAO in 2001 as a Code of Conduct for countries to combat IUU
fishing. Chilean Sea Bass is a prime example of an IUU fishing victim.
Salmon Impacts – Species Loss (1/2)

Overfishing in the U.S. has pushed salmon to the brink of extinction
Contra Costa Times 8 (July 18, http://origin.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9926985)

A federal judge has concluded that California's water operations are driving some salmon runs toward
extinction — but he declined to intervene. The order, issued late Friday by U.S. District Judge Oliver
Wanger in Fresno, contained both good news and bad news for environmentalists and commercial salmon
fishing advocates, representatives of those groups said. Although they did not win immediate measures to
protect the fish, the judge's conclusions mean regulators will be forced to impose more protective conditions
when they issue a new permit in March, lawyers said. "It's a clear signal that business as usual in the
Delta is not going to be acceptable," said Kate Poole, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense
Council. At issue is how water is stored in Northern California and delivered through the Delta to parts of the
Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. Those operations have taken a severe toll on several
fish populations. The order addressed winter-run salmon, spring-run salmon and steelhead. It did not address
fall-run salmon, the backbone of the state's commercial salmon fishery that collapsed last year and forced the
state's first-ever closure of the salmon season. Fall-run are not covered by endangered species laws. "The
system is badly broken," Poole said. "The record high exports that we've been taking out of the Delta
have been crashing fish and killing the fishing industry. These agencies are pretty much incapable of
turning that around."
Salmon are a keystone species – a population crash would have devastating impacts
LA Times 8
[Infested fish may bear scars of global warming; Alaska salmon has been a rare success story among exploited
fisheries. A species crash could be disaster. Los Angeles Times June 15, 2008 Sunday, LEXIS]
Besides supporting fishermen, salmon
are a keystone species in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, supporting
wildlife from birds to bears and orcas. A crash could cripple dependent creatures. Mary Ruckelshaus, a federal
biologist with the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle, has been running climate models to peer into the future for Pacific Northwest salmon.
Those models predict that salmon will become extinct without aggressive efforts to preserve the clear, cool streams needed for spawning, such as planting
trees to shade streams and curtailing the amount of water siphoned off by farmers. "It's
sort of a time bomb," Ruckelshaus said.
"If people don't have a plan for it, it can be disastrous when it hits."
Salmon are a keystone species – more than 500 species depend on its survival
LA Times 8
[Sharks vs. salmon; Decades of legal and political stalling have stymied protection of the fish and spawned a crisis.
Los Angeles Times May 18, 2008 Sunday, LEXIS]
Last month, while late-winter storms pounded the Cascade and Sierra mountains and flooded dozens of salmon streams in the Pacific Northwest, members
of the Pacific Fishery Management Council huddled around a table in Seattle and pored over marine
biologists' latest predictions for
West Coast salmon. The news was shocking: The spring and summer runs of chinook salmon, once numbering in the
millions, in California's Sacramento River had dwindled to a few thousand. The message in the data was unmistakable: Like many of its
cousins to the north, the Sacramento chinook could be extinct within a few seasons. In response, the council canceled all
summer commercial salmon fishing off the California and Oregon coasts, a projected $200-million hit to the industry and the coastal communities that
depend on it to survive. But more than economics was at stake. The
salmon is the coastal ecosystem's "keystone" species,
one on which more than 500 other species depend for their own survival.
Salmon Impacts – Species Loss (2/2)

Salmon key to Biodiversity
Gende 2
(“http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:xI00t1SYPGYJ:www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_
2002_gende001.pdf+US+fishing+subsidies+salmon&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=157&gl=us>)
In addition to the direct effects of salmon subsidies, there are several indirect ecological ramifications of
these subsidies. We note three possible examples: (1) Salmon are a major source of food for bears, but bears
also consume fleshy fruits and thus serve as important seed dispersal agents for numerous plant species
in coastal forests (e.g., Willson 1993). Without salmon, bear densities would be lower and seed dispersal
patterns could be altered, with unknown consequences. (2) Fertilization of plants commonly leads to
higher nutrient content and enhanced growth, and some herbivorous insects attack fertilized plants at high
rates (Price 1991). Birds feed on many herbivorous insects and, in some circumstances, are capable of
reducing the herbivore load on plants, thus fostering better plant growth (Marquis and Whelan 1994). Higher
densities of insectivorous breeding birds along salmon streams in spring (Gende and Willson 2001) might mean that
natural control of herbivorous insects is better in salmon-subsidized forests. (3) Because salmon subsidies
can lead to enhanced growth and survival of stream-resident fish (Bilby et al. 1998), life-history strategies
that are dependent on juvenile growth rates may change. For instance, the timing and even the probability of
migration from fresh water to the sea may vary with juvenile growth rates (Healy and Heard 1984), which in turn
affects body size, patterns of spawning competition, and fecundity, with ramifications for population productivity
and thus for consumers and commercial harvests
Salmon Impacts – Economy (1/2)

Salmon key to the British Colombian economy
Gunn 7 – Brian, President of the Wilderness Tourism Association
[What IS Wrong with Fish Farming, http://savebcsalmon.ca/what.html]
• Pink salmon are the smallest salmon in the world, but they were our most numerous salmon. As such they carry the bulk
of the food home to this coast. Just as fish fertilizer makes your garden grow, pink salmon make our forests grow. •
Pink salmon clean the rivers with their busy nesting activities; they sweep up sediments caused by
logging and natural erosion. • Healthy pink salmon runs swim inland by the millions and hide the more
prized Chinook and Coho salmon from hungry bears, whales, seals and sea lions. • Coho and Chinook
salmon leave the rivers bigger than pinks. They would starve in many areas if it weren’t for all the tiny pink and
chum salmon that went to sea just ahead of them. • Because pink salmon feed lower on the food chain and live only two
years, studies have shown that they are one of the cleanest, most abundant wild sources of human food. • Pink
salmon parents fill rivers with nutrients that feed the entire coast, but their babies go straight to sea after hatching and
thus do not reap the generous legacy of their parents. They are a gift. They are the bloodstream moving energy from
the open sea to the forest. They bequeath life wherever they swim. It is no wonder that by some they have been
deemed sacred.
Wild salmon are the lifeblood of the British Colombian economy

Gunn 7 – Brian, President of the Wilderness Tourism Association
[What IS Wrong with Fish Farming, http://savebcsalmon.ca/what.html]
These are rich waters. Humpback whales and vast shoals of sardines have recently returned to BC waters. Wild salmon feed bears,
whales, eagles, forests, villages and fishermen, and lure 1.4 billion wilderness tourism dollars into
BC. By contrast, fish farming is worth $600 million. Why isn’t your government supporting businesses that depend on wild salmon? Ministers Bell and
Hearn you are in the hot seat. We can have wild salmon and farm fish, but unless you fix what is broken, you will extinguish
BC’s greatest renewable resource. One of earth’s largest migrations passes through the waters of
the city of Vancouver, host of the 2010 Olympics. Salmon are the life-blood of British Columbia.
Salmon Impacts – Economy (2/2)

British Colombian economy key to the U.S. economy
Cramer 1 – Guy, writer for CanWest [Nov. 6, Trade War with Canada results in dramatic U.S. Economic Depression
scenario, http://www.superforce.com/email-releases/softwood.htm]
The United States recently increased a 19% tariff and penalties to 31.88% on imported Canadian softwood lumber. The U.S. wants to further increase this
penalty. British Columbia residences propose retaliation by adding a 300% export tariff on Softwood lumber heading into the United States. Other proposals
put forward to the
Province of B.C. which controls B.C. Hydro is to limit or cut off Natural Gas and
Hydroelectricity power to the U.S., which is expected to cause long term rolling blackouts down the entire west coast of the United
States. Oil rich Alberta also affected by the softwood lumber penalties could join British Columbia to cease selling Oil to the U.S., as gasoline prices in U.S.
would be expected to jump above $5.00 U.S. per gallon. Suffering U.S. airline industry would be expected to collapse, as jet fuel costs could double ticket
prices. The domino effect on the U.S. economy would result in the worst economic collapse since the
Depression. Although the only part of this nightmare scenario that has been fulfilled so far is the 31.88% U.S. tariffs and penalties on Canadian
softwood lumber, prominent Americans have warned the U.S. government, the resource rich western
Canadian provinces backed into this corner could easily retaliate with Oil and Gas to collapse the already
struggling U.S. economy. Canada currently supplies more oil to the U.S. than Saudi Arabia. While the
economy of Canada’s softwood lumber giant, the Province of British Columbia, plummets into economic freefall as it
expects direct layoffs of over 30,000 before Christmas and possibly twice that many indirectly losing their jobs due to the increasing U.S. tariffs on the
Province’s largest industry. Federal Canadian political leaders in Eastern Canada sit idle. Western Canadian voters overwhelmingly supported the opposition
in the last few federal elections, the current Federal Liberals are returning the favour by providing little support for the dilemma in the West. Provincial
governments in the Canadian west may be forced to act without federal backing in this trade war if only for economic preservation. Canada
may
only have 1/10th the population of the U.S., however, Canada is America’s biggest trading partner
and is essential not only to the energy requirements of the U.S. population, but the U.S. relies
heavily on Canadian supplies of food, technology and manufacturing. While the Eastern side of Canada may have
the larger population and thus the deciding factor for the makeup of the Canadian Federal government, the Western provinces of Canada
are rich in oil, gas, lumber, fresh water, minerals and metals. The strange relationship of Federal support of Eastern issues
such as recent fisheries disputes, but lack of action for Western issues such as Softwood lumber, was largely expected in the West. Recent examples where
the provincial government has retaliated with the Americans in trade issues include the Province of B.C. cutting off the U.S. Military from a torpedo test
range, which took months for the Canadian Federal government to resolve. So while the friendly relationship between the two countries appears untarnished
by this current trade war, it should be noted that the western provinces have long had to deal with U.S. trade issues on their own. A
former
American CEO, Denver-based Tom Stephens "I would remind U.S. policy-makers that without Canada's
energy, they had better learn to speak Arabic and read by candlelight," Stephens former chief executive officer of the
Canadian forest firm MacMillian-Bloedel (now owned by Oregon-based Weyerhaeuser) said in a widely reported speech earlier this year, referring to
greater reliance on the Middle East if Canada retaliates by cutting supply. The Arkansas-born Stephens continued, "If I were a Canadian, which I'm not,
negotiating trade issues with the U.S., I wouldn't let that need for gas be separated from the issue of lumber, wheat, potatoes or any other commodity that the
U.S. producers are trying to restrict," Stephens added that B.C.
gas and power kept California's computers running
during recent shortages. "Canada has its hand on the American lights switch".
Tuna Advantage – US Key

US tuna populations have declined 90% because of overfishing by US vessels
Greenberg 7
(Paul, a W. K. Kellogg Foundation Food and Society Policy fellow, “A Tuna Meltdown”, The New York Times
Section 14CY; Column 0; The City Weekly Desk; OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR; Pg. 19, November 4th)
IT is tuna time in New York. I don't mean it's time for local bistros to put salade nicoise on their menus. I mean it's
the time when real, live tuna -- some of them eight feet long -- enter our waters en route to their spawning grounds
in the Gulf of Mexico. Here in the miraculous roiling currents of the Mudhole, 17 miles southeast of Manhattan, and
further out at hotspots like the Dip, off Montauk, tuna hunt squid and speed at 30 miles per hour alongside whales,
porpoises and sea turtles. It is the wildest display of unbridled nature a New York sport fisherman like myself can
ever hope to see. But for those of us who think tuna fishing is an undeniable rite of fall, things are looking deniable.
Last month, the National Marine Fisheries Service, which manages America's wild fish, called for a halt to catching
Eastern Atlantic bluefin, the largest tuna species that visits our shores. ''Continued overfishing of this seriously
depleted stock has convinced me,'' said Bill Hogarth, the service's director, ''to seek a moratorium on this fishery for
three to five years to give the stock time to begin recovery.'' That I and my fellow sport fishermen played a part in
depleting the bluefin is without doubt. Sport fishing accounts today for roughly a fifth of bluefin mortality in United
States waters and in the past many of those fish were simply photographed and thrown in the trash. But matching
these bad practices is a world that has grown voracious for tuna and a fishing industry that has answered that
demand with equal voraciousness. In the last 30 years, commercial fishing has reduced bluefin populations by as
much as 90 percent, according to some estimates. In the heyday of commercial tuna fishing, vessels called ''purse
seiners'' equipped with advanced sonar and spotter planes located and scooped up entire schools of small tuna.
Today, the bluefin that remain are pursued by boats called long-liners that set out miles of line and tens of thousands
of baited hooks. A long-line does not discriminate what it catches. Most devastating of all, large-scale commercial
long-lining is practiced with vigor in the Gulf of Mexico, the bluefin's breeding ground. Unfortunately bluefin will
continue to perish even if Mr. Hogarth manages to convince the 44 other nations that have signed onto a tuna-
conservation treaty to agree to a moratorium. Long-liners will merely dump any bluefin they catch -- usually dead at
that stage -- back into the water to avoid fines and turn to mining other prey.
Turtles Advantage – Trawling Links

The indiscriminate nature of bottom trawling wipes out sea turtles.
Oceana 8 [“Trouble for Turtles” July 2008]

Trawling, one of the most destructive and wasteful fishing methods because of its unselective nature, is used
to catch a wide variety of species from shrimp to cod. While there are many kinds of trawls, the basic design consists of a funnel-shaped
net where the mouth is kept open and is towed through the water or dragged on the sea floor. While the otter trawl is the most
common type of trawl gear, beam trawls also are used. Otter trawls use doors, heavy large panels in front of the net, to keep the mouth of the net open, while
beam trawls use a metal frame to hold the net open. Another type of trawl is a fly net, which is a high profile trawl used for fish that school higher in the
water column than typical ground fish, and is commonly used in depths less than 36m. Other types of trawls include skimmer, roller frame, pair and clam
kicking. Trawl fisheries operate throughout the year in various areas of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of
Mexico. The time of year and geographic area of the fisheries using trawls depend on the targeted catch and regulations governing each fishery. While
the shrimp fishery is one of the most economically significant trawl fisheries, the gear also targets a variety of other species, including flounder,
scallop, scup, black sea bass, ground fish, Atlantic croaker, mackerel, weakfish, squid and conch.13 Trawls generally target specific species,
but because of their unselective nature, they capture any fish, marine mammal, sea turtle or other
species in their path that are too large to escape through their mesh nets. These by catch species get
caught in the net, often suffering severe injuries or even death.
This trawling is only possible because of fishing subsidies.
Oceana 7 [“Global subsidies are fishing our oceans to death. It’s time to cut the bait,” Feb 2007]
These subsidies are not only environmentally destructive, but preserve uneconomic and inefficient practices and reduce industry competitiveness. For
a recent study found that the environmentally destructive practice of high seas bottom trawling
example,
would not be profitable without government subsidies. This practice is so harmful that the United
Nations tried to ban it – an action supported by President and key members of Congress – but was unsuccessful because of opposition
from major fishing countries, including Iceland, Russia, China, and South Korea.
Turtles Advantage – Longlining Links

Longline fishing has pushed sea turtles to the brink of extinction.
The impact of high seas longline fishing in the Pacific, which consists of the largest tuna fishery in the
world, can be felt throughout our planet. Industrial longline fishing not only threatens marine wildlife
but human societies that rely on the ocean for their own wellbeing. Sea turtles, seabirds, marine mammals
and other threatened marine species are caught, injured and killed by industrial longlines in large
numbers and pushed to the edge of extinction.
Fisheries subsidies keep the unprofitable practice of longlining afloat.
Subsidies Obscure the True Costs of Longlining. Globally, governments are estimated to subsidize
fishing at a rate of 20-25 cents for every dollar earned by fishermen. Members of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) plus China account for approximately 75 percent of the $14-$20 billion7 in subsidies that are doled out each year.
This estimate may be extremely low, as the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) found in 1993 that such subsidies may amount to as much as $50
billion.8 The European Union and its member states provide an estimated $1.5 billion in annual subsidies, Japan close to $3 billion, and the United States
an estimated $2.5 billion per year is
$868.43 million, $150 million of which consists of tax rebates on marine diesel fuel. 9 In all,
pumped into the multinational North Atlantic fleets alone. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization,
worldwide fishing revenue amounted to only $70 billion while total operating costs totaled $85 billion.
As we will see, a significant proportion of the U.S. longline fleet has been unprofitable in recent years. An even
larger portion would have been unprofitable without the government subsidies that cushion potential
losses. Such losses do not include additional significant direct and external costs to the ocean ecosystem
and coastal communities that rely upon it.
Turtles Advantage – Species Impacts

Sea turtles are especially vulnerable – minimizing their death is critical to their survival.
Oceana 6 [“Net Causalities” July 2008]

Each year, commercial fishing operations in the United States capture and kill thousands of sea turtles. In the
United States and many other countries, sea turtle habitats overlap with commercial fishing grounds, which create a
gauntlet of deadly obstacles for turtles and other ocean wildlife. In the Atlantic Ocean, sea turtles are forced to swim
through waters crowded with massive bottom trawls, gillnets, longlines, and scallop dredges. In the Pacific Ocean, gillnets and
longlines are major threats to sea turtles. Sea turtle populations are particularly vulnerable to the harm caused by
human activities. Sea turtles live for a long time, but only reach reproductive maturity late in life. As a
result of predators and other natural risks, relatively few sea turtles survive to maturity and even fewer individuals live to
reproduce. Consequently, minimizing sea turtle mortality from human activities, such as commercial fishing, is
especially critical.
Turtles Advantage – Econ Impacts

Sea turtles are key to the global economy – nonconsumptive use of them generates revenue.
Reducing sea turtle mortality through reductions in longline bycatch would save money by reducing the need for costly,
emergency sea turtle conservation efforts that are not calculated in the true costs of industrial fishing. Governments spend money on sea turtle conservation
the role turtles play in maintaining healthy sea grass and coral reef ecosystems, reducing sponges and
because of
jellyfish, preserving the cultural and spiritual heritage of island and coastal communities, and
attracting eco-tourism. These efforts will continue to be undermined as long as the market fails to account for the economic costs to
communities and countries from the destruction of sea turtles. Current spending on sea turtle conservation efforts is estimated at U.S. $20 million per year. A
recent study documented the replacement cost of raising sea turtles in captivity rather than protecting them in their habitat. It has been estimated that the
cost of raising one leatherback to maturity at the nursery in Rantau Abang, Malaysia over the course of 10 years would be $72,632. “Failure to
reverse marine turtle decline would imply a replacement cost for nesting females through captive
breeding estimated at U.S. $245.9 million–$263.3 million for green turtles and $2.5 billion for leatherback turtles. The
cost of rearing turtles in captivity suggests that conservation of marine turtles in the wild is less
expensive.” In effect, the necessary cost to recover the critically endangered leatherback sea turtle is equal to one-half the global annual revenue
earned by longline fishing, the largest threat to its survival. Sea turtles offer an ideal case study of the potential
complementary relationship between conservation and sustainable development. Developing countries
account for a striking 78-91 percent of the countries where five of the seven species of sea turtles live, and 61 percent of
these countries are home to two or more turtle species. As a consequence of the global distribution of sea turtles, “the future of marine turtle populations and
their potential to generate benefits to human societies depend mainly on policies implemented in countries with developing economies. These
are the
countries that stand to lose most from continued marine turtle decline. Conversely, developing
countries would benefit most from increasing sea turtle populations.”63 These benefits are not insubstantial.
“Nonconsumptive use [of sea turtles] generates more revenue, has greater economic multiplying
effects, greater potential for economic growth, creates more support for management, and generates
proportionally more jobs, social development and employment opportunities for women than consumptive
uses.”
Turtles Advantage – US Key

Florida is key – survival of sea turtles there is key to survival of sea turtles globally.
Caribbean Conservation Group 3 [July 2003, http://http://www.cccturtle.org]

The wildlife adventure show travels with CCC Director David Godfrey from the remote black sand beaches of Tortuguero, Costa Rica, to the Archie Carr
Green Sea Turtles" investigates
National Wildlife Refuge on the central Atlantic coast of Florida, and back again. "The Amazing Life Journey of
the great mystery of the green turtle's open-ocean navigation. These amazing sea creatures journey hundreds and sometimes
thousands of
miles from the tropical beaches where they were born to the shores and inland waters of Florida,
where they grow to maturity before returning to breed and lay eggs at the same beaches where they were
hatched. Florida's highly developed coastline and the remote beaches of Costa Rica are biologically linked
through the natural history of green sea turtles. Wild Odyssey was filmed on location at CCC's sea turtle research station on the edge of the
rainforest in Tortuguero and in Florida's Indian River Lagoon near Sebastian Inlet. The show begins by following Godfrey and a team of CCC researchers as
they conduct their annual sea turtle research and protection program in Tortuguero. After following newborn hatchlings to the water, the show migrates with
the turtles to the Florida coast, where Godfrey joins University of Central Florida professor, Dr. Llew Ehrhart, and his students as they capture and tag
juvenile green sea turtles in the Indian River Lagoon. The show includes extensive footage of green turtles foraging on reefs and in the lagoons of Florida's
Atlantic coast, swimming in the open ocean, and laying eggs on the volcanic sand beaches of Costa Rica. "The Outdoor Life Network has captured the
beauty and wonder of these oceanic nomads," said Godfrey. "Hopefully,
people will watch the program and realize the
importance of protecting our marine and coastal habitats for sea turtles and all manner of sea creatures
that depend on them. It is especially important that people understand the global role Florida plays in
the survival of sea turtles."
A2: Aquaculture Turn – NUQ – Aquaculture Up (1/2)

Aquaculture is growing and booming.
The Economist 3 (US Edition, 8-9)

The critics portray fish farming as an alarming environmental and health hazard, not a potential source of
food for the world's rich and poor alike. But they glide quickly over the fact that modern aquaculture is at
an early stage of development. Commercial agriculture has developed over centuries; large-scale
commercial aquaculture is little more than 30 years old. New technologies, new breeds and newly
domesticated species of fish offer great hope for the future. They promise a blue revolution in this century
to match the green revolution of the last.
The reason that people have been able to continue to eat more fish in spite of the over-exploitation of wild
fisheries is because aquaculture production has been booming. In 2000, the industry produced 36m tonnes
of fish and shellfish. Since 1990 the industry has been growing at an average compound rate of around
10% a year. It is probably the world's fastest growing form of food production. (By comparison, farmed
meat production grew by 2.8%.) Already, around half of the fresh and frozen seafood consumed by
Americans is farmed. Some people believe that, by 2030, aquaculture will supply most of the fish people eat.
Aquaculture has brought two crucial changes to the seafood industry: consistency of supply and lower
prices. Dennis Overton, the managing director of Aquascot, a fish-farming operation in the Scottish
Highlands, says that aquaculture has led to an increase in demand for fish. Before salmon were farmed,
supermarkets found the unpredictable supply made it difficult to sell. Now salmon can be sold in the same
way as beef or lamb, and this, he says, has had a huge impact on sales.
Alt causality to aquaculture – high demand, overfishing, inexpensiveness
Washington Post 5 [Juliet Eilperin Jan 2005 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31159-2005Jan23.html]

The recent push to boost fish farming, which has been practiced for thousands of years but took off
commercially only in the 1980s, is driven by several factors. The United States and other nations are
demanding more seafood: By 2025, the U.S. market will need 2.2 million tons more seafood than it now
produces. Meanwhile, the total global catch of wild fish has leveled off at just under 100 million tons.
Many nations, including China, Japan, Norway and Canada, have started farming fish to meet the
burgeoning demand. China leads the world, with as much as 70 percent of the world's aquaculture
production; by comparison, the 4,000 U.S. fish farms produce 1 to 2 percent of the global total. Sebastian
Belle, executive director of the Maine Aquaculture Association, compares fish farming to the Neolithic
Revolution, in which humans moved over the course of more than 6,000 years from hunting and gathering to
raising animals and plants domestically. "People who go fishing are the last commercial market hunters in the
world," Belle said. "We don't do that anymore on land." Although many wild stocks are suffering from
overfishing, fish farmers say they can provide a reliable and inexpensive supply of salmon, catfish,
shrimp and other species year-round. New Brunswick-based Cooke Aquaculture processes 100,000
pounds of fish every day, seven days a week, and can ship it to anywhere in the United States within 24
hours. "Nobody can get it from the water to the plate like we can," boasted Nell Halse, the company's
spokeswoman. Farming has also made once-pricey seafood delicacies such as shrimp and salmon much
more affordable: In recent years the cost of raised salmon has dropped from about $7 per pound to the
current all-time low of less than $2, and salmon farming has brought jobs to once-struggling areas such as
New Brunswick's Charlotte County, where it now employs a quarter of the local workforce.
A2: Aquaculture Turn – NUQ – Aquaculture Up (2/2)

Aquaculture is high now – fasting growing agriculture industry.

Cooke Aquaculture Inc., the Canadian company that raises and processes the fish in Reserve Cove, is a major
player in what has become the next agricultural revolution: fish farming. The sector's explosive growth
is being hailed by many policymakers and entrepreneurs as a source of jobs and a way to satisfy the
world's growing demand for protein, but environmentalists warn that aquaculture facilities also threaten to
cause ecological damage by releasing nutrients and domestically bred fish and chemicals into the seas.
Observers on both sides agree, however, that fish farming could transform the way Americans eat -- and, to
some extent, work and live -- in the next two decades, and ultimately replace the last commercial food-
gathering system based on hunting wild animals. The Bush administration has vowed to quintuple the
yield of aquaculture -- the fastest-growing sector of U.S. agriculture, with $1 billion in annual sales --
by 2025. That same year, forecasts say, half the fish consumed worldwide will be farm-raised instead of
wild-caught. The government hopes that fish farming will erase the country's $8 billion seafood trade deficit:
With $11 billion in imports in 2003, fish is second only to oil among imported natural resources.
A2: Aquaculture Turn – Link Turn: Subsidies Key

Subsidies are critical to aquaculture – It’s not commercially viable otherwise
Prescott 95 [John, Dir Emeritus New England Aquarium, 1995, Federal News Service]
Federal support is needed due to the nature of our fisheries and fisheries management methods. Unlike Japan
and other several other national fisheries, such as Spain, the United States fisheries consist mainly of
individual fishermen and not large corporations. While our fisheries are described as over capitalized (too
many boats) the fishing industry does not have the capital capability of developing innovative aquaculture
alternatives without federal support. We believe that the expertise of the Aquarium is an appropriate resource
for developing aquaculture technologies for exotic species such as the Bluefin tuna. Supplemental
Congressional funding is needed for an agency which still views its role as regulatory management of wild
stocks, not the development of alternative strategies.
Decline in fisheries leads to increase in aquaculture, which destroys marine biodiversity

EPA 7
[Nov., Threats to Aquatic Biodiversity, http://www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/aquatic/threats.html]
Aquaculture production has increased greatly in partial response to the evident decline in fisheries. Aquaculture
can be defined as the culture or farming of aquatic organisms. While it can be a beneficial process, certain types of aquaculture can also
contribute to the degradation of natural environments. For example, it can contribute to the accidental
release of non-native species, habitat conversion, pollution, as well as actually eliminate more fish
than is being produced. In addition, the food supplies of other aquatic organisms including seabirds and
seals can be depleted through the amount of schooling fish used to make fishmeal for aquaculture
production. For example, in the salmon farming industry, fish feces and uneaten fish feed can also contribute to
pollution. In order to control fish disease during the process of aquaculture, the use of antibiotics in fish
feeds has increased. Antibiotics may leave residual traces in uneaten feed and fish feces, which can
become trapped in sediments in the marine environment, potentially leading to toxic conditions for
some species. Antibiotic use in aquaculture also lead to the development of bacteria, which is
antibiotic-resistant.
A2: Aquaculture Turn – No Impact: Ecosystems (1/3)

Aquaculture does not cause eco collapse.

The good news is that well-regulated countries have done something about the industry's poor
environmental performance. One result has been feed formulations that are more digestible and that
leach less waste into the environment. The EWOS group, one of the largest feed suppliers to the
salmon-farming industry, is spending more than euro10m ($16m) a year on improving nutrition, feed
development and fish health. Kjell Bjordal, its chief executive, says that one measure of the release of
waste--the nitrogen loading of the water--has declined sharply. In 1972, it was 180kg per 1,000kg of
Norwegian salmon produced; today, new feeding technologies have brought it down to 30kg. The amount of
feed used for growing salmon is 44% of what it was in 1972.
Mr Slaski says that the use of antibiotics in Norwegian aquaculture is less than 0.5% of what it was ten years
ago. Vaccines have brought about great reductions in the use of antibiotics and other chemicals. Even shrimp
farming need not be an environmental nightmare, agrees Jason Clay, an aquaculture expert at the World
Wildlife Fund in Washington, DC. And in Florida, Ocean Boy Farms claims to be able to produce a marine
shrimp that does not pollute the environment. Their inland shrimp farm uses another fish, the tilapia, to mop
up the shrimps' waste. A similar technique is being tried by a farm at Mikhmoret, Israel. Such land-based,
integrated farming techniques offer great promise but with minimal environmental cost. Making a meal
of it
Aquaculture is efficient and sustainable.

Aquaculture has one important advantage over open-access fisheries: it can be more easily governed.
Environmental pressure can, and does, force the industry to change. The same cannot be said of the
open seas, where nations compete furiously for a dwindling supply of wild fish, and politicians
routinely ignore scientific advice. While fishermen can work only on improving the efficiency with
which they capture the few remaining fish, aquaculture can work at lowering its costs of production
and increasing its profits. As it does so, it may start to undercut the costs of open-seas fishing to the
point where the government subsidies given to ocean fisheries become patently ridiculous. In this way,
farming might one day relieve the pressure on wild fisheries. Certify them
If the past history of agriculture is any guide, aquaculture will surely find a way to meet the world's
demand for fish. The big question is: will this be done in a way that pollutes the marine environment
unacceptably? As consumers become more aware of the sources and the means of production, they may insist
that intensive, modern aquaculture should grow in environmentally sustainable ways.
Aquaculture is environmentally friendly – its better than trawling.

Not all aquaculture is environmentally harmful. Farming clams, oysters and scallops reduces nutrient
pollution that can deplete the ocean's oxygen and cause harmful algae blooms, and raising shrimp can
be less environmentally damaging than trawling for them, which can destroy coral reefs and enmesh
other fish. Researchers are experimenting with new, more expensive techniques on land, and farther
offshore, to mitigate fish farming's impact. In West Virginia, the Conservation Fund's Freshwater Institute
has developed land-based farms that recirculate water to contain pollution, disease risk and potential
escapers. The plant boasts a massive 40,000-gallon tank that holds 60,000 rainbow trout, which are collected
by a plastic grate once they are large enough to go to market. Ninety-eight percent of the tank's water is
reused after specialized treatment. New Brunswick's Cooke and other companies already use recirculated
water in their onshore hatcheries.

Aquaculture harms are controlled in the U.S.
The Boston Globe 7 (“US aquaculture vital in global market”, The Boston Globe, March 26, pg A8
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4274717326&format=GNBFI&sort=RE
LEVANCE&startDocNo=26&resultsUrlKey=29_T4274717332&cisb=22_T4274717331&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8110&docNo=4
5)
THE GLOBE missed a golden opportunity to help end public confusion about aquaculture ("Fishy proposal from Commerce," Editorial,
March 18). Aquaculture, as a complement to wild fisheries, can ultimately benefit New England fishermen through stock replenishment
and new job opportunities. Research and technology advancements over the last three decades have solved
many problems of the past regarding water pollution, aquatic animal health, use of fish meal, and
escapes of farm fish into the wild. For example, vaccines have largely replaced antibiotics in aquaculture. The United
States is the genesis of these technological advancements, but most have gone overseas, benefiting
countries that embrace aquaculture.
Aquacultures harms are exaggerated, only a few instances of harms
Parker 8 (Mike, Dept chief of Young’s Seafood, The Guardian, 7-9, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/09/fishing.food)
A very negative image of aquaculture - or fish farming - was created in an article by Fred Pearce in these pages on April 23,
citing all manner of social injustices and environmental destruction. This fits in with a sustained campaign by NGOs
against aquaculture as an industry, with one core message: that aquaculture is bad - and highlighting
instances of bad practice, both social and environmental. There is a danger that the public may be misled into
believing that these instances of bad practice are the whole story. They most certainly are not. In a new
era of rising food prices and possible emerging food shortages, caused by increasing population and
climate change, aquaculture will be an important tool in helping combat the problem and feed the
global population - especially in south Asia and China. In China, the farming of carp is one of the largest
examples in the world of a low-intensive, very old food production technology providing essential good
quality protein to rural populations. In Europe, we have the Scottish and Norwegian salmon farming industries, both very
important in economic and food terms. These industries are very sensitive to criticism of their practices, and are
constantly raising environmental standards. Fish is an excellent food - very healthy, with high-quality protein and low
in fat. It is an integral part of a healthy diet and is seen as an aspirational food in the developing world.
With declining wild fish stocks, the only way to produce more fish is by various forms of aquaculture. This can be a low-
intensive, low-capital business, allowing populations in developing countries to increase food supply
without large industrial capital requirements. It is mostly small-scale, run by local communities and
families working one or two ponds, fed with food waste. The Young's seafood group researches its suppliers very
carefully and ensures that they comply with strict social and environmental criteria. It is in this way that the industry can enforce
minimum standards of behaviour, and provide a mechanism for raising standards over time. Of course, it is also necessary to ensure that
these standards are not just another trade barrier to products from developing countries. But, with care, this balance between standards
and trade barriers can be achieved. Journalists and NGOs are right to highlight abuses - whether to do with
employment rights, environmental damage, or any other unsustainable practice. What is wrong is to
characterise the whole aquaculture industry as bad. The truth is that, without aquaculture, fish will
become exclusively a rich man's food. It is this issue of social justice and fair shares that should be at
the heart of the debate about the future of aquaculture. In a long-term food supply strategy, aquaculture will be an
important component of supplying good quality protein to developing nations and poorer populations.
Aquaculture good, there many recent technological advancements

The Boston Globe 7 (Director of Fisheries Engineering Research at M IT, pg.A 8, 3-26, Lexis)
THE GLOBE missed a golden opportunity to help end public confusion about aquaculture ("Fishy proposal
from Commerce," Editorial, March 18). Aquaculture, as a complement to wild fisheries, can ultimately
benefit New England fishermen through stock replenishment and new job opportunities. Research and
technology advancements over the last three decades have solved many problems of the past regarding
water pollution, aquatic animal health, use of fish meal, and escapes of farm fish into the wild. For
example, vaccines have largely replaced antibiotics in aquaculture. The United States is the genesis of
these technological advancements, but most have gone overseas, benefiting countries that embrace
aquaculture.

Aquaculture is as environmentally sustainable as any other practice.
Bastien 3 [Yves, Comm. for Aquaculture Development Conference on Marine Aquaculture, 2003
http://www.psmfc.org/ans_presentations/BastienY.pdf]
Another reason for the divide between aquaculturists and fishermen has been the alleged impacts of
aquaculture on the environment and wild stocks. This argument has been amply utilized by well known
environmental groups to foster opposition between the two sectors. The reality is that both sectors have
their environmental challenges but both sectors have significantly improved their environmental
performance during recent years, thanks to all of our critics. A little over two weeks ago, during
Aquaculture Canada 2003 in Victoria, I said that aquaculture, as practiced in Canada, is environmentally
sustainable. Many environmental groups would challenge this statement, especially here on the West Coast.
However, as a biologist with a good portion of my career devoted to environmental protection and wild
salmon conservation, I am very comfortable saying it. Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that
aquaculture in general or salmon farming in particular produce no impacts on the environment. They
obviously do. Every human industrial activity does, including the traditional capture fishery. But to
assess the environmental sustainability of aquaculture requires that its environmental impacts be
viewed in a more global context. The argument is quite simple, but it is worthwhile to state it again bluntly.
It is what Peter Drucker was getting to in his opinion on the opportunity of aquaculture. For the same reason
that hunting deer and moose, and gathering wild fruits and berries to feed North Americans would not be
environmentally sustainable, and would destroy these wild resources, it is clear that supplying the growing
fish and seafood demand by wild harvest is not a viable, long-term environmentally sustainable scenario. On
land, the solution has been modern agriculture. And although all types of agriculture, whether extensive,
organic or other, require that forests be cut down and existing plant and animal life be removed, no one
is suggesting that agriculture be abandoned and that we return to scouring the forests and grasslands for
our food. So, why not aquaculture? Why not accept aquaculture as a good thing and a way to go for our
long-term supply of fish and seafood? Because all the evidence demonstrates that it is exactly that.
Overall, aquaculture has little impact on the environment. In fact, the relative area under aquaculture in
Canada is miniscule. In 2002, it totaled 30,971 hectares, equivalent to an area 17.6 km long by 17.6 km wide
or roughly the size of the core area of almost any one of Canada’s provincial capital cities. In this very small
area, the aquaculture industry produced approximately 24 percent of the value of all Canadian fish landings.
To do a fair assessment of the environmental impacts produced by aquaculture on this tiny portion of our
aquatic ecosystem, one has to compare these impacts to the ones produced by our Canadian strategy to
produce the other 75% of the fish landing value: commercial fisheries. As we have seen in the literature over
the last 10 years, commercial fisheries impacts are serious, complex and occurring far and wide along
all our coasts. Again, don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that we should shut down all fisheries in favour of
producing fish only through aquaculture. In North America, we have a luxury that many others don’t; we still
have plentiful ocean resources and many environmentally sustainable fisheries. These should continue to be
carefully protected, managed and utilized as they have in the past, and continue making an invaluable
contribution to the economic activity and social fabric of our coastal communities. What I am saying is that,
despite the criticism of well known environmental groups that aquaculture poses significant
environmental problems, aquaculture is still very much an environmentally sustainable activity by
which we can produce fish for future generations.
A2: Aquaculture Turn – A2: US Key

Domestic aquaculture irrelevant – We’ll drive international demand
US Fed News 8 [July 29 2008]

"The U.S. has the choice to become an important player in offshore aquaculture to help augment our wild
fish products to supply a growing domestic market for healthy seafood," said Lautenbacher. "If the U.S.
chooses not to become a player, we will continue to import an increasing amount of foreign
aquacultured products, leaving the U.S. with diminishing control over how our seafood is produced
and without the economic benefits from the jobs, technology and innovation that domestic offshore
aquaculture would bring.
A2: Aquaculture Turn – Impact Turn – Econ

Aquaculture expansion solves U.S. economy.
Knapp 4 [Gunnar, Prof of Eco at University of Alaska, 2004,

http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/iser/people/knapp/Knapp_MAFAC_US_Marine_Aquaculture_040811.pdf]
There are significant potential economic benefits to the United States and coastal regions from marine
aquaculture •Income •Jobs •Reduction in trade deficit •Economic diversification for coastal
communities •Economic stability for coastal communities •Synergies with wild fisheries –More efficient
utilization of processing facilities –More efficient utilization of other infrastructure (ports, roads) –
Markets for wild fisheries by-products as fish feed •Economic development from backward linkages
(aquaculture research, equipment, supplies) and forward linkages (fish processing and distribution)
A2: Aquaculture Turn – Impact Turn – Food

Aquaculture key to preventing global food shortages.
Parker 8 [Mike, Deputy Chief Exec of Young’s Seafood, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/09/fishing.food]

A very negative image of aquaculture - or fish farming - was created in an article by Fred Pearce in these
pages on April 23, citing all manner of social injustices and environmental destruction. This fits in with a
sustained campaign by NGOs against aquaculture as an industry, with one core message: that aquaculture is
bad - and highlighting instances of bad practice, both social and environmental. There is a danger that the
public may be misled into believing that these instances of bad practice are the whole story. They most
certainly are not. In a new era of rising food prices and possible emerging food shortages, caused by
increasing population and climate change, aquaculture will be an important tool in helping combat the
problem and feed the global population - especially in south Asia and China.
A2: Aquaculture Turn – No Impact: Ecosystems

Aquaculture is not environmentally worse than wild-fishing
Knapp 4 [Gunnar, Prof of Eco at University of Alaska, 2004,

http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/iser/people/knapp/Knapp_MAFAC_US_Marine_Aquaculture_040811.pdf]
Marine aquaculture has potential environmental impacts. •All food production has environmental
impacts, including agriculture and wild fisheries. •If we adopt standards of “zero environmental
impact” or “zero risk” –marine aquaculture will be impossible –we will be imposing a higher standard
than we do for other kinds of food production –we will be imposing a higher standard than we do for
other uses of the marine environmental •Wild fisheries
A2: Food Prices – Prices Up (1/3)

Fish prices are up
Goldburg & Naylor 5 (Rebecca and Rosamond, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Feb)
One recent, comprehensive analysis (Delgado et al. 2003) identifies fish, fishmeal and fish oil as a
commodity almost certain to increase in price by the year 2020, while prices for commodities such as beef,
eggs, and vegetable meals are likely to come down. Rising prices for fish will probably cause further
exploitation of the oceans for fishing and aquaculture, and make competition for marine resources more
intense. Protecting ocean resources may require deliberative processes to partition them- for example,
designating certain areas of the ocean for certain uses or for non-use. The development of marine protected
areas where fishing and other activities are not permitted is under activ etesting as a tool for both
conservation and fisheries maangement (Lubchernco et el. 2003), but there has been little systematic
investigation of possibilities for demarcating the ocean in other ways (eg temporally) or for other purposes
(eg aquaculture).
The future prospects for fisheries appear grim given current trends in fish production. Many capture fisheries
are declining, and marine aquaculture- the alleged escape valve for fisheries-- offers its own challenges,
including a heavy dependence on robust fisheries resources. Establishing viable, long term solutions to
problems in fisheries and marine aquaculture will require the incorporation of ecological perspectives into
the politics governing fisheries management, aquaculture systems, and the rationalization of ocean resources.
Oil and overfarming have led to high fish prices- this extends to aquacultures
Potts 8 David Potts “Food versus fuel: something to chew on” The Sun Herald. July 27, 2008
Fish prices are booming due to overfarming of the sea. Australia has several aquaculture stocks, all
minnows but for that reason offering unlimited potential if they get it right. The biggest and most successful
is the Tassal Group which is also the only one making a profit. Indeed, a succession of healthy profits. It
breeds and harvests Atlantic salmon, a fish popular here and in Japan where it commands premium prices.
Salmon is also well-regarded nutritionally but has been let down by poor marketing. However even Atlantic
salmon isn't spared the global impact of high oil prices. While it isn't a candidate for ethanol production, it
faces the same problems of rising feed prices as well as transport costs. Two other aquaculture stocks,
Australis Aquaculture and Cell Aquaculture, breed barramundi. Australis is marketing barramundi in North
America while Cell markets its "hatch to dispatch" technology. Clean Seas Tuna is a hatchery for southern
bluefin tuna, mulloway and kingfish. The recently listed Western Kingfish, most noted for having Lachlan
Murdoch on its books, is licensed to fish for yellowtail kingfish off Western Australia. So far none of the
aquaculture stocks have swum against the market tide, though that could mean you're getting in cheaply.

Fish Prices are about to skyrocket- gas prices and decreased stocks. So far fishers have
taken the brunt of the price spike, but soon consumers will pay
Gronewold 8 Nathanial Gronewold, Greenwire reporter “FISHERIES: Seafood appears poised to ride
commodity-price escalator” July 15, 2008 < http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2008/07/15/4>
There are signs that seafood will be added soon to a long list of commodities with spiraling prices.For
the first time in more than a decade, fish prices are rising in real terms. That is good news for commercial fishers
who have struggled to stay afloat in the face of fierce competition, fickle consumer tastes and the emergence of aquaculture, but some
wonder if it is not already too late for many. Soaring fuel prices have dramatically raised the cost of going to sea.
And active fishing fleets are shrinking. For example, Shinnecock Inlet, a popular fishing port in Long Island, N.Y., was
home three years ago to 48 vessels fishing for whiting, squid and other species. This year, four vessels have left port, with the vast
majority of operators refusing to send out boats because they cannot recover costs."What it tells you is that the fisherman is not
being able to recover his losses on fuel with respect to the buying on the wholesale level from the
boats," said Roger Tollefson, a New York Seafood Council board member. While producers have so far
largely eaten the extra costs, that is changing. Tuna prices have almost doubled, raising the cost of
canned tuna sharply for the first time in 20 years. Prices for many bottom feeders like whiting and
monkfish are up by 10 percent or more. And the price of Alaska pollock, used in a wide variety of frozen products, jumped
suddenly this year after being flat for a long time. "It is mainly a reaction to higher fuel prices, which also led fishing fleets to stop
production," said Helga Josupeit, a fish industry officer at the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)… The accelerating cost of
diesel is now the main worry for the fishing industry. So far, fleets have had to bear the brunt of record oil prices -- the economics of
seafood do not make it easy for them to pass on costs to consumers. But as more boats refuse to head out to sea and catches decline, this
is unlikely to last. Consumers who have yet to see fish prices rise as sharply as other food commodities should brace themselves,
experts say. The sliding value of the dollar has helped deaden some of the impact of high fuel costs for overseas seafood suppliers, but
industry insiders fear that the global seafood industry is fast approaching a tipping point. "We, and others
with strong currencies vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar, have avoided a little of the impact, but the impact is now overwhelming," said Alastair
Macfarlane, a general trade and information manager at the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council. "The fact is that that fuel has
increased from being about 20 to 30 percent of the operational cost of fishing to now being around 50 percent or more of the cost of a
trip," he said. Vessels are also sitting idle in New Zealand ports, he added, as they are up and down the U.S. East Coast. Reshaping
fisheries. Last month, for example, commercial fishers in Alaska's Aleutian Islands went on strike,
protesting the price for red salmon being offered by the main purchasers there. At 70 cents a pound, the
returns were too low for them to recover their losses from high diesel fuel costs. The dispute underscores
how volatile the market for seafood can be, with no automatic supply-demand signals setting prices as with
most other commodities. … But fish prices are visibly trending upward now, and FAO says it may soon
develop an index to get a better grasp of the market. Icelandic cod is up by about 50 percent, ultimately
forcing restaurants to pass the higher costs on to their customers. Fish and chips restaurants in the United
Kingdom will likely have to sharply raise the price of the national dish to cope. And a major disruption to
any regional market could have a catalytic effect, sending prices higher globally. In Japan, commercial fishers
have said they will keep their vessels in port for one day to protest high fuel costs. As Japan has one of the world's largest fishing fleets,
it is not yet clear what one day of inactivity by the Japanese fleet would do to worldwide fish prices. Stressed fish stocks The price
of crude oil and growing demand for fish in developing countries like China are not the only factors at
play. There is mounting evidence that some fisheries are being exploited to the brink, sending prices for
popular fish higher in the face of actual resource depletion. For instance, FAO believes that one of the reasons prices for Alaska pollock
rose so quickly is that the U.S. government sharply cut the quota for the season after NOAA scientists grew concerned over the fishery's
sustainability. Depletion is a growing problem, and for no other fish is this truer than for tunas. Prices in Asia for bluefin tuna, the most
prized item used in the highest-grade sushi and sashimi, have skyrocketed as catch numbers and the overall size of adults brought in
have declined. Bluefins have become so expensive in Japan -- the largest adults sometimes go for $100,000 or more at auction in
Tokyo's giant Tsukiji fish market -- that sushi restaurants there are now forced to sell it at a loss, hoping to make up the difference in
sales of other items. Prices for yellowfin tuna, another popular but lower-quality sushi item, are also now on the rise. Overfishing in the
South Pacific is starting to take its toll, sending prices for yellowfin steadily upward in recent years. Both FAO and the International
Food Policy Research Institute report that most wild fisheries, especially for the difficult-to-regulate highly migratory species like large
tunas, are at or near their maximum exploitation levels. "Fish are highly likely to continue becoming more expensive
to consumers compared with other food products over the next two decades," researchers at the
International Food Policy Research Institute warned in a recent assessment. "Prices for food fish, fishmeal,
and fish oil are likely to rise under nearly all scenarios." The triple threat of high oil prices, burgeoning demand and
stock depletion -- or in some cases, like with Mediterranean bluefin tuna, possible collapse -- have commercial fishers and seafood
wholesalers on edge. Since fish consumption tends to be more discretionary, especially in the United States, where fish is mostly eaten in
restaurants, it is not clear if the market will accept the impending higher costs and keep the industry thriving. "Nobody wants to sell
seafood at a high price," said Tollefson of the New York Seafood Council. "It's very perishable product; you have to take very good care
of it and everything else. And if you have to cut your profit margins down, you sometimes can get into trouble if you don't know what
you're doing."

Fish prices are high – 2 percent increase this year
Hampton Roads 8 (Jul 24, http://hamptonroads.com/2008/07/trend-shows-seafood-scarcer-

more-expensive)
Overall last year, 9.2 billion pounds of fish and shellfish were landed at docks around the country,
worth $4.1 billion. Those totals represent a 3 percent decrease in volume but a 2 percent increase in value
- a sign that seafood is getting slightly scarcer and more expensive.
A2: Food Prices – Turn: Subsidies Increase Prices

Subsidies increase fish prices- they lead to commercial extinction
Christian Science Monitor 00 (4/17/2000, l/n)
Government subsidies are also at the root of much misuse of water supplies that are increasingly scarce in many
areas of the US, particularly the wheat fields over the Ogallala aquifer - and thus threaten the future agriculture
economy. Consequences of subsidies for commercial fishing include over-fishing and commercial extinction of fish
stocks, which have led to huge bankruptcies and unemployment as well as higher fish prices for consumers.
Subsidies in just the five sectors listed total at least $ 300 billion per year, or one-fifth of all such subsidies
worldwide. They distort the economy as well as lay waste to the environment. Why are they tolerated?
A2: Econ DA – UQ – Fishing Industry Down
Population decline, inefficient trawlers, and closing fisheries prove fishing industry down now
AP 8 (June 17, LEXIS)
As of Tuesday, the average cost for a gallon of diesel was near $4.80, according to AAA. That's up from an
average of about $2.90 a gallon a year ago. That means boat captains are having to raise prices or add hefty
fuel surcharges to fees that before this season were already around $800 to $1,500 for a full day. Some in the
charter fishing industry estimate that business is off anywhere from 20 to 90 percent because customers
just can't afford the added costs. "Some guys are just sitting on the docks waiting for business and it
ain't happening," said Steve Leopold, president of the Islamorada Charter Boat Association. "There's people
who come down and don't even ask the price of my charters. Then there's people who ... say, 'Wow, can you
cut me a break?' I say, 'If you bring your own fuel.'" On a recent sunny afternoon at Whale Harbor Marina in
the Florida Keys, Chris Adams, 41, had just returned from a half-day charter trip. "We probably would have
spent the whole day out but it would have been $400 more," Adams said. His half-day trip this year cost
$800, about what a full day on the water cost last year. There's less money to spend on vacation, Adams said,
when you also factor in how much more it cost him just fill his own gas tank for the drive. Adams has driven
down from Connecticut for the past three years, a round trip he said would cost him about $600 more this
year than it did last year. Pensacola Charter Boat Association President Paul Redman said even the cost of
bait has gone up because of higher fuel costs. Redman said he charged customers $1,200 for a recent six-
hour trip on the water but $500 for fuel, $100 for bait and tackle, and $100 for his deckhand meant his profit
was a mere $300. Five years ago, it would have topped $800. "It's just about not worth doing it anymore,"
Redman said. The charter fishing fleet generated more than $1.1 billion in revenues nationwide, including
some related sales, in 2000, the latest figures available, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Commercial and charter fishing industry representatives from around the country plan to meet with members
of Congress on Wednesday in Washington, seeking some kind of financial relief to help offset losses. Some
regions are suffering from a one-two punch of higher fuel prices and the closure or shortening of
seasons for popular fish species, said Bob Zales, president of the National Association of Charter Boat
Operators. In the Florida Panhandle along the Gulf of Mexico, anglers come from across the country to fish
for red snapper. But combined federal and state limits have reduced the catch allowed per charter boat and
shortened the season. Zales said he estimates that up to half the entire Gulf charter fishing fleet from
Texas to Florida could be out of business by December. On the West Coast, where the federal
government has closed all sport and commercial salmon fishing off California and most of Oregon due to
a population collapse, the result has been "absolutely devastating," said Captain William Smith, who
runs the 40-foot Riptide out of Half Moon Bay, Calif., just south of San Francisco. Coupled with rising fuel
costs, "I'm stupid to even stay in the business," Smith said. "But even if I was to try to sell my boat,
nobody's buying. "Profits?" he quipped. "I'm in the hole." Smith has diversified his business, adding
trips to scatter cremation ashes and for whale watching, and has even had to pick up work as a handyman.
The nation's commercial fishing fleet is also taking a hit as many fisherman can't bring in enough added
catch to keep profits ahead of fuel costs, said Sean McKeon, president of the North Carolina Fisheries
Association. The commercial fishing industry's catch was worth about $40 billion in 2006. McKeon said that
while Americans may not see less fish in their grocery stores, they could begin seeing more imports, not to
mention jobs lost in the industry and the resulting economic impacts to communities. Adding to the problem
is that many boats in the commercial and charter sectors have been on the water for decades and are not fuel
efficient. A typical twin-engine charter fishing boat uses about 10 gallons of diesel per hour. A pair of newer,
more fuel-efficient engines can cost more than $100,000. In the commercial industry, trawlers, like shrimp
boats that drag nets, typically burn the most fuel. Captain Louis Stephenson, who operates an 85-foot
shrimp boat out of Galveston, Texas, said the average trawler burns up to 25 gallons of diesel an hour.
A2: Econ DA – UQ – Fishing Industry Down

High fishing prices are devastating the fishing industry.
Bristol Bay Times 7-3 [2008, http://thebristolbaytimes.com/news/show/2628]

“Diesel fuel prices in Alaska and across the nation have increased more than 50 percent over the past
year,” Murkowski said. “Some fishermen are reporting that they are now spending up to 70 percent of
their income for fuel.” “Soaring fuel costs have dramatically impacted Alaska’s commercial
fishermen,” Stevens said. “As I travel around the state, many people have told me that they can no longer
afford to fuel their boats and cannot earn a living. “This is having an unfortunate effect on Alaska’s
families that depend on fishing as their only income. It also hurts our nation, because our seafood fills
Americans’ freezers from coast to coast. Something must be done now.” Murkowski said that high fuel
prices are having a “devastating impact” on the commercial fishing industry because fishermen don’t
have the option of passing the cost of fuel on to customers, turning to alternative modes of transportation
or selling their product for a higher price. “Fish prices, in most cases, are set by the seafood processing sector
and are tied to prices in the global seafood market,” Murkowski said. Murkowski said that fishermen all
over the country are staying tied to the dock, unable to make enough money from their catch to pay for
fuel. “In Gloucester and Biloxi, Key West and Honolulu, Point Judith and Kodiak, fishermen simply can’t
afford to go fishing,” she said. “And some U.S. vessels are running all the way from the Gulf of Mexico and
California to Mexico to buy fuel. When fishermen can’t go fishing, they can’t make their boat and
permit payments. Many are simply going out of business.
Fishing industry down and fish prices low, but returning fish stocks, reduced fleets, and
higher prices would save the industry
European Commission 8 (July 8, Proposal for a Council Regulation)

In spite of declining landing volumes for most stocks, first sale prices for many important species have
stagnated or even declined in real terms. This is due in part to the perishable nature of fish, to the
atomisation of supply and to the strong buying power of processors and marketing chains which have
access to fish products at low import prices from the global market. In any event, the inability for
fishermen to pass higher costs down the chain is a stark contrast to what happens in many other
industrial sectors. One of the main challenges for the EU fishing industries has been and still is the
structural imbalance between fleet capacity and resources in many fisheries. Overcapacity of the EU fleet
was estimated some years ago to be in the region of 40%. The CFP has for several years attempted to address
this problem which, however, is far from being solved. Because of overcapacity and because the resource
base has been eroded by decades of overfishing, the industry has low resilience to external economic
pressure, such as the increase in fuel prices. However economic analysis shows that even for some heavily
fuel dependent demersal and pelagic fleets, a combination of reduced fleets, recovered fish stocks and
higher fish prices will return profitability to most of the sector.
A2: Econ DA – Link Turn: Fishing Industry (1/7)

Overfishing hurts the industry
Somma 3 (Angela Natural Resource Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service
“THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND ECONOMIC COSTS OF DEPLETING THE WORLD'S
OCEANS” Economic Perspectives – January, <http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0103/ijee/somma.htm)
Clearly, overfishing has substantial economic as well as environmental costs. Stopping overfishing and
allowing the stocks to rebuild would increase the productivity of the stocks and maximize revenues to the
industry in the long run. Such action is necessary to stabilize both the resource and the industry.
Fishing subsidies are economically unsustainable and hurt the economy by taking resources
out of more productive sectors
OECD 5 [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “Subsidies: a Way towards Sustainable
Fisheries?” 2008, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/54/35802686.pdf]
While government support for fisheries has an effect on all three sustainable development aspects,
financial transfers are basically an economic policy instrument designed to reduce the costs or raise the
incomes of fishers and others in the sector. However, ironically, the positive short-term effects on profits
can undermine economic sustainability in the longer run. By changing the incentives facing fishers, the
economic effects will flow through to the environmental and social dimensions. Transfers such as
subsidized loans or grants to build or modernize fishing boats have a direct impact on profits, while
others such as government funding of management services or ports have an indirect effect by reducing
industry-wide costs. The overall impact of such transfers will depend on the type of management system in place, how effectively management
regulations are enforced, and whether there is overfishing or underfishing of stocks. If there are no restrictions on fishing and little or no effective
management, government financial support will lead to investment in new equipment and more intensive use of
existing vessels. In the short term, this will result in increased catches but, in the long term, it will reduce fish stocks,
ultimately leading to lower catches with higher costs and lower revenue. If governments decide to avoid such effects by
limiting the amount of fish that can be caught, then financial transfers will not necessarily have an adverse effect on fish stocks or catches, as long as the
limit is set to achieve a sustainable yield, and regulations are perfectly enforced. However, if the catch controls are not perfectly enforced, then the effects
will tend to be similar to those of an unrestricted (or open access) system. Moves aimed simply at controlling fishing effort will only be partially successful,
as this involves attempts to regulate diverse elements such as time at sea, vessel size and power, the type of fishing gear used, the number of people
this situation, transfers will again have the long-term
employed, etc, and it is very difficult to effectively regulate all these aspects. In
effect of reduced fish stocks, lower catches and lower profitability. However, if governments introduce individual rights to
catch at appropriate levels, and enforce them effectively, fishers focus on landing their allowed catch at minimum cost. In principle, financial transfers have
Financial support
no impact on fish stocks but will increase the profits from fishing, as well as the market value of the access rights to the fishery.
to the fishing sector also affects the economy as a whole. While the fishing sector is relatively small in
most OECD economies, often accounting for less than 1% of GDP and an even smaller proportion of the total workforce, it often
accounts for a high proportion of employment and income in coastal regions. Transfers will attract
human and other resources into the fishing industry where they may yield a lower return than in the
economy at large.
Ending support for fisheries would end overinvestment
Burnett 4 [H. Sterling, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, “Ocean Fisheries: Common
Heritage or Tragic Commons,” 2004, http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba581/]
The first step is to end subsidies and tax breaks that encourage overinvestment in commercial fisheries.
Government should stop subsidizing fishermen's purchases of boats, fuel and other equipment. In
addition, the government should end price supports that artificially increase the market value of fish.
Ending subsidies would eliminate the incentive for inefficient businesses to keep building boats and
hiring deck hands, and give them an incentive to operate more efficiently or look for employment
elsewhere. It would help already efficient fishermen by reducing the number of less efficient competitors and
by allowing them to expand their operations.

Cutting fishing subs key to sustaining the fishing industry in the long run
MIT 8 – Massachussetts Institute of Technology, Mission 2011, group of scientists and students who
study public policy and the ocean
[Jul 6, Saving the Oceans, http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2011/finalwebsite/solutions/sconsiderations.shtml]
The introduction of new rules and regulations will undoubtedly have an impact on the livelihoods of
fishermen and other members of the fishing community. Quotas, taxes, technological regulations, and marine
protected areas will all restrict the freedom fishermen to fish and the elimination of subsidies will likely
increase the costs of fishing. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the proposals of Mission 2011 are not
aimed at destroying the fishing industry -- we, too, realize the importance of fish in our lives and that
many are not willing to switch to a fish-free diet -- but rather, to begin a transition from depleting fish
stocks to sustaining them. This transition is necessary in order to secure the supply of fish and
success of the fishing industry in the years and decades to come. That said, a change from the status quo
is inevitable. There are no solutions to the problems facing global fisheries that do not involve
reducing the number of fish that are caught, and, in turn, reducing the number of people who make a
living through the fishing. Just as workers in the automotive industry have been displaced by machines, the
abacus has been replaced by computers, and leaded gasoline has been phased out in order to accommodate
catalytic converters (Lovei, 1998), circumstances will force some fishermen to leave the industry over time.
Even without the regulations we are suggesting, declining fish stocks mean that fishing can never be as
profitable as it was in the past. Communities centered around fishing need to adapt to a system that
limits fishing or else risk a sudden, irreparable economic downturn when the remaining fish
populations collapse. It should also be noted that if our proposals are carried out and successfully achieve
their goals, then the fishing industry will ultimately benefit. While fishermen may be hurt in the
initial stages of implementation, over the long run, as populations return to and are sustained at more
natural levels, more fish can be harvested without the risk of population collapse. On the other hand,
if fishing continues as it is being done now, populations will experience commercial extinction and
entire fisheries will be lost (Munro, 2006).
Removing subsidies would allow fish populations to replenish decreasing the price of fish and
increasing the availability resulting in a 66% increase in income for the fishing industry
Myers and Kent 1 Norman Myers and Jennifer Kent, International Institute for Sustainable Development,
“Perverse Subsidies: How Tax Dollars Can Undercut the Environment and the Economy” Google Books Page
153-4. 2001
Subsidies arise from the efforts of governments to preserve their fishermen's jobs. Regrettably, these incentives have
long induced investors to finance more industrial fishing ships than the fish stocks could
possibly sustain. During 1970-1989, the world's fishing fleet grew at twice the rate of the global catch, until it
amounted to twice the capitalized capacity needed to catch what the oceans could sustainably produce, after allowing for
rebuilding of fish stocks (Figure 7.24.3°
Because this excessive capacity has rapidly depleted the amount of fish available, profitability
has generally plunged, reducing the ships' value. Unable to sell their chief assets without
major financial loss, shipowners have found themselves forced to keep on fishing—or, rather,
overfishing—in order to repay their loans. They are caught in an economic trap. In response, they have mobilized
political pressure on governments to refrain from cutting the inflated fishing quotas.3'
The costs to fisheries are substantial. If, in the case of the United States, the principal
fish species in question were
allowed to rebuild to their long-term potential, sustainable harvesting would add $8 billion
to GDP and provide some 300,000 jobs.32 Within U.S. federal waters, today's catch is only
60 percent as valuable as it could be if fish stocks were allowed to recover.

Fishing subsidies distort economic signals, masking unproductive fishing practices

Transfers are generally designed to alter the incentives faced by fishers in order for them to
change their behaviour. At the same time, many transfers can insulate or disconnect fishers from the
economic imperatives of the fisheries on which they depend. For example, the effects of catch declines on
fishers can be masked by increased support from the government (income maintenance is a case in point).
Adjustment decisions of fishers are influenced by transfer policies, expectations about the future state of
the fishery, as well as by the availability of alternative opportunities. The use of transfers that distort
economic signals will mean that factors of production have an incentive to remain in the fishery or to enter
the fishery, particularly if there is insufficient (or inadequate) information about the future state of fish
stocks. This may be exacerbated by the lack of alternative economic opportunities for factors of production
and the low or zero opportunity cost is likely to increase pressure on fisheries managers and on fish stocks
(even with effective catch control or management). Over the longer term, this can serve to increase the
vulnerability of fishers to changes in the economic conditions faced by the sector, as pressures for
adjustment are likely to build up regardless of the extent of government support.
Solving US overfishing will boost the US economy
Pew Oceans Commission 3 (“Socioeconomic Perspectives on Marine Fisheries in the United States” , http://www.pewtrusts.org
/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/environment_pew_oceans_socioeconomic_perspectives.pdf)
The economic status of U.S. commercial marine fisheries is declining. Excess competition and poor management are
dissipating value in today’s fisheries, costing tens of thousands of jobs, harming the economies of our coastal
communities, and placing a valuable natural and cultural heritage at risk. The decline in fishery productivity below
its potential has worsened in the last decade. There appears to be scope for more than doubling current catches if
conservative policies are pursued and depleted fish populations are rebuilt. Increasing annual catches to long-term
sustainable levels could add at least $1.3 billion to the U.S. economy. Rebuilding U.S. fisheries has the potential to
restore and create tens of thousands of family wage jobs and to substantially boost local and regional fishing
economies. Restoring marine ecosystems and fish populations to a status capable of supporting higher but
sustainable yields will require an era of transition en route to a more sustainable future.

Subsidies undermine econ stability in the long term.

While government support for fisheries has an effect on all three sustainable development aspects, financial
transfers are basically an economic policy instrument designed to reduce the costs or raise the incomes
of fishers and others in the sector. However, ironically, the positive short-term effects on profits can
undermine economic sustainability in the longer run. By changing the incentives facing fishers, the
economic effects will flow through to the environmental and social dimensions.
Transfers such as subsidised loans or grants to build or modernise fishing boats have a direct impact on
profits, while others such as government funding of management services or ports have an indirect effect by
reducing industry-wide costs. The overall impact of such transfers will depend on the type of management
system in place, how effectively management regulations are enforced, and whether there is overfishing or
underfishing of stocks.
If there are no restrictions on fishing and little or no effective management, government financial support
will lead to investment in new equipment and more intensive use of existing vessels. In the short term,
this will result in increased catches but, in the long term, it will reduce fish stocks, ultimately leading to
lower catches with higher costs and lower revenue.
Subsidies lower econ yields.

Financial support to the fishing sector also affects the economy as a whole. While the fishing sector is
relatively small in most OECD economies, often accounting for less than 1% of GDP and an even smaller
proportion of the total workforce, it often accounts for a high proportion of employment and income in
coastal regions. Transfers will attract human and other resources into the fishing industry where they
may yield a lower return than in the economy at large.
Subsidies weaken the fishing industry.

Outside these areas of market failure and temporary adjustment assistance, the main effect of transfers is to
help the fishing industry reduce costs and increase revenue. This insulates the industry from the real
costs of its operations and artificially inflates profits, making it harder to adjust to changing economic
and environmental conditions. There may also be impacts on trade patterns and pressures arising from
increases in capacity.
Eliminating subsidies increase profit and reduce incentives to over fishing.

There is less incentive for fishing communities to invest in diversified economic activities when they
expect that continued government support will insulate the sector from necessary adjustments. This is
likely to have further environmental implications where the support is linked to the need to engage in
fishing activity. Finally, it is evident that reducing financial support does not necessarily spell doom and
gloom for the fisheries industry, as the experiences of a number of countries such as Norway, New Zealand,
Iceland and Australia have shown. Indeed, reduced financial support as part of a broader package of
changes designed to put the industry on a more economically, socially and environmentally sustainable
footing has generally resulted in increased profitability and reduced dependence on government
assistance.

Overfishing jeopardizes US econ.

Healthy oceans are critically important because fish play a major role in the U.S. economy. Americans now
consume more than four billion pounds of seafood every year, and the total value of commercial and
recreational ocean fishing exceeds $48 billion a year.9 Overfishing not only jeopardizes this economic
sector directly through the direct cost of low catches in a given year, but it also imposes an even larger,
if incalculable, future cost to the welfare of marine ecosystems. Rebuilt U.S. fisheries can potentially
restore the faltering commercial and recreational fishing industry, create tens of thousands of jobs, and
add at least $1.3 billion to the U.S. economy.

Overfishing is hurting the fishing industry and will cause further hardship down the road
Safina 7 (Carl, president of the Blue Ocean Institute in Cold Spring Harbor)
New studies continue to chronicle how overfishing and poor management have severely hurt the U.S.
commercial fishing industry. Thus, it makes sense to examine the effectiveness of the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, which overhauled
federal legislation guiding fisheries management. At the time, I predicted that, if properly implemented, the act would do much to bolster recovery and
sustainable management of the nation's fisheries. Today, I see some encouraging signs but still overall a mixed picture. The 1996 legislation amended the
Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of two decades earlier. The original law had claimed waters within 200 miles of the coast of the United States
and its possessions (equivalent to some two-thirds of the U.S. continental landmass) as an "exclusive economic zone." In so doing, it set the stage for
eliminating the foreign fishing that had devastated commercially important fish and other marine life populations. Although it set up a complicated
management scheme involving regional councils, the original legislation failed to direct fishery managers to prohibit overfishing or to rebuild depleted fish
Under purely U.S.
populations. Nor did it do anything to protect habitat for fishery resources or to reduce bycatch of nontarget species.
control, many fish and shellfish populations sank to record low levels. The only sensible course is to
move forward: to eliminate overfishing, reduce bycatch, and protect and improve habitat. The 1996 act
addressed many of those management problems, especially the ones connected with overfishing and rebuilding. In the previous reauthorization of the earlier
act, for example, the goal of "optimum yield" had been defined as "the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as modified by any relevant social,
economic, or ecological factor." A tendency of fishery managers to act on short-term economic considerations had often led to modifications upward,
resulting in catch goals that exceeded sustainable levels and hence in overfishing, depletion, and the loss of economic viability in numerous fisheries. The
Sustainable Fisheries Act changed the word "modified" to "reduced." In other words, fishery managers may no longer allow catches exceeding sustainable
yields. Other new language defined a mandatory recovery process and created a list of overfished species. When a fish stock was listed as overfished,
managers were given a time limit to enact a recovery plan. Because undersized fish and nontarget species caught incidentally and discarded dead account for
about a quarter of the total catch, the law enabled fishery managers to require bycatch-reduction devices. Although I had high hopes for the act when it was
passed, its actual implementation, which began only in 1998, has been less than uniform. Fishery groups have sued to slow or block recovery plans, because
the first step in those plans is usually to restrict fishing. Meanwhile, conservation groups have sued to spur implementation. In that contentious climate,
progress has been somewhat halting. On the one hand, overfishing continues for some species, and many fish populations remain depleted. One of the most
commercially important fish--Atlantic cod--has yet to show strong increases despite tighter fishing restrictions. On the other hand, in cases in which
recovery plans have actually been produced, fish populations have done well. For example, New England has some of the most depleted stocks in U.S.
waters. But remedies that in some cases began even before the law was reformed--closures of important breeding areas, regulation of net size, and
reductions in fishing pressure--have resulted in encouraging upswings in the numbers of some overfished species. Not least among the rebounding species
are scallops, yellowtail flounder, and haddock. Goals have been met for rebuilding sea scallops on Georges Bank and waters off the mid-Atlantic states.
There has even been a sudden increase in juvenile abundance of notoriously overfished Atlantic swordfish. That is because federal managers, responding to
consumer pressure and to lawsuits from conservation groups, closed swordfish nursery areas where bycatch of undersized fish had been high and cut
swordfishing quotas. Some other overfished species, among them Atlantic summer flounder, certain mackerel off the Southeast, red snapper in the Gulf of
Mexico, and tanner and snow crabs off Alaska, are rebounding nicely. The trend in recovery efforts is generally upward. The number of fish populations
with sustainable catch rates and healthy numbers has been increasing, and the number that are overfished declining. And rebuilding programs are now
finally in place or being developed for nearly all overfished species. Maintaining
healthy fish populations is not just good for
the ocean, of course, but also for commerce: Fish are worth money. Ocean fishing contributes $50 billion to the U.S. gross domestic
product annually, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But because fish are worth money only after they are caught, not
everyone is pleased with aggressive efforts to ensure that there will be more fish tomorrow. Some people want more fish today. Restrictions designed to
rebuild depleted stocks are costing them money in the short term. For that reason, various amendments have been introduced in Congress that would weaken
the gains of the Sustainable Fisheries Act and jeopardize fisheries. In particular, industry interests have sought to lengthen recovery times. Currently, the law
requires plans for rebuilding most fish populations within a decade, with exceptions for slow-growing species. (Many fish could recover twice as fast if
fishing was severely limited, but a decade was deemed a reasonable amount of time: It is practical biologically, meaningful within the working lifetime of
individual fishers, and yet rapid enough to allow trends to be perceived and adjustments made if necessary.) Longer rebuilding schedules make it harder to
assess whether a fish population is growing or shrinking in response to management efforts. The danger is that overfishing
will continue in the
short term, leading to tighter restrictions and greater hardship later on. Recovered fish populations would
contribute substantially to the U.S. economy and to the welfare of fishing communities. In just five years since
the Sustainable Fisheries Act went into effect, the outlook for U.S. fisheries has improved noticeably, for the first time in decades. The only sensible course
is to move forward: to eliminate overfishing, reduce bycatch, and protect and improve habitat. It would be foolish to move backward and allow hard-gotten
gains to unravel just when they are gaining traction. Yet the debate continues.
Subsidies and the resulting overfishing cost the fishing industry billions

Overfishing can not only reduce the stocks of targeted and non-targeted species but also wreak havoc with the
marine ecosystem, according to Angela Somma of the National Marine Fisheries Service of the U.S. Department
of Commerce. Moreover, she says, overfishing and mismanagement of fisheries cost billions of dollars a year in
potential revenue to the industry while government subsidies to unsustainably large fishing fleets cost billions
more.

Curtailing overfishing key to sustainable fishing industry

Alternatively, if overfishing is curtailed and fishery resources sustainably managed, fisheries become
more productive, the cost per fish harvested declines, and harvests rise substantially. For example, in
1999 the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) established a 10-year
rebuilding program for overfished North Atlantic swordfish. Catch reductions were integral to stock
recovery. Four years into the rebuilding program, the stock size is estimated to be at 94 percent of its healthy
level. With the program well on track, ICCAT was able to increase catch levels at its 2002 meeting.
Overfishing causes the fishing industry to make half the revenue it could under sustainable
practices

In addition to the numerous environmental costs, overfishing has significant economic costs as well. If
fishery resources were sustainably managed, total harvests could rise an additional 10 million metric
tons, adding $16 billion to worldwide gross revenues annually.3 In the United States, rebuilding currently
overfished stocks and preventing overfishing in other fisheries could generate an additional $2.9 billion
in revenue each year. 4 Current revenues are $3.0-3.5 billion. Thus, sustainably managing marine
fisheries in the United States' 200-mile exclusive economic zone (the source of most of the U.S. catch)
could nearly double revenues in this sector of the economy. Ineffective management and overfishing have
caused the fishing industry to underperform. In 1992, FAO estimated that worldwide revenue at first-hand
sales was approximately $70 billion while the total operating cost for the world's fishing fleet was $85
billion. Thus, the fleet was operating at an annual deficit of $15 billion. 5 The operating deficit can be
traced to marked growth in the world's fleet between 1979 and 1989 -- estimated by FAO to have increased
by 322 percent without a concomitant increase in the resource. 6 In fact, during this period world fisheries
harvests grew at only about half the rate as the fleets, causing overcapacity in the world's fishing fleet.
Overcapacity in fisheries in which anyone can participate often leads to "derby" fishing in which all
the fishers attempt to catch as much as they can as quickly as they can before the quota is reached. This
often creates a temporary market glut and lowers prices for fishers while creating longer-term supply
problems for buyers. It also leads to overcapacity in the processing sector and reduces economic benefits
to consumers. Excessive bycatch, which often accompanies overfishing, imparts economic costs on the
sector as well. Those economic costs include reduced food production in fisheries directed at the adult
species of juveniles discarded in another fishery, reduced employment in fisheries and processing
plants, and corresponding losses to fishery-dependent communities.
A2: Econ DA – A2: Access Payments Link
Access payments not key – they go to the other country rather than our domestic industry
World Bank 6 (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTABOUTUS/Resources/ch15.pdf)

International fisheries access agreements are a special case of the allocation controversy. Under such
agreements, one country compensates another for access to its “surplus” fish resources. However, these
access payments are normally paid to the national treasury and thus provide little direct benefit to
domestic fishers. The manner in which the surplus is determined can also result in controversy: the quotas
sold to the foreign fleets are measured as a biological surplus, which does not necessarily correspond with
allocations for local fleets if measured in terms of what can be harvested economically by the domestic fleet.
A2: Econ DA – No I/L – Fisheries Not Key

Fishing is a small part of the economy.
OECD 5 [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 2008 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/54/35802686.pdf]

Financial support to the fishing sector also affects the economy as a whole. While the fishing sector is relatively
small in most OECD economies, often accounting for less than 1% of GDP and an even smaller
proportion of the total workforce, it often accounts for a high proportion of employment and income in coastal
regions. Transfers will attract human and other resources into the fishing industry where they may yield a lower return
than in the economy at large.
Fishing not key to economy – jobs it are falling.
Dept of Labor 7 [U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 2007, http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs001.htm]
The agriculture, forestry, and fishing industry sector is expected to continue to produce more with greater efficiency through the use of
increasingly productive machinery and greater use of science. Jobs in most parts of the sector are expected to continue to decline.
Employment change. Employment in the agriculture, forestry, and fishing is projected to decline 8 percent over the 2006-2016 period. Rising costs,
greater productivity, increasing urbanization, and greater imports of food, lumber and fish will cause many workers to leave this industry.
In addition, fishers face growing restrictions on where they can fish and how much they can harvest
because many fisheries, or fish habitats, have been depleted because of years of overfishing.
A2: Econ DA – Florida Econ Down

Florida’s economy is in a recession.
BusinessWeek 8-1 [2008 http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D929JSC80.htm]

Economists from the Wachovia Economics Group said that Florida is officially in a recession. In a
report released Thursday, Wachovia analysts said Florida's economy declined at its sharpest rate in 16
years during 2008's second quarter. Analysts predict that the state will lose momentum through 2008,
then bottom out late this year or in early 2009.
Florida’s economy is in a recession and only expected to get worse.
Jacksonville Business Journal 8-1 [2008 http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2008/07/28/daily36.html]

Florida's economy declined at its sharpest rate in 16 years during the second quarter, and the current
downturn likely will exceed the 1990-1991 recession in the state, a Wachovia economist is reporting. Mark
Vitner, senior economist at Wachovia's Economics Group, said Florida's gross state product shows the
state's economy declined at a 1.6 percent annual rate in the second quarter and year-to-year growth
slowed to just 0.5 percent. By contrast, real GDP for the nation climbed at a 1.9 percent pace during
the quarter and the U.S. economy grew at 1.8 percent over the past year. "Florida's economy has been
underperforming the U.S. economy for the past year," Vitner wrote in his report. "Underperforming the
nation is something Floridians are not really used to." The last time the state's economy underperformed the
nation was during the 1990-1991 recession and the 1973-75 downturn prior to that. Both of those recessions
hit real estate, which Vitner called "the lifeblood of Florida's economy," particularly hard, he said. A wave
of hurricanes that resulted in a run-up in insurance costs have complicated the current downturn,
while soaring property taxes and battles over congestion and growth management also have taken a toll.
"The Sunshine State still remains an attractive place to do business but has clearly lost some of its luster in
recent years. Various rankings of competitiveness show Florida slipping relative to Texas, North Carolina and
Georgia," Vitner said. Tourism has held up reasonably well in the first half of 2008, but rising ticket prices
and cutbacks by most major airlines raise doubts about the second half of the year, he said.
A2: Developing Country Subsidies Good
Fishing subsidies in developing countries are down now.
WTO 2k [World Trade Organization Committee on Trade and Environment, “Subsidies in the Fisheries Sector:
Update on Recent Work Conducted by New Zealand,” http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news00_e/w134.doc]
In terms of developing countries, a recent FAO study has observed "that the number of subsidies in
developing countries has been greatly reduced in recent years. The remaining subsidies are for off-shore
fishing, artisanal fisheries and fisheries cooperatives as well as fishing operations in remote and
underdeveloped areas. They were mainly available in the form of capital subsidies and reduced duty on
fuel, and even these were in the process of being further reduced." In a brief summary of work done for the
FAO COFI Sub-Committee on Fish Trade in 1998, the FAO Fisheries Department concluded that the
evidence indicated "very low subsidies in the developing world: not more than US$1,200 million/year,
mainly in Asia. Subsidies in fisheries are practically unknown in Latin America and Africa." A more
recent FAO technical paper concluded that "in most developing countries in Asia, West Africa and Latin
America, subsidies are no longer available."
A2: Econ DA – A2: Fishing Key to FL Economy

Fishing not key to Florida – the economy is very diverse
Free Dictionary 4 (http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Peninsular+State)

Florida's economy is fast-growing and although dominated by the tourist industry and related service
industries, is relatively diverse. Manufacturing includes electronics and US space programme
equipment. Florida's large-scale citrus fruit production includes world-famous orange and grapefruit
crops. Other products include tomatoes, vegetables, sugar cane, fish, and shellfish. Florida has a large
food processing and canning industry. Fishing is also a major industry, particularly shrimp. Florida is a
leading producer of fishmeal and phosphates, both used in fertilizers. Financial centres are becoming
increasingly important for Florida and are found in Miami and Jacksonville. Investment firms and
retirement-related financing are particularly significant. Other important products include X-ray
equipment, chemicals, newspapers, magazines, and books. Florida is also significant in military terms
with the Kennedy Space Center on Cape Canaveral, and the Pensacola Naval Air Station.
A2: Econ DA – Florida Resilient

Florida’s economy resilient
Wachovia 7-31 [Wachovia Economics Group, 2008, http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/shared-

blogs/palmbeach/realestate/upload/2008/08/florida_economy_underperforms/wachovia%20fla.pdf]
Underperforming the nation is something Floridians are not really used to. Economic conditions are
usually much stronger in the Sunshine State than they are in the rest of the country, which is one reason
so many businesses and individuals relocate to the state. The last time the state’s economy
underperformed the nation was during the 1990-91 recession. Before that, you have to go all the way back
to the 1973-75 downturn. Both of those recessions hit real estate particularly hard and real estate is the
lifeblood of Florida’s economy.
A2: Econ DA – A2: Florida Key to U.S./Global Econ

Florida not key – it’s economy is underperforming and it can’t stay competitive
Jacksonville Business Journal 7

(http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2007/01/15/daily32.html)
Florida's economy is only average compared with the rest of the nation, according to a report from a
nonprofit group that graded the economies of all 50 states. Florida earned "C" grades in all three
categories: the performance of the economy for its citizens; the positioning of the state for future
economic growth; and business competitiveness and entrepreneurial energy. The state's grade in the last
category was down from a "B" last year. The Development Report Card for the States is done by the
Corporation for Enterprise Development. The study uses 67 measures to assess how well an economy is
performing and how well the state is prepared for the future. Florida's average grade reflects strengths in
some areas being balanced by weaknesses in others. Florida is among the top five states in the nation in the
formation of new companies, but businesses fail at a higher rate than in most states, and new businesses don't
create jobs at the rate they do in other states. "Most problematic for Florida's businesses right now are
the business closings, weak investment and a lack of outside revenue flowing into the state's businesses
relative to the situation in other states," said David Buchholz, research director for CFED.
A2: Vessel Decomissioning Good (1/3)

Vessel decommission fails and increases overcapacity.

Payments for vessel decommissioning and licence retirement have increasingly been used in recent years
to tackle the over-capacity in many OECD fleets. Decommissioning is promoted as a “win-win” solution,
with reductions in capacity, less pressure on stocks, and increased profitability to the remaining fishers.
However, the available evidence suggests that most vessel decommissioning schemes fail and that some
may actually increase overcapacity as they inject new capital into the fisheries sector and are generally
not introduced in conjunction with effective mechanisms to stop effort expanding following the buy-
back.
Modernizing fishing vessels increase fishing pressure.

Transfers for investment and modernisation include government payments and tax incentives for
building and modernising fishing vessels, as well as loan guarantees and loan restructuring schemes. Many
countries have only recently changed their funding priorities away from vessel construction, and transfers to
vessel modernisation are still widely provided although these transfers often lead to increased fishing
pressure.
Decommissioning vessels increases unemployment in the fishing industry.

Of particular note is that most decommissioning schemes compensate only the vessel owners, and do not
address the problem of the loss of employment and income to crew members. In this regard, support is
required to enable former crew members to take up other employment.
Vessel decommissioning = over capacity.
Sakai 7(Courtney, Oceana, Sakai is the campaign direct of Oceana 2-23

http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/dirty_fishing/cut_the_bait/2007_Subs_outreach_kit/Subsidies_Bac
kgrounder_FINAL.pdf )
These subsidies are equivalent to approximately 25 percent of the dockside sale value of all fish landed in the
world. In addition, another $4 billion of global subsidies, such as vessel decommissioning, may also
increase capacity depending on their context and implementation. These subsidies are not only
environmentally destructive, but preserve uneconomic and inefficient practices and reduce industry
competitiveness. For example, a recent study found that the environmentally destructive practice of high
seas bottom trawling would not be profitable without government subsidies.

Decommissioning is an ineffective and counterproductive support- increases wastefulness
and overfishing especially of depleted fisheries
UNEP 4 “Analyzing the Resource Impact of Fisheries Subsidies” United Nations Environment Programme,
United Nations Environment 2004 Google Books Page 25
Decommissioning and license withdrawal programmes influence the economic behaviour of the fishing
industry on multiple levels. Although their objective is to reduce the level of fishing capacity in a fishery,
decommissioning schemes also have unintended impacts on industry behaviour that undermine that
objective. The mechanism on which the programmes rely is a cash transfer to vessel and/or license owners
for withdrawing either vessel or license or both. This in turn creates quasi-rents in the fishery by
increasing catch per vessel and per unit of effort. Given the "race for fish" in any but an ideally
managed fishery. however, this rent in fishery will spur efforts to capture more of the rent through
"capital stuffing" by the vessel owners remaining in the fishery (Townsend. 1985).
The removal of some active capacity from the fishery also increases demand for idle vessels in the
fishery (Gates et at, 1997; Holland and Sutinen, 1998). The vessel owner who receives the
decommissioning premium has an economic incentive to use the additional capital to reinvest in the
same fishery or another that is well regulated. If the decommissioning scheme gives vessel owners the
discretion to resell the vessels to be withdrawn, rather than scrapping them, it further increases the
incentive to invest in more additional fishing capacity.
The differences in technological capabilities between newer and older vessels of the same tonnage and
engine power is so great that decommissioning programmes are virtually certain to increase the level of
fleet capacity they target the oldest or least productive vessels in the fishery, and then allow a lesser number
of new vessels to enter the fishery based on a formula using similar physical characteristics (De Wilde, 1999:
Coghill et at, 2000; Eggen. 2001; Pascoe et at, 2002).
Beyond these direct effect of the availability of additional capital and the temporary increase in rents,
moreover, it has been widely observed that the existence of vessel buy-back programs encourages vessel
owners and potential investors to believe that the risk of additional capital investments in fishing is
significantly reduced. even if stocks have been or are being depleted. This belief would tend to increase
investment in the fishery or to discourage disinvestment from it (Gates et at, 1997a; Amason, 1999;
Munro, 1999; Jorgensen and Jensen, 1999; Munro and Sumaila, 1999; OECD, 2000b). However, no
statistical methodology exists to estimate such an indirect effect. Unless the management reidme discourages
additional capacity through ITQs or community-based management. or by tight controls ova technological
improvement and increased effort, over time decommissioning subsidies will not prevent and will even
contribute to the replacement of all the withdrawn capacity and the addition of more capacity. Even a
programme that ostensibly purchase, destructive fishing technologies, such as the Indonesian buy-back of
trawlers, would pose the problem of premiums being used for reinvestment in another overexploited fishery.

Decommissioning subsidies lead to overfishing – makes fishing profitable.
Porter 1 [Gareth, 2001, United Nations Environment Programe]

The designers of decommissioning schemes face a dilemma in determining how to use the money
available for decommissioning premiums. To the extent that the programme succeeds in reducing
capacity in the short run, it will make the fishery more profitable for those remaining in the fishery. That
will in turn make vessels and licences more valuable and stimulate increased investment in fishing
capacity. Eventually, this increased investment translates into increased pressures on stocks. An example
of this pattern is the licence buy-back in the Atlantic Canada Inshore Lobster Fishery, which retired 22.6 per
cent of the licences in the fishery as of 1978. The short-term result was both increased landings per
fisherman and an increase in spawning females. However, as income increased, vessels became
increasingly larger, more powerful and better equipped, overwhelming the earlier retirement of
licenses (Gates et al. 1997b).
Decommissioning subsidies lead to an increase in active vessels – makes them profitable.

A systematic obstacle to the meaningful reduction of capacity through decommissioning schemes is
that there are already many licensed but inactive vessels in overcapitalized fisheries that can easily be
turned into active capacity if rents in the fishery are increased. By paying premiums for the removal of
vessels from the fishery, decommissioning schemes stimulate the conversion of such idle capacity to
active capacity by making the reactivation of vessels more profitable and by providing capital with
which modernization of previously idle vessels can be carried out (Holland and Sutinen 1998). In the case
of the United Kingdom scheme, the removal of a significant number of vessels from the fleet led to the
creation of a more dynamic market for second-hand vessels by increasing the demand for such vessels
(Nautilus Consultants 1997).
Decommissioning subsidies leads to overfishing – moral hazard.

Part of the dilemma of vessel buy-backs in a fishery is that they raise “moral hazard” problems. Based
on basic economic logic, the existence of a capacity reduction subsidy scheme can be expected to
encourage investors or potential investors to believe that such a scheme will be available in the future,
thus reducing the expected costs of investment in new capacity (Arnason 1999; Munro 1999; OECD
2000a). A survey of vessel buy-backs comes to the same conclusion: such schemes create the implicit
expectation that the government will rescue the fishing industry whenever profitability is threatened by
stock depletion or developments that raise its costs (Gates et al. 1997a). Moreover, if the programme ranks
applications on the basis of the ratio of the bid to historical catches, which is necessary to maximize the
short-term effect on capacity, it will benefit those who have caught the most fish. That could, in turn,
cause vessel and licence owners in other fisheries that are overcapitalized to attempt to increase their
share of the catch in order to maximize anticipated future benefits from such a programme (Read and Buck
1997). The experience of past decommissioning or buy-back schemes indicates that it is dangerous to
assume that they will succeed in reducing capacity. They may even inhibit the necessary adjustment by
the industry.
A2: Vessel Construction Subsidies Good

Vessel construction and modernization subsidies lead to overfishing.

Subsidies to vessel construction and modernization: This category of subsidies has long been regarded
as one of the contributors to the current situation of excess capacity in world fisheries. As discussed
above, the increased profits from any subsidy can encourage additional effort into a fishery, even with
catch and effort controls. The use of vessel construction subsidies is likely to exacerbate this effect by
altering the relative prices of capital and other inputs (such as labour, fuel, etc) and, in the absence of
subsidies to these other inputs, will encourage a greater use of capital than would otherwise have been
the case. Moreover, new vessels are generally able to bring more effective effort to bear on a fishery as
they include improvements in technology and power. The case of subsidies to vessel modernisation is
slightly different as the expansion of effort takes place through the upgrading of existing capital to improve
capacity and effort, rather than through the creation of additional boats. However, while the number of
vessels may not increase as a result of the subsidy, the effective effort that can be applied can increase
within certain technical parameters.
A2: Capacity Reduction Subsidies Good

Capacity reductions worsens overfishing.

Capacity reductions and management of the world’s distant-water fleets (DWFs) in national EEZs and
on the high seas pose considerable problems. Such fleets are known to encroach into inshore coastal
waters which contain the richest concentrations of fishery resources. In this process, they endanger life,
damage the craft and gear of local small-scale fishers and cause overfishing.
Capacity reduction/vessel decommissioning subsidies are bad

Lindebo 5 (Erik, Food and Resource Economics Institute, http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/28144/1/20040445.pdf)
Over the years, the policy initiatives that aim to ensure sustainable exploitation of fisheries in
Community waters have been rather inconsistent with regards to reducing fleet capacity whilst
simultaneously promoting and sustaining a competitive industry through the active use of subsidies.
Direct economic incentives in terms of budgeted grants or subsidised lending for construction and
modernisation will tend to result in capacity being maintained at an uneconomically high level, with
adjustments to the structure of fishing capacity being delayed and catch rates being kept at lower
levels. This has the effect of worsening the financial situation of firms that would be profitable (or more
so) if the bankrupt part of the fleet were allowed to fold (FAO 2001). Subsidies available to the industry
are a further indication of lack of economic efficiency, as well as the more general undesired use of public
finances.
Capacity reduction programs don’t improve sustainability

In some cases, the reduction in capacity was associated with programmes to restore the
productivity of fish stocks and to avoid the risk of over-exploitation. If transfers are used to bring about
adjustment to achieve resource conservation objectives, then it is important to ensure that they are closely
aligned with improvements in resource management policies. There is little evidence that
revenue-enhancing or cost-reducing transfers improve the performance or stability of the sector in the long
run in the absence of accompanying changes in management. Both the environmental and economic
benefits of restructuring will only be short-term in the absence of longer-term solutions to the entry of
additional effort and restraint of catch. Capacity-reducing transfer policies therefore need to be coherent
with other resource management policies if they are not going to be potentially harmful to the environment.
A2: Conservation Subsidies Good

Conservation subsidies are not substantial
WTO 2k [World Trade Organization Committee on Trade and Environment, “Subsidies in the Fisheries Sector:
Update on Recent Work Conducted by New Zealand,” http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news00_e/w134.doc]
9. Based on the data and material sourced by New Zealand, it is estimated that in 1996 Japan provided
financial support of US$4 billion to its marine fishing industry, with US$1.8 billion provided in the EU, and
US$1 billion in the US. These figures represent 32%, 21% and 27% of the landed catch value of each
respectively. These figures do not, however, provide any indication of the types of financial support provided
in relation to the fisheries sector, and it is necessary to look at the different types of the support to get a
clearer picture of patterns of subsidization. There is clearly considerable variation between Japan, the EU
and the US in regard to the types of financial support provided. In the US, for example, 61% of total
support was provided in the form of government expenditure on research, resource management and
enforcement, which Milazzo describes as the "Resource Rent" category. While this category of support has
also been estimated as the largest for the EU, it represented only 37% of total EU support and 5% of Japanese
support. The proportion of direct budgetary support for fisheries in both domestic and foreign waters varied
widely between the EU (45%), Japan (28%) and the US (6%). 10. Some Members have in the past
highlighted the "positive" use of subsidies to reduce fishing capacity. The review carried out by New
Zealand indicated that in the overall picture of fish subsidies, such support (classified under the
"conservation" category) appears to be relatively small.
Subsidies can’t reduce overfishing – incentives will never solve the race for the fish

Under ideal circumstances, programmes to reduce capacity by retiring vessels or licences could make
a major contribution to capacity reduction worldwide. A recent study based on case studies submitted by
OECD member countries (OECD 2000a) found that transfers aimed at capacity reduction, “combined with
appropriate management measures, can reduce pressures on fish stocks”. However, experience with such
subsidies in a number of countries shows that it is extremely difficult to design a decommissioning
scheme that will stem the continued growth of fishing capacity as long as the overall incentive
structure in the sector continues to encourage the “race for fish”. These programmes may temporarily
remove vessel capacity from the fleet, but those who remain in the industry will still be motivated to
make additional investment in greater total effort or more efficient gear (i.e. “input stuffing”) and will
have additional resources with which to do so. The eventual increase in capacity can easily drown
out the initial reductions in capacity obtained by the decommissioning or buy-backs (Munro 1999).
Immediate reductions in capacity obtained by buy-backs have been overwhelmed by “input
stuffing” in a number of fisheries, including the Australian southern shark fishery, the British Columbia
salmon fishery, and others in Denmark and the Netherlands (Gates et al. 1997b).
A2: Buyback Subsidies Good

Buyback subsidies are a useless waste of resources and worsens overcapacity.
Clark 5(Colin W., et. al. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management Clark, et. al. are professors at the
1-25)
University of British Columbia
In spite of their current popularity, buyback subsidies have several severe disadvantages. First, an
expensive buyback program may at best remove only a marginal portion of the fishing fleet, as less
efficient vessels depart while ‘‘high-liners’’ remain in the fishery. Consequently, actual fishing capacity
may not decline to a notable degree. Second, upon completion of the buybacks, additional capacity may
gradually seep back into the fishery through upgrading of the remaining fleet [15], necessitating a
further round of buybacks [31]. For example, Canada’s Pacific salmon fisheries recently experienced their
third buyback program. A third disadvantage centers on the possibility that buybacks may come to be
anticipated by fishermen. This is an instance of the well-known inconsistency of optimal plans [20].
Specifically, once it becomes known that a government is in the habit of buying up excess capacity,
fishermen will be motivated to acquire vessels, even if the prospects of making a normal return on
their investments are low. Thus the anticipation of future buybacks can, and doubtlessly does, lead to
greater overcapacity than would otherwise occur.
Buyback programs ensure subsidies reduce econ efficiency and conservation.
Clark 5(Colin W., et. al. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management Clark, et. al. are professors at the
1-25)
University of British Columbia
If vessel buyback programs can overcome the seepage problem, they can have a beneficial impact on
fisheries conservation and can reduce economic waste—provided that vessel owners’ expectations
pertaining to resource managers’ policy are myopic. If the buybacks are anticipated, however, then
even though the seepage problem has been eliminated, the subsidies can have a strong negative impact,
both in terms of conservation of the resource, and in terms of economic efficiency. This conclusion is
not particularly radical, and is really an acknowledgement of the fact that it is follyto assume that vessel
owners are myopic in their investment decision making.
A2: Vessel Construction Subsidies Good
New vessels do even more damage

Greenpeace_98(May,http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:CNNNjOXftJwJ:archive.greenpeace.org/oceans/globaloverfishing/deadahead.html+ban+on+
government+subsidies+construction+fishing+vessels+ship&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us)
Newton and Fitzpatrick show that fishing fleets are not being restructured, that capacity is not being effectively reduced but is
in fact increasing, and that states with open registers (so-called "flag of convenience" states) are increasing their fishing capacity. Their findings
clearly show that the expansion in the size and capacity of the world's fishing fleets continued to increase over the period 1991-1996. From 1991
to 1995 there were 1,549 new large-scale fishing vessels added to the world's fleet. Another 105 fishing vessels were built in 1996, taking the total
to 1,654. Although a slow down in new additions occurred in 1995 and 1996, orders for 244 new vessels over 100 GRT in 1997 indicate a return
to the trend of constructing fishing vessels with large tonnage. Throughout the period 1991-95, additions to the world's fleet continued to exceed
deletions. The authors point out that much of the industrial fishing fleet is already quite old and inefficient and in need of scrapping, with the
percentage of vessels older than 20 years standing at 48% in 1997. Roughly 82% of the number of new additions to the world's fishing fleet
between 1991 - 1995 were made by just 14 countries, of which four (Japan, EU, Honduras, Russia) accounted for 53%. Fifteen per cent of new
additions belonged to four countries (Honduras, Liberia, Panama, Cyprus) offering open registers, commonly referred to as flags of convenience
(FOCs). In terms of tonnage, 80% of new additions were by 19 states, with five states responsible for 53%. Newton and Fitzpatrick stress that
new fishing vessel construction trends show more vessels are being built with technology used to fish
either large amounts of relatively low-valued species, or widely distributed species that are at depths
which were previously beyond technological and economic reach. Modern construction is being
specialized toward large vessels using gigantic mid-water trawls, highly specialized auto long-lines of
up to 50,000 hooks and deep water fishing with trawls/long-lines on sea mounts and in deep ocean
ridges.
Subsidies for industrial vessel improvement deplete fish stocks
Greenpeace_98(May,http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:CNNNjOXftJwJ:archive.greenpeace.org/oceans/globaloverfishing/deadahead.html+ban+on+
government+subsidies+construction+fishing+vessels+ship&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us)
Industrialized vessels and fleets are capable of roaming the world's oceans and depleting fish stocks at
will, in many instances operating beyond nation-state regulation. Industrialized fleets are engaged in illegal fishing on the high seas, in
the Southern Ocean, and in numerous developing country EEZs (200 mile limits). They are involved in new and
exploratory fisheries in deep ocean areas, exploiting previously unperturbed species and ecosystems.
And industrialized fleets are involved in conflicts with small-scale and coastal fishers and communities worldwide. These fleets
receive the lion's share of Government subsidies which, according to UN FAO and World Bank estimates, range from 25
to 50 billion dollars annually. These handouts are for a variety of purposes - from subsidizing fuel costs to
supporting wealthy investors in building monstrous, high tech fishing factories up to 137 meters in
length that are capable of roaming the world's oceans to devastate fish stocks. The industrialized
vessels are most often the boats that use the largest-scale technology. This in turn equals high bycatch,
heavy fishing pressure, and a host of other problems. And industrialized fleets (unlike much of the small-scale sector)
generally are not those providing food for local communities in areas of the world where food needs are most acute, but fisheries
products for the global market.
A2: R&D Subsidies Good (1/2)

Subsidies are counter-productive- ruin commercial incentives to develop new technologies
and harm entrepreneurship
Leal & Meiners 2 Donald R. Leal, Roger E. Meiners “Government Vs. Environment” 2002 Google Books Page
54
In the political setting, government decision makers have incentives to provide constituents with
products and services they want at little or no cost to them. Political entrepreneurs in this arena are
rewarded with more votes, more authority, and more control over taxpayer dollars, but they do not face the
reality check of profitability that entrepreneurs in the private sector face. Moreover, in the case of
commercial fisheries the long-term health of the resource is being sacrificed for short-term political
goals. Government regulation fails to curtail the incentive that fishers face to overfish in a commons,
which generates wastes. An effective cure to overfishing must be organized around well-defined
property rights to either the resource or shares of the catch. A step in this direction is the application of
individual, transferable quotas (ITQs) in ocean fisheries. ITQs have already registered major successes in
curtailing overcapacity and in helping rebuild fish stocks in ocean fisheries in New Zealand and Iceland (Leal
2000, 8-10). Government subsidies exacerbate the commons and regulatory problems plaguing ocean
fisheries. They also create vested interests in the status quo of overcapitalized fisheries. They may be
politically expedient in the short term, but they inevitably harm the resource and the economy down
the road. Canadian citizens found this out when the federal government doled out tax breaks, loan
guarantees, and lavish unemployment benefits to boost employment in Atlantic Canada's fishing industry,
all of which contributed to the creation and perpetuation of fishing excesses and subsequent collapse of
the northern cod fishery.
A2: R&D Subsidies Good (2/2)

Technological development is critical to overfishing
WWF 8 (World Wildlife Fund, 2-29, http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/problems/problems_fishing/boats/index.cfm)

Advances in technology have led to a massive expansion in fishing effort over the past 50 years. Powerful
motors have replaced sails; boats have become much bigger; strong plastics have replaced natural fibres for
nets; onboard refrigeration allows fishers to stay at sea for longer; and airplanes, sonar, and even satellites
can help fishers find fish.
These developments have spurred a huge expansion in fishing effort over the last 30-40 years. Today’s huge
industrial fishing fleets set thousands of kilometres of strong, invisible nets each day - some large enough to
hold 12 jumbo jets - as well as thousands of kilometres of longlines with tens of thousands of hooks.
The fish don’t stand a chance
According to one report, fish populations decline by 80% within only 10-15 years after large fishing vessels
move into an area. And the biomass of the large predator fish in the oceans is estimated to be only around
10% of pre-industrial levels.
Tech subsidies reduce costs, increasing overfishing and retention of rust-bucket vessels

In some cases, direct payments and cost-reducing transfers may be associated with programmes
aimed at developing or introducing new technology in response to specific environmental concerns (for
example, in relation to reducing by-catch or minimising discards). The analysis of such transfers in terms
of their overall economic and environmental impacts on the fishery can be problematic. On one hand, there
may be positive environmental outcomes from the transfers, although care would need to be taken to
ensure that there are no unintended environmental impacts from the subsidised introduction of new
technology (for example, by making it less costly for fishing operations in a given fishery, leading to
increasing overall fishing effort). On the other hand, it may be questioned whether it is appropriate that
subsidies be used as the first-choice policy instrument to internalise the external costs of private activities.
The rationale for the use of transfers in such cases relies on the existence of market failure, a precondition
that is not often tested before the provision of transfers. In addition, transfers that have been or are being
applied can inflate the costs of industry adjustment. Assistance provided for the application of new
technology will inflate the value of a vessel, and will also increase the cost of removing that vessel from
the fleet in any adjustment scheme.
A2: Fuel Subsidies Good (1/3)

Fuel subsidies cause overfishing and trawling.
ICSF 7 [International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, 2007,

http://www.icsf.net/icsf2006/ControllerServlet?handler=EXTERNALNEWS&code=getDetails&id=34805&userType=&fromPage=]
Apart from being a serious threat to the marine environment, fuel subsidies, either given in the form of
fuel tax exemptions or direct grants, also have damaging economic and social consequences, the study
maintains. Fishing boats it says, spend up to 60 per cent of their operational costs on fuel and up to
2,000 litres per sq km are burnt in some European waters. "By making fuel for fishing vessels cheaper, fuel
subsidies encourage fishermen to fish more and longer. Consequently, they contribute to overfishing,"
the study adds. It also indicates, says WWF, that fuel subsidies encourage fishermen to continue using
destructive fishing techniques, such as beam trawling, rather than investing in new energy-efficient and
less damaging techniques.
Fuel subsidies cause deep-sea trawling.
Oceana 7 [2007, http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/dirty_fishing/cut_the_bait/2007_Subs_outreach_kit/Subsidies_and_Effects_FINAL.pdf]

Fuel subsidies allow deep-sea trawling fleets to destroy marine species and reef habitats that are centuries
old and cannot easily recover because they mature and reproduce so slowly. The deep-sea fishing industry
receives subsidies worth more than $152 million a year, with most of the subsidies and fleets coming from
Japan, Russia, South Korea, and Spain. Without its subsidies, the global industry would operate at an
annual loss of $50 million because it uses such huge quantities of fuel to operate.
Fuel subsidies cause overfishing and trawling
Fish et al 8 (July 24, Reaction Statement, Birdlfe, Oceana, WWF, Seas at Risk, North Sea)
Supposedly introduced to support the cost of fishing operations, such cash grants can be used to finance fuel
expenses. Allowing fuel subsidies in the fishing sector is a complete waste of money and a
counterproductive measure. The “de minimis” aid will generate further overfishing, by making fuel
cheaper, which will encourage fishermen to fish more and longer. It will also back fishermen to
continue using energy-thirsty and environmentally damaging fishing gear, such as trawling, posing a
serious threat to the marine environment.

Fuel subsidies cause pollution, overcapacity in pristine environments, and warming
Knigge 8 (Pew Enviro Group, http://www.noordzee.nl/upload/actueel/NGO_Position_fuel_Subsidies_080605.pdf)

Subsidised marine diesel will provide short term relief for fishers, but will
ultimately worsen their situation as it encourages fuel-intensive fishing techniques that are in general
not only frequently less labour intensive but also highly destructive to other marine life and contribute
disproportionately to greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, as long as serious shortcomings in
fishing safeguarding systems persist, subsidising operational costs will directly increase fishing effort
and lead to a further deterioration of European fish stocks, forcing fishing vessels further out on the
sea to find fish and in doing so consuming even more fuel.
Subsidies don’t solve fuel competitiveness
Knigge 8 (Pew Enviro Group, http://www.noordzee.nl/upload/actueel/NGO_Position_fuel_Subsidies_080605.pdf)

Ever increasing levels of subsidies for operational costs will not help the European fishing fleet to become
more competitive. On the contrary, such subsidies will delay necessary restructuring and prevent the
European fishing sector from adapting to the new biological and economic realities: over-fished resources
and higher oil prices.
Fuel subsidies are the promote the worst practices, bigger fleets, and massive overcapacity
Seas at Risk 7 (http://www.seas-at-risk.org/n3.php?page=126)

Fuel subsidies reduce the cost of fisheries operations and make fishing enterprises more profitable than they
would otherwise be. This results directly or indirectly in the build-up of excessive fishing capacity and effort,
leading to the over-exploitation of fishery resources, supporting economically unprofitable practices and
undermining future economic benefits.
Fuel subsidies promote the use of active, fuel-intensive fishing techniques such as dredging, beam trawling
and bottom trawling, and in general these are more damaging to the marine environment than passive fishing
techniques. Scientists have estimated that the highly destructive and unsustainable practice of high seas
bottom trawling would operate at a loss without fuel subsidies. The increase in fuel-intensive fisheries also
leads to a substantial increase in CO2 emissions from fishing vessels.
By promoting the replacement of man power by horse power, fuel subsidies have socio-economic impacts.
They distort the competition between large scale fuel intensive fishing fleets and small scale fleets using
passive, low impact techniques.
More ev…
Seas at Risk 99 (http://www.seas-at-risk.org/news_n2.php?page=147)

The availability of subsidised marine diesel oil encourages fuel-intensive fishing techniques that are highly
destructive of other marine life and contribute disproportionately to greenhouse gas emissions. Marine fuel is
already exempt from taxes and therefore cheaper than ordinary car or household fuel and subsidies will make
the situation even worse. Instead of fuel subsidies, fishers should be encouraged to move away from (active)
fuel-intensive and environmentally harmful techniques such as beam-trawling to alternative (passive)
techniques that use less fuel and are generally less damaging to the environment.

Fuel subsidies cause warming
Seas at Risk 99 (http://www.seas-at-risk.org/n3.php?page=138)

The global increase in fuel-intensive fisheries has led to a substantial increase in CO2 emissions from fishing
vessels. In general, fuel-intensive (active) fishing techniques not only contribute more to climate change than
less fuel-intensive (passive) fishing techniques, but they also have significant direct negative impacts on the
marine ecosystem. Seas At Risk is promoting a reduction of the carbon footprint of fisheries by a shift to less
fuel-intensive, low-impact fisheries.
Global fisheries burned almost 42.4 million tons of fuel in 2000, representing about 1.2% of the global oil
consumption, and an amount equivalent to the national consumption of The Netherlands. By doing so, fishing
boats emitted more than 130 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere - comparable to the amount emitted by
road transport in the UK - at an average rate of 1.7 tons of CO2 per tonne of live weight landed product.
From an efficiency perspective, the energy content of the fuel burned by global fisheries is 12.5 times greater
than the edible protein energy content of the resulting catch. European fishing fleets are major oil consumers
amongst the world’s fishing fleets and therefore responsible for a substantial part of those emissions.
A significant reduction of CO2 emissions in fishing activities can be achieved by switching from (active)
fuel-intensive and environmentally harmful techniques such as dredging, bottom trawling and beam-trawling,
to alternative (passive) techniques that use less fuel and are generally less damaging to the environment. For
example, the fuel needed to catch and land a kilo of Norway lobster can be reduced from 9 litres to 2.2 litres
by switching from conventional trawl fisheries to creel fisheries. Such a switch would also significantly
reduce the by-catch of non-target species and provide the consumer with a Norway lobster of better quality
since it is not squashed in the trawler’s net. Another example is the Danish flat-fish fishery where the amount
of diesel fuel per kg of caught fish could be reduced by a factor of 15 by switching from beam-trawling to the
Danish seine. The Danish seine is a semi-passive fishery which has less impact on the bottom.
A shift to less fuel-intensive and low-impact fishing methods and gears provides a more sustainable long-
term solution than simply using more energy efficient motors, which would initially reduce fuel consumption
but in the longer term worsen the situation by contributing to an increase in fishing effort and an increase in
pressure on already over-fished stocks. Further depletion of fish stocks means that fishers have to go further
to find fish and in doing so end up burning more fuel per kilo of landed fish, leading to a destructive cycle of
depleted fish stocks, increasing CO2 emissions and the destruction of marine life.
Such a shift in fishing methods and gears can be promoted by removing the environmentally harmful fuel
subsidies and phasing out fuel tax exemption for fisheries, while at the same time providing financial and
other incentives, for example by using the European Fisheries Fund, to facilitate the shift to new gear and by
allocating special quota or fishing zones for less fuel-intensive low impact fisheries. In addition, consumers
and retailers should be provided with the choice to avoid fish products with a very large carbon footprint. A
strong consumer demand for fish products with a small carbon footprint will facilitate a shift to less fuel-
intensive and low-impact fishing methods and gears.
A2: Fuel Subsidies Good – Econ

Fuel subsidies distort prices and destroy jobs.
ICSF 7 [International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, 2007,

http://www.icsf.net/icsf2006/ControllerServlet?handler=EXTERNALNEWS&code=getDetails&id=34805&userType=&fromPage=]
When it comes to the economical impact, fuel subsidies distort competition among Member States, the
conservation group contends, Because they offer different subsidies schemes to their fishing industry, some
national fleets are able to sell fish at lower prices due to lower operational costs. Socially destructive, fuel
subsidies promote the use of energy intensive fishing techniques that imply smaller crews onboard.
Therefore, they can directly impact communities that critically depend on jobs in the fishing sector.
A2: Fuel Subsidies Good – A2: Coastal Fishing Bad – Deep Sea Fishing Key
Deep sea fisheries are vulnerable and overfished.

The phenomenon of sequential stock depletions, particularly with respect to orange roughy and more
recently Patagonian toothfish, has focused attention on the relative fragility of deep-sea fisheries and has
lead to calls for improved management of these resources. In releasing its latest report on deep-sea fisheries,
the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) warned that “several deep-sea stocks are
now heavily exploited and in some cases severely depleted” and “suggested that there should be an
immediate reduction of fishing pressure on fully exploited or overexploited deep-sea stocks” (ICES
2003b). Non-governmental organisations, such as the World Wide Fund for Nature, have also highlighted
the need to protect deep-sea stocks and there have been calls for the increased use of marine protected
areas to protect deep-sea fish resources and the associated marine environment (WWF 2003).
Deep sea fisheries are more vulnerable than coastal areas.
WWF 3 [World Wildlife Fund, 2003, http://assets.panda.org/downloads/bro2005b.pdf]

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have been created around the world to conserve areas of high
biological diversity and as a tool for the wise management of marine resources. Yet, less than 1% of the
world’s oceans have been protected, compared to roughly 10% of the planet’s terrestrial environments. The
High Seas are even less protected than coastal areas – nearly all of the existing MPAs lie within
national jurisdictions. Governments need to act now to protect unique and representative examples of
high seas biological communities and to prevent overexploitation of marine resources and further
collapse of commercial fisheries.
Subsidies sustain the practice of deep sea fishing.

Subsidies are highly likely to have an adverse effect on deep-sea fish stocks. By their very nature and
location, these fisheries are mostly open access or are regulated under schemes which, in practice, tend not
to reduce the incentives to increase effort when subsidies are provided to the industry (depending on the
effectiveness of enforcement). The high initial catches associated with deep-sea fisheries mean that the
effect of subsidies will be to further increase profits in the short term and may accelerate the process of
new entry to the fishery. There are usually difficulties in imposing rights-based management regimes which
may reduce (but not eliminate) the underlying incentives to expand effort that exist in pure catch and effort
control fisheries. Moreover, there are concerns over the effectiveness of enforcing regulations; lack of
enforcement will exacerbate the effects of subsidies as fisheries are then closer to the open access end of the
management spectrum and subsidies will have a greater impact on catches and stocks. In addition, IUU
fishing in deep-sea fisheries will reduce the benefit to legitimate operators of “investing” in the stock through
restraining effort. Given the capital-intensive nature of most deep-sea fisheries, the relative mobility of
fishing fleets and the low opportunity cost of vessels, subsidies which encourage the expansion of
capacity, either within the particular fishery or more generally, are likely to be particularly significant for
deep-sea fisheries. Three categories of subsidies are relevant in this context and worthy of closer
examination: subsidies to vessel construction and modernisation; decommissioning payments; and subsidies
to particular types of research.
A2: Management CP – No Modeling

International modeling of US management fails
LeBlanc 3 (Justin, VP-National Fisheries Institute; January http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0103/ijee/leblanc.htm) RKB

U.S. commercial fishers are often challenged by the low prices of an increasingly competitive global
marketplace while at the same time bearing substantial conservation burdens imposed by strict U.S. laws and
regulations. These burdens, whether based on sound science or other policy objectives, may place U.S.
fishers at a considerable disadvantage by increasing costs, decreasing yields, or both. Making U.S. fishermen
more competitive by relaxing these conservation requirements is unlikely and, in many cases, undesirable.
Increasing the conservation commitment of the world's other commercial fishers to levels approaching that of
U.S. fishers is a complicated task involving rigorous conservation and management regimes, education and
training, and the participation of major markets for fish and seafood products. In recent years, international
fisheries bodies have begun to supplement traditional conservation and management measures with
controversial market-based constraints in response to the challenges (financial and logistical) of enforcing
conservation and management measures, particularly on the high seas.
A2: Management CP – Subsidies Key (1/2)

Fishing subsidies lead to free riding, which undermines conservation.
Benitah 4 [Marc, Professor Of International Law At The University Of Quebec, “Ongoing Wto Negotiations On
Fisheries Subsidies,” 2004, http://Www.Asil.Org/Insights/Insigh136.Htm#_Edn4]
Second, fisheries subsidies contribute to the inefficiency of management and conservation regimes. It is
likely that excess investments in harvesting capacity, stimulated by fisheries subsidies, encourage a
tendency to "free ride," which undermines effective management. In the fisheries sector, such behavior
assumes many forms, including non-compliance with fishing regulations (quota busting), illegal fishing,
[5] or reluctance to accept the judgments of scientists regarding resource sustainability.
Subsidies cause a moral hazard that overwhelms management schemes

Pressures on fisheries managers (and consequently on fish stocks) can be exacerbated by fishers’
expectations about the government provision of transfers. There is evidence that expectations become
embedded in fishers’ behaviour over time, especially the perception that governments will provide the
funds to support the sector when adjustment is required or when profitability is low.10 Much of the analysis
undertaken to date assumes that future conditions facing the sector are known: uncertainty is assumed
away. When uncertainty is introduced, it is clear that decisions to leave or enter a fishery, or to how to
operate within a fishery, will be based on the expected net returns that can be generated by using the
available factors of production. Therefore, expectations about future prices, the future state of the fishery,
as well as future government policy on transfers, will all be important determinants in fishers’ operating
behaviour. Government transfers can reduce the risk faced by fishers by transferring some of that risk to
the government (or more correctly, to the taxpayer).
Past experience with government transfer policies towards the sector will inform fishers’
expectations about the course of future transfer policies and the conditions under which they are granted.
This can have several effects. First, these expectations can become embedded and can lead to rent-seeking
behaviour on the part of fishers, as well as to the familiar problems of moral hazard and adverse
selection. Second, this can increase industry resistance to external adjustment pressures as participants in the
industry undertake strategic behaviour to maximise the expected value of their interests in the fishery.
Third, embedded expectations can be expensive to remove and can result in even higher expenditures on
adjustment over the longer term. In some countries, for example, the past provision of transfers to expand
fleet capacity has lead to industry demands for adjustment assistance once problems of over-capacity
emerged.
A2: Management CP – Subsidies Key (2/2)

Management wont solve – Subsidies are key
WWF 1 [World Wildlife Fund, “Hard Facts Hidden Problems,”]

Inadequate fisheries management ist not the only problem, Contributing to the fisheries crisis—and
often complicating efforts to achieve better management—is the fact that today’s fishing fleets are way too
big. In the aggregate, worldwide fishing capacity has been estimated at up to 250% of the level needed to
achieve sustainable fishing levels. In other words, the fishing industry is grossly overcapitalized, with “too
many boats chasing too few fish.” The overcapitalization of the fishing industry is in turn the result of a
number of factors. In some cases, poor fisheries management is itself a cause of overcapitalization, as
individual fishermen suffer a classic “tragedy of the commons” in a self-defeating race to grab dwindling fish
stocks. But there is another cause—a cause that is especially outrageous because it seems so unnecessary—
and that is the massive payments made by a number of governments to support their national fishing
industries. As confirmed by this report, government subsidies to the fishing industry total an equivalent of
billions and billions of dollars every year, often in support of activities running directly counter to sound
fisheries policy.
A2: Management CP – No Solvency (1/5)

Effective regulations will be difficult and require absolutely perfect enforcement.
OECD 5 [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “Subsidies: a Way Towards Sustainable
If governments decide to avoid such effects by limiting the amount of fish that can be caught, then
financial transfers will not necessarily have an adverse effect on fish stocks or catches, as long as the
limit is set to achieve a sustainable yield, and regulations are perfectly enforced. However, if the catch
controls are not perfectly enforced, then the effects will tend to be similar to those of an unrestricted (or
open access) system. Moves aimed simply at controlling fishing effort will only be partially successful,
as this involves attempts to regulate diverse elements such as time at sea, vessel size and power, the type
of fishing gear used, the number of people employed, etc, and it is very difficult to effectively regulate
all these aspects. In this situation, transfers will again have the long-term effect of reduced fish stocks,
lower catches and lower profitability. However, if governments introduce individual rights to catch at appropriate levels, and enforce
them effectively, fishers focus on landing their allowed catch at minimum cost. In principle, financial transfers have no impact on fish stocks but will
increase the profits from fishing, as well as the market value of the access rights to the fishery.
Management wont solve overfishing
OECD 5 [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “Subsidies: a Way towards Sustainable
If governments decide to avoid such effects by limiting the amount of fish that can be caught, then financial
transfers will not necessarily have an adverse effect on fish stocks or catches, as long as the limit is set to
achieve a sustainable yield, and regulations are perfectly enforced. However, if the catch controls are not
perfectly enforced, then the effects will tend to be similar to those of an unrestricted (or open access) system.
Moves aimed simply at controlling fishing effort will only be partially successful, as this involves attempts to
regulate diverse elements such as time at sea, vessel size and power, the type of fishing gear used, the number
of people employed, etc, and it is very difficult to effectively regulate all these aspects.
Other methods to solve overfishing fail – the problem is economic and subsidies are key
Anyanova 8 – Ekaterina, Lecturer in the law of the sea, I. Kant State University of Russia Ph.D
candidate, Hamburg University, Germany
[Rescuing the Inexhaustible…(The Issue of Fisheries Subsidies in the International Trade policy)∗,
http://www.jiclt.com/index.php/JICLT/article/viewFile/68/54]
The international community has started to combat over fishing by different means and techniques:
fishing of some species is totally prohibited, while for other species seasonal quotas, protection
during the spawning season and minimum mesh sizes have been established (Tomasevich, 1971 p.
46). Biological solutions like these have not worked out, however. This is not surprising, since the
main causes of over fishing are not biological or environmental, but rather economic
overexploitation of the ocean’s fishing resources. Since the problem is an economic one, the appropriate
response to it also has to be an economic one. Proper fisheries management and restrictions on fleets’
capacity (including the issue of fishery subsidies) also would be very effective.

Under-reporting prevents solvency – No enforcement
Levin, Holmes, Piner, & Harvey 6 (Phillips S, .National Marine Fisheries Service biologist who is an
expert on the demography of fish; Elizabeth E., Scientist in the Conservation Biology Division at the Center
National Marine Fisheries Service)
As in many regions of the world, marine fishes and invertebrates along the West coast of the United
States have long been subjected to overexploitation. The collapse of the California sardine fishery is infamous and
foreshadowed the nature of fisheries crises for much of the twentieth century (Wolf 1992; Rodriguez-Sanchez et al. 2002). Perhaps less
well known are substantial historic declines in a variety of fish populations along the U.S. Pacific coast. For example, black and white
seabass (Stereolepis gigas and Atractoscion nobilis, respectively) and perhaps yellowtail (Seriola lalandi), were heavily fished and
considerably depleted in southern California waters in the 1920s and 1930s (MacCall 1996; Dayton et al. 1998); soupfin (Galeorhinus
galeus), basking (Cetorhinus maximus), and dogfish (Squalus acanthias) sharks were severely depleted during World War II (Ripley
1946; Ketchen 1986; Holts 1988) and northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) stocks declined dramatically under high rates of
exploitation in combination with a reduction of ocean productivity (Rodriguez-Sanchez et al. 2002). In recent years, concern over a
number of rockfishes (Sebastes spp.; Parker et al. 2000) has resulted in the implementation of large scale fishery closures along the
continental shelf, with an expected annual cost to coastal communities of about $60 million (PFMC 2003a). Although it is clear
that many fish species along the U.S. Pacific coast are in trouble, there is generally a lack of
information on the current status of west coast fishes. The federal agency charged with managing fish
stocks, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, has formally assessed the
status of only 20% of the nearly 90 demersal fishes it manages along this coast (NMFS 2003).
Gathering the data required to use traditional assessment methodologies to evaluate the status of
unassessed populations of ground fish species is a daunting task that is unlikely to be accomplished in
the foreseeable future. Even so, the demise of fisheries around the globe (Baum et al. 2003; Christensen et al. 2003;
Myers&Worm2003) demands that we should evaluate the status of all exploited fishes—not just those few for
which detailed data are available. Additionally, as the tenets of ecosystem-based management begin to
be adopted, it is clear that the entire fish community, not just species targeted by fisheries, will need to
be assessed. Here, we present an analysis of the status of the demersal fish assemblage along the U.S. Pacific coast. We used simple
count data from fishery independent trawls to examine general trends in numbers and weights of 31 fish species along the continental
shelf. Although not as detailed as traditional stock assessments, our approach allows us to move beyond the few species that have been
assessed formally to provide the first synthetic study of the status of the groundfish assemblage of the U.S. West coast.
Flags of convenience prevent management solutions
WWF 8 (4-17, World Wildlife Fund,

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/problems/problems_fishing/illegal_fishing/index.cfm)
The biggest problem for fisheries management and the fight against IUU fishing are so-called flags of
convenience (FoC).
Under existing laws governing the High Seas, the law of the flag state - the country in which a vessel is
registered - applies. So if a country either hasn't signed up to fishing agreements or doesn't enforce them, then
vessels flagged to that country are able to plunder the High Seas, and even other nations' waters, at will.
One industry source estimates that 1,300 fishing vessels of significant size are flying flags of convenience.
Regulations bad-- causes over capitalization.
12-06)
Regulating restraint through quotas on catch levels, minimum mesh sizes, and shortened seasons, often
worsens matters. Fishermen lobby for overinflated quotas and more subisidies for boats capable of
grabbing a bigger slice of the pie. More overcapitalization brings satellites, surveillance planes, and the
latest in technology to bear in a mad scramble for fish. Cutthroat competition in derby-style seasons
presses captains to employ dangerous tactics in already hazardous fishing conditions.

Management doesn’t solve – Causes mismanagement
Sanchirico and Susan 5 (James, fellow at Resources for the Future; Hanna, professor at Oregon State University, The Providence
Journal,12-26, http://www.rff.org/rff/News/Features/Taking-stock-of-US-Fisheries-Policy.cfm)
Here's a Snapshot of the U.S fishing industry today: fleets race into ocean habitats that suffer from
depleted fish stocks and stressed ecosystems, while fishermen confront stagnant incomes and increased
regulatory conflicts. Continuing this strategy is simply unsustainable: many ocean-grown food
varieties -- shark, red snapper, blue crab, and cod, among other popular species -- are overfished,
threatening the livelihoods of thousands of workers who depend on this industry. Despite this situation, pressures to cast
the nets wider and increase the catch continue to rise. As it stands now, U.S. fisheries are governed by policies that
lack clarity and organization. Roughly 140 laws and a dozen agencies and departments have jurisdiction over marine ecosystems.
Current regulations try to control every aspect of fishing, leaving a fisherman with no right of ownership over his fish
until they are caught. This reality only triggers increased competition and circles back to threaten fish
populations. At this critical juncture, President Bush now has an opportunity to right the ship of fisheries management in this country.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released its preliminary report on marine resources and a variety of ocean and coastal
uses. This report marked the first time in 35 years that such a systematic and wide-ranging assessment has been conducted on this country's ocean
policy. The law required the president to respond to the report last week. Several simple actions taken now in this response could dramatically
improve the fisheries outlook in this country for decades to come. First, using an Executive Order, the president could direct all fishery-
management councils -- regional bodies that determine catch levels and fishery regulations -- to examine the "catch as much as I can" incentives
of fishing interests and allow managers to implement guidelines to pair responsibility for ocean-ecosystem health with rights to catches. Those
who use these public resources also must be held accountable for their impact on the fish stocks and ecosystem. These guidelines might include
individual fishing quotas that would guarantee all fishermen a share of the total catch, or fishing cooperatives that could decide the allocation
among their fleets. Experience to date illustrates that both systems can improve the bottom line of the fishing industry and rebuild fish
populations. Both higher incomes for fishermen and healthier stocks of fish are needed to shift the focus from short-term gain to long-run
sustainability. Second, the president should direct policymakers to require that all major U.S. fisheries set hard limits on annual catches, and that
these limits take into account the effects of overfishing on the ocean ecosystem. Some current approaches try to meet this need
rather than catch size limits, letting fishermen catch as much as they want during a
through time limits,
specific period. While this might seem to give fishermen greater freedom over their fishing habits, it can lead to the
collapse of fish stocks, as it has with New England cod. Hard caps, or total allowable catches, must be combined with
policies that address fishermen incentives; otherwise, the race for fish will continue unabated. Third, the president must recognize that what
benefits fishermen in the short term is not always in the best interest of the marine ecosystem. To ensure that guidelines are met without
compromising fish conservation needs, the administration must stipulate that the decision-making process on ocean harvests should be overhauled
to ensure that the best available natural- and social-science data are used. Some regional councils do not have functional
scientific advisory panels. Separating the decision on "how many fish can be caught" from the
question of "by who, when, and where" will also help to shift the focus to the long-term health of the
ecosystem. These are but three needed changes in U.S. ocean policy. However, none of these solutions requires legislative action or
major institutional reorganization; they can be achieved solely through presidential leadership. Addressing these immediate
needs will provide the building blocks necessary for greater change. They must be met first to restrain
the race for fish and to stop the damage to the industry and the environment. Only then can longer-
term, fundamental changes be implemented, and indeed succeed. In his response to the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy report, President Bush can turn the tide and preserve the long-term health of our maritime resources. Getting it wrong will not
only cause permanent damage to this critical ecosystem, but also will hurt the livelihoods of all those dependent upon it.

Management wont solve fishing

U.S. fishery management has historically made use of access systems—whether open or limited—that
promote an unsustainable “race for the fish.” This approach has produced serious resource
conservation problems in many U.S. fisheries and must be changed. Traditional Management Approaches Until
the end of the 20th century, most U.S. fisheries allowed access to anyone who wanted to fish. There were
few, if any, limits other than the usually nominal cost of a permit and possession of the necessary fishing
gear. In profitable fisheries, this led to ever-increasing numbers of entrants, with ever-increasing pressure
being put on the fishery resource. Recognizing the dangers posed by overfishing, managers began to
regulate fishermen by placing controls either on input or output. Input controls include such measures as
closing access to fisheries by limiting permits, specifying allowable types and amounts of gear and methods,
and limiting available fishing areas or seasons. Output controls include setting total allowable catch (the
amount of fish that may be taken by the entire fleet per fishing season), bycatch limits (numbers of non-
targeted species captured), and trip or bag limits for individual fishermen. These management techniques
create incentives for fishermen to develop better gear or to devise new methods that allow them to catch
more fish, and to do so faster than other fishermen, before any overall limit is reached. They provide no
incentive for individual fishermen to conserve fish, because any fish not caught is likely to be taken by
someone else. This race for fish created an unfortunate cat-and-mouse chase. In response to each new
measure designed to limit fishing effort, fishermen developed new fishing methods that, although legal,
undermined the goal of reaching sustainable harvest levels. This prompted managers to promulgate
more restrictive measures and fishermen to develop more ingenious methods to work around them. For
example, if managers limited the length of the boat, fishermen increased its width to hold more catch. If
managers then limited the width, fishermen installed bigger motors to allow them to get back and forth from
fishing grounds faster. If managers limited engine horsepower, fishermen used secondary boats to offload
their catch while they kept on fishing. One input control many managers turned to was limiting fishing days
for each fisherman, or for an entire fleet. In response, many fishermen found ways to increase their fishing
effort during the shorter season. In New England, the multispecies groundfish fishery shrank from a year-
round fishery to less than a hundred days at sea per fisherman, with recent proposals for even shorter
seasons. In the historically year-round halibut/sablefish fishery in the Gulf of Alaska, the fishing season
dwindled to less than a week by the early 1990s. In addition to conservation concerns, the race for fish
can create safety problems. Faced with a sharply curtailed amount of time in which to harvest, fishermen
often feel compelled to operate in unsafe weather conditions while loading their boats to capacity and
beyond. The constant race for fish, and the increasingly adversarial relationship between fishermen
and managers, created intense pressures. Fishermen fished harder for smaller returns and managers
hesitated to further reduce catch limits, fearing political and economic consequences. These pressures have
been identified by many as a contributing factor in the decline of several fish stocks, notably the New
England groundfish fishery.14 For reasons of tradition or culture, most managers hesitated to limit the number of new 287 288 AN
OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY entrants to a fishery. However, the ineffectiveness of other controls eventually did
lead managers in some fisheries to control access, for example, by limiting the number of available permits.

Resource management measures don’t stop overfishing – fishers pressure managers into
making them ineffective
Oceana 7 (May 24,

reach_kit/Oceans_in_Trouble_FINAL.pdf)
In an ideal world, a fisheries management system should be sufficient to prevent the incentive effects of
subsidies from resulting in increased catch and overfishing. But in reality, management systems are
very far from being effective. Overcapitalized fisheries in OECD countries have been shown to create
powerful political pressures on fisheries managers to set catch quotas too high and to impose effort
limits too late to prevent serious resource depletion. In the European Union, management controls have
not prevented high levels of illegal landings and underreporting of catch, leading to persistent overfishing.10
A2: Marine Reserves CP – Perm Solvency

Perm solves best – Marine reserves are effective only when complemented with other
approaches.
Lubchenco and Palumbi 3 [Jane and Steven, Oregan State and Harvard University 2003]
Research is demonstrating that marine reserves are powerful management and conservation tools, but
they are not a panacea; they cannot alleviate all problems, such as pollution, climate change, or
overfishing, that originate outside reserve boundaries. Marine reserves are thus emerging as a
powerful tool, but one that should be complemented by other fishing.
A2: Marine Reserves CP – No Solvency – Overfishing (1/4)

Reserves are ineffective- raise fish prices and do little to protect overfished species
Hannesson 98, R. “Marine Reserves: What Would They Accomplish?” IIFET '98 Tromso conference
A marine reserve is defined as an area closed to fishing and is assumed to be a part of the area over which a
fish stock is dispersed. The paper investigates what will happen to fishing outside the marine reserve and to
the stock size in the entire area as a result of establishing a marine reserve. Three regimes are compared: (i)
open access to the entire area; (ii) open access to the area outside the marine reserve; and (ii) optimum
fishing in the entire area. Two models are used: (i) a continuous time model, and (ii) a discrete time model,
both using the logistic growth equation. Both models are deterministic equilibrium models. The
conservation effects of a marine reserve is critically dependent on the size of the marine reserve and
the migration rate of fish. A marine reserve will increase fishing costs and overcapitalization in the
fishing industry, to the extent it has any conservation effect on the stock, and in a seasonal fishery it
will shorten the fishing season. For stocks with moderate to high migration rates a marine reserve of a
moderate size will have only a small conservation effect, compared with open access to the entire area
inhabited by a stock. The higher the migration rate of fish, the larger the marine reserve will have to be
in order to achieve a given level of stock conservation. A marine reserve of an appropriate size would
achieve the same conservation effect as optimum fishing, but with a smaller catch.
Marine reserves empirically fail at protecting coral or marine biodiversity
PNAS 4 (National Academy of the Sciences,

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=419589)
The worldwide decline in coral cover has serious implications for the health of coral reefs. But what is the
future of reef fish assemblages? Marine reserves can protect fish from exploitation, but do they protect
fish biodiversity in degrading environments? The answer appears to be no, as indicated by our 8-year
study in Papua New Guinea. A devastating decline in coral cover caused a parallel decline in fish
biodiversity, both in marine reserves and in areas open to fishing. Over 75% of reef fish species declined
in abundance, and 50% declined to less than half of their original numbers. The greater the dependence
species have on living coral as juvenile recruitment sites, the greater the observed decline in abundance.
Several rare coral-specialists became locally extinct. We suggest that fish biodiversity is threatened
wherever permanent reef degradation occurs and warn that marine reserves will not always be
sufficient to ensure their survival.
Marine Protected areas lead to fishing conflict, more fuel use, and merely shift overfishing
to other species.
Sanchirico 2 [James, Fellow @ Quality Environment Division at Resources for the Future, May, www.rff.org]
Reducing the amount of area open to fishing implies that, at least in the short-run, vessels could
experience higher levels of congestion on the remaining grounds. Congestion effects could result in
increases in fuel usage and high capital costs (e.g., fish finding equipment). In addition, significantly
reducing the amount of the fishable waters could also lead to increased conflicts between users of the
resource, such as allocation disputes and gear entanglements. A potential conflict could arise, for example,
from a trawler discplaced by an MPA venturing into an area traditionally occupied by fixed-gear
fisherman only. In this example, the costs of harvesting increase not only for the displaced trawler but also
for the fixed-gear fisherman, who otherwise might not have been affected directly by the closures.
Congestion effects might not only be concentrated in the fishery for which the closure was
implemented as establishment of an MPA could shift fishing pressure from one species to another,
thereby increasing the competition for the catch of that catch of that second species.

Marine reserves shift overfishing outside restricted areas, leading to ecosystem depletion.
Sanchirico 2 [James, Fellow @ Quality Environment Division at Resources for the Future, May, www.rff.org]
Many proponents of MPAs claim that they will provide broad ecosystem benefits including
improvements in habitat and restoration of healthy marine life communities throughout the ocean ecosystem.
These benefits are most likely to be felt within protected area, but again outside the area the effects are
unclear. Closing off an area will prompt fisherman to go elsewhere, putting new pressures on the
remaining open grounds. This shift could mitigate any broad ecosystem benefits, because it could
increase the intensity level of activities in the remaining nonprotected areas, further degrading habitat,
and potentially creating a marine environment dotted with islands of productive habitat surrounded
by vast expanses of depleted habitat. Fishing in some of the areas where fisherman choose to go in the
face of closures could be more biologically detrimental than the areas declared off-limits.
More ev…
Shipp 2 (Robert L. Ph.D. A Report to the Fishamerica Foundation. May 23. http://republicans.resourcescommittee.house.gov/
archives/ii00/archives/107cong/fisheries/2002may23/shipp.htm)
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are portions of the marine environment which are protected from some or all
human activity. Often these are proposed as a safeguard against collapse of fish stocks, although there are
numerous other suggested purposes for their establishment. “No take” MPAs (hereafter referenced as
nMPAs) are those from which no harvest is allowed. Other types include those where certain types of harvest
are prohibited, which are reserved for certain user groups, or which are protected from other human activities
such as drilling or dredging. Establishment of nMPAs may have numerous beneficial purposes. However, as
a tool for fisheries management, where optimal and/or maximum sustainable yield is the objective, nMPAs
are generally not as effective as traditional management measures, and are not appropriate for the vast
majority of marine species. This is because most marine species are far too mobile to remain within an nMPA
and/or are not overfished. For those few species which could receive benefit, creation of nMPAs would have
an adverse effect on optimal management of sympatric forms. Eight percent of US fish stocks of the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) are reported to be experiencing overfishing. The finfish stocks included in
this number are primarily pelagic or highly mobile species, movement patterns that don’t lend themselves to
benefit from nMPAs. Thus a very small percentage, something less than 2 %, depending on mobility
potentials, is likely to benefit from creation of these no-take zones. However, many of these species have
come under management within the last decade, employing more traditional fishery management measures,
and are experiencing recovery.

Reserves don’t solve – fishers will relocate
De Alessi 4 (Michael, director of natural resource policy at Reason Foundation. Florida Museum of Natural History.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/InNews/laws2004.htm)
The greatest threat to the oceans is what is referred to as the "the tragedy of the commons," when the race
goes to the swift fisherman, all commercial fishermen have little choice but to deplete the seas because any
fish they leave behind will simply be caught be someone else, rather than left to grow and reproduce for
another year. Marine reserves don't solve this key part of the crisis; they simply force fishermen to relocate.
And the problem is frequently compounded by state or federal regulations that attempt to restrict fishing, but
fail to address the reasons fish are over-harvested in the first place.
Turn: Shunned fishers create fixed areas with levels of activity intense enough to deplete
the habitat
Sanchirico 00 (James, fellow in RFF’s Quality of the Environment Division. Summer, www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/
Sanchirico/RFF-Resources-140-marinepro.pdf)
Many proponents of MPAs claim that they will provide broad ecosystem benefits including improvements in
habitat and restoration of healthy marine life communities throughout the ocean ecosystem. These benefits
are most likely to be felt within the protected area, but again outside of this area the effects are unclear.
Closing off an area will prompt fishermen to go elsewhere, putting new pressures on the remaining open
grounds. This shift could mitigate any broad ecosystem benefits, because it could increase the intensity level
of activities in the remaining nonprotected areas, further degrading habitat, and potentially creating a
marine environment dotted with islands of productive habitat surrounded by vast expanses of depleted
habitat. predict the magnitude and forms of the changes in advance. Some advocates also claim that MPAs
will provide Fishing in some of the areas where fishermen choose to go in the face of closures could be more
biologically detrimental than in the areas declared off-limits.
MPAs don’t solve overfishing – incentives drive fishers to waste
Sanchirico 00 (James, fellow in RFF’s Quality of the Environment Division. Summer, www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/
Sanchirico/RFF-Resources-140-marinepro.pdf)
What role should protected areas play in fishery regulation of the new century? MPAs seem particularly
important as an instrument to ensure that special treasures, like unique habitat and biodiversity, are preserved
for posterity. MPAs also have the potential to provide a margin of safety and perhaps even enhance the
productivity of some fisheries. But their usefulness as a fisheries management tool to mitigate the ills of
overfishing is less clear. Fisheries are common property resources, and individual users of the resource do not
face the proper incentives to conserve the stock. While MPAs might provide a safe buffer under certain
circumstances, they are still addressing a symptom and not the fundamental cause of overfishing and waste in
fisheries. Until institutions are designed that change the incentives fishermen experience, policymakers will
continue to face the overcapacity problems that have given rise to the recent momentum for increasing the scale
and scope of MPAs.

The CP implements 30-year-old tactics that do not address vital issues to solve preserve
ecosystems
Perlman 3 (David, Chronicle Science Editor. SF Gate. February 16.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-

bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/02/16/MN41269.DTL)
Researchers exploring life along thousands of miles of the Pacific coast have discovered unexpected regions
where some species grow to maturity and others are either threatened or surprisingly abundant. The findings,
they say, require major changes to outdated laws and regulations that for decades have controlled coastal
fisheries despite scant knowledge of the ecological realities governing life in a zone stretching from a few
yards to a few miles offshore. Marine scientists from four West Coast universities have joined together to
open what some researchers have termed the "black box" of scientific ignorance about what lies just off the
Pacific coast. They discussed their work here Saturday during the annual meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. "The nation's ocean policies and practices simply do not reflect
current scientific knowledge and concepts such as the importance of habitat, of interactions among species,
or the overall workings of an ecosystem," said Jane Lubchenko, a marine biologist at Oregon State
University and former president of the national scientific organization meeting here. "The principal laws
designed to protect our coastal zones, endangered marine mammals, ocean waters and fisheries were enacted
30 years ago on a crisis-by-crisis basis," Lubchenko said, "and the result is a hodgepodge of policies and
practices that are at striking odds with our current scientific understanding of ocean ecosystems."
A2: Marine Reserves CP – No Solvency – Sharks

Marine Reserve can’t solve sharks – they migrate.
Harvey-Clark 95 [Protection of the Sixgill Shark, Science and Management, 1995]

The problem of protecting terrestrial carnivores with large home ranges has been partially resolved
through designation of large wilderness areas as parks and refuges, but we have yet to resolve the problem
of how to protect marine species that are migratory or have large home ranges. The sixgill shark,
Hexachus griseus, is worldwide in distribution and typically found at depths from 180 to 1800m roaming
home ranges of dozens of miles. Since 1978, two sites in coastal British Columbia have become world
famous for unique seasonal diver observation of these large primitive cowsharks. Investigators from the
Canadian Marine Environment Protection Society and the University of British Columbia have been involved
in characterizing the value of sharks as a live ecotourism resource. Although these sharks were virtually
unknown to science in 1991, they became the target of subsidized commercial fishery despite lack of a
management database and absence of a process for consultation with other users of the resource. Diver
observations of sharks decreased in the summer of 1993 and it is unclear whether either the fishery of
ecotourism utilization of the sixgill shark can be sustained. The sixgill shark issue begs the questions: how
will we protect sensitive marine species outside marine protected areas?
A2: Marine Reserves CP – No Solvency – Coral

MPAs can’t save coral – they target the wrong areas
Coral Reef Conservation Network 6

(http://www.earthdive.com/site/news/newsdetail.asp?id=1919)
Worldwide, the biodiversity of coral reefs is threatened and the existing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are not
sufficient to ensure their conservation. Work published in Science magazine shows that only a very small
proportion of coral reefs, 2%, is located in places that meet the requirements of the legislation.
A2: Marine Reserves CP – No Solvency – Land Based
No risk of spillover – nMPAs effect sedentary species

Shipp 2 (Robert L. Ph.D. A Report to the Fishamerica Foundation. May 23. http://republicans.resourcescommittee.house.gov/
archives/ii00/archives/107cong/fisheries/2002may23/shipp.htm)
When establishment of an nMPA is intended as a near proxy for a virgin stock, several factors need to be kept
in mind. And it might be helpful, in gaining perspective, to recall that some of these principles have been
well known for decades or longer, though sometimes forgotten. First, by definition, a virgin stock provides no
yield. Therefore a perfect proxy would be a negative in terms of management goals to produce an MSY or
OY. However, proponents of nMPA usage for management purposes refer to a “spillover effect” of
harvestable adults to adjacent areas. The impact of this spillover will always be less than that of a properly
managed stock, which generates the optimal yield-per-recruit, again, by definition. These models are
discussed in numerous classical and modern texts (e.g. Rounsefell, 1975; Iverson, 1996), The issue of
spillover is addressed briefly by Houde et al. (2001). The authors describe the difficulty of direct
confirmation of spillover effects, and suggest models may be more useful in understanding how marine
reserves function in a regional context. But they also note that those conclusions are limited by underlying
assumptions on which the model is based. For species with low mobility, the spillover is minimal, yet these
sedentary species are the very ones for which an nMPA is supposedly most effective.
Marine reserves don’t solve land pollution of marine ecosystems – this is the significant
source.
Craig 3 [Robin, Prof at Indiana University, McGeorge Law Review]

MPAs and marine reserves “are not a panacea” for coral reefs. Indeed, one of the shortcomings of
MPAs, seen repeatedly in efforts to protect coral reefs around the world, is that the protection given to
the marine ecosystem ends where the water meets the land. Land-based stresses, especially land-based
pollution, remain as significant problem for many of the world’s marine ecosystems. Land-based
pollutants are entering the oceans faster than ever before. Soil washed from denuded forests is
smothering coral reefs, and toxic chemicals are building up in marine ecosystems, poisoning animals or
preventing them from reproducing . Nutrients washed from the land are dramatically changing marine
habitats, especially in shallow enclosed seas like the Baltic. For coral reefs, this is particularly damaging
regulatory shortcoming because land-based water pollution can easily damage and destroy the coral reefs
nearby offshore. “That’s why coral communities are sensitive indicators of water quality and the ecological
health of the coastal watershed. They respond to alteration within the entire coastal watershed such as
changes in freshwater flows and nutrient inputs. Even when coral reef MPAs exist, managers can still
struggle “to keep land-based sources of pollution from killing their reefs,” as is true, for example, at
Jamaica’s Montego Bay Marine Park. Similarly, on Saba, “over-grazing by goats is causing high levels of
sediment run-off throughout the island, while dust released from a rock crushing plant was causing localized
damage to reefs nearby (until the plant closed following a hurricane in 1999).” As is often the case, the
marine park’s jurisdiction “ends at the high water line and as yet it has been unable to properly address
land-based problems.”
A2: Marine Reserves CP – Turn: Bycatch

Marine reserves lead to higher bycatch rates in the long term.
Lewison 4(Rebecca L. et. al. Duke University Marine Laboratory, Lewison et. al. are professors at DUML
http://web.gc.cuny.edu/eeb/academics/articles/Lewison_et_al.pdf November)
Fisheries management policies (e.g. time and area closures or moratoria on fisheries) have also been
implemented to reduce bycatch. Although these policies provide an immediate solution to reducing
bycatch by temporarily reducing or displacing fishing effort, closures can also introduce additional
problems, including the reallocation of fishing effort, which can lead to higher bycatch of other
vulnerable species
Marine reserves aggravate bycatch.
Alverson 96 (Dayton L., FAO, Alverson et. al. are research consultants for marine resources
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/t4890e/T4890E00.HTM)
Finally, the amounts of discard may be aggravated by regulatory regimes which (1) use time/area
controls to mitigate losses to one species, but do not consider bycatch and discard effects on other
species in more intensely fished alternate areas or in the same areas by alternative fishing gears or
methods, (2) allow fishing effort greatly to exceed that required to attain sustainable annual harvest levels,
(3) allocate catch of a particular species to a single gear type without regard to, and the time/areal catch
composition of, different gear types, and (4) promote “Olympic” type fishing activities
A2: ITQ CP – = Overfishing
ITQs empower corporations who allow fish stocks die out.
Greenpeace 8 [December 14, 1999; http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/as-congress-

considers-fisheries]
The Greenpeace report comes as Congress hears testimony today from proponents of lifting the current
moratorium on ITQs, in place since 1996. Greenpeace Fisheries campaigner Niaz Dorry said the Greenpeace
analysis should provide all the evidence Congress needs to extend that moratorium. "Congress is getting
some very fishy advice from the NAS study," Dorry said. "What's bad for the fish is bad for the people. ITQs
put a public resource in the pocket of big corporations that can afford the loss if our fish stocks
dwindle. But the very livelihoods of our nation's small scale commercial fishers literally depend on
healthy fish stocks."
ITQ’s allows for corporate control which will gut the industry driving up food prices.
Krebs 3 [Greenpeace Researcher A.V. Krebs is author of "The Corporate Reapers:

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press-center/reports4/surf-and-turf-corporate-contr.html 2003-08-26]
Continuing now into the late-1990's, the very economic and social fabric of rural America is being ripped
asunder. Meanwhile, the control of our food supply has been seized by corporate entities whose purpose
is not to feed people, or provide jobs, or husband the land, but simply to increase their cash flow and
reduce their transactional costs in order to placate their excess-profit-obsessed institutional investors. We see the same situations
developing in the fishing industry and the communities that have traditionally supported that industry. Just as the fundamental nature of
American agriculture has been changed by corporate agribusiness, factory-type farms, vertical integration, and forward (advance)
contracting so too has the world fishing industry been transformed by transnational corporate control,
factory trawlers, value-added commercialism, and Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs). While
corporate agribusiness has managed to successfully eliminate "excess human resources," - i.e., family
farmers - from agriculture through a series of policies and price manipulations, so too are the large
corporations that today dominate seafood production destroying this nation's fishing industry through
promoting the privatization of the marine commons through the use of ITQs. Under such a system
participants - usually large corporate interests and in many cases the very same corporations that dominate
corporate agribusiness - are allocated and own quota shares in the total annual catch of a given fishery.
Quota holders can also "transfer" --- buy, sell, lease ---shares on the open market, as with private property or commodity futures
contracts. Thus with each passing year it has become more and more apparent that the fate of the U.S. fishing industry has only to look
at the demise of this nation's family farm system of agriculture in recent decades to fully comprehend its own fate. In each case, capital
has replaced efficiency, and technology has replaced labor, as corporate-controlled interests have become more intent on becoming
"miners" of the land and seas than stewards of these natural and finite resources of the world's food supply. It is important to realize that,
unlike in the past where farmers and fishermen were the producers of our food, increasing numbers of them are now becoming simply
the raw material providers for a giant food manufacturing system. Meanwhile, corporate food companies continue to seek
to standardize our food supply through the "manufacturing" of our food, value-added food, while at the
same time forcing consumers to pay a higher and higher quantitative and qualitative cost for their
daily food. By deifying "cost benefit analysis" at the expense of the "common good" these corporations have managed to annul the
positive dimensions of the family farm system and the independent fishers and eliminate their economic and environmental advantages,
particularly as they relate to building genuine communities. As social anthropologists Patricia L. Allen and Carolyn E. Sachs point out,
any system built upon a foundation of structural inequities "is ultimately unsustainable in the sense that it will result in increasing
conflict and struggle along the lines of class, gender, and ethnicity." Today, this nation's corporatized food system has become just such a
system. The consequences of such action, as Greenpeace has previously noted, is that companies such as American Seafoods, Tyson's,
and ConAgra have transformed the fishing trade into a "global extraction industry dominated by multinational corporations and
industrial economies of scale." They have thus made fishing "not about a way of life," about feeding people and providing economic
sustenance for local coastal fishing communities, but rather about "making a good rate of return on their global investment capital." It
was in 1994 Congressional testimony that Rolland Schmitten, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
was asked the question "Do ITQs promote `big business' as large companies have resources to buy or lease a significant amount of
shares?" He replied: "This could happen, as experienced with grocery stores, agriculture and other enterprises . . . To the extent
that larger firms are relatively better capitalized, they may be able to obtain more shares relative to
their needs for efficient operation than could smaller firms."
A2: Marine Reserves CP – Turn: Species Shift

Turn – Species Shift: MPAs congest push out fishers, congesting other ground which moves
pressure from one key species to another
Sanchirico, Cochran, & Emerson 8 (James N.-a Fellow, Quality of Environment Division at Resources for the Future, and Kathryn A
and -Peter MEnvironmental Defense, Austin, Texas. Resources for the Future, May. www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-02-26.pdf)
Reducing the amount of area open to fishing implies that, at least in the short-run, vessels could experience
higher levels of congestion on the remaining grounds. Congestion effects could result in increases in fuel
usage and higher capital costs (e.g., fish finding equipment). In addition, significantly reducing the amount of
fishable waters could also lead to increased conflicts between users of the resource, such as allocation
disputes and gear entanglements. A potential conflict could arise, for example, from a trawler displaced by an
MPA venturing into an area traditionally occupied by fixed-gear fishermen only. In this example, the costs of
harvesting increase not only for the displaced trawler, but also for the fixed-gear fishermen, who otherwise
might not have been affected directly by the closures. Congestion effects might not only be concentrated in
the fishery for which the closure was implemented, as establishment of an MPA could shift fishing pressure
from one species to another, thereby increasing the competition for the catch of that second species
(Sanchirico 2000).
No Take Zones results in heavier fishing in alternate grounds

Grader 00 (Zeke, executive director pacific coast federation of fishermen's associations. AGU/AAAS Conference,
18 July. http://www.pcffa.org/mpa3.htm)
Although MPAs may offer potential benefits for marine fish resources and their habitats, they may pose a real
danger, too, if strict adherence to good science is not maintained regarding their purposes and siting. MPAs,
particularly those imposing no-take, could result in vast areas of prime fishing grounds being “locked up”,
which could needlessly impact fishery production. Moreover, no-take MPAs may result in heavier fishing or
other activities outside of their boundaries, exacerbating rather than resolving fish resource problems. MPAs,
by themselves, may also create a false sense of security about fishery resources – neither fish nor currents
respect artificial boundaries.
A2: Marine Reserves CP – Turn: Anthropocentrism (1/2)
1 – The justification of the MPAs has a human-centered perspective by viewing non-human

creatures as commodities to be preserved.
Orton 00 (David, coordinator of the Green Web environmental research group. Earth First! Journal (Vol.20, No.2).
http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/mpa.htm)
The Oceans Act is not based on deep ecology. According to this Act, Canada's Ocean Management Strategy
(of which MPAs are a part) is to be based on support for the principles of sustainable development. This
concept, which sanctifies continuous economic growth and consumerism, should not be accepted. We need to
drastically scale back economic growth and consumerism not expand it. Mathis Wackernagel and William
Rees, in their 1996 book Our Ecological Footprint, though presenting quite a human-centered perspective,
point out that to live sustainably, we must ensure "that we use the essential products and processes of nature
no more quickly than they can be renewed, and that we discharge wastes no more quickly than they can be
absorbed." Moreover, they point out that if everyone on Earth had the average Canadian or American
lifestyle, then three planets would be needed for a sustainable lifestyle for the world's population. The Oceans
Act uses the word "resource" to cover non-human creatures living in the oceans. The automatic assumption
that nature is a resource for corporate and human use is an indication of our total alienation from the natural
world. It implies a human- centered, utilitarian world view and that humans are somehow the pinnacle of
evolution. The word "stakeholder" means anyone interested in MPAs, lumping together those who want to
exploit the oceans with people who have ecological and social interests. It makes no distinction between, say,
inshore fishers who have a long term personal commitment to living off of the oceans, and oil and gas
companies who pack up and move whenever richer fields are found. The concept seems to imply that out of
the various competing interests, a lowest common denominator, general good will emerge. Ultimately, we are
all stakeholders in a planetary well-being sense, yet non-human stakeholders are not considered. In terms of
MPAs, who has more at stake than the seals, the fish and the algae?
A2: Marine Reserves CP – Turn: Anthropocentrism (2/2)

2 – Anthropocentrism is the foundation of war and exploitation of all life and the
environment
Fox 94 (Warwick, philosopher and ethicis. Deep ecology for the 21st Century, www.dhushara.com/book/renewal/voices2/deep.htm)
That anthropocentrism has served as the most fundamental kind of legitimatron employed by whatever
powerful class of social actors one wishes to focus on can also be seen by considering the fundamental kind
of legitimation that has habitually been employed with regard to large-scale or high-cost social enterprises
such as war, scientific and technological development, or environmental exploitation. Such enterprises have
habitually been undertaken not simply in the name of men, capitalists, whites, or Westerners, for example, but rather in the name
of God (and thus our essential humanity-or our anthropocentric projection upon the cosmos, depending upon one's perspective) or
simply in the name of humanity in general. (This applies notwithstanding the often sexist expression of these sentiments in
terms of "man," mankind," and so on, and notwithstanding the fact that certain classes of social actors benefit disproportionately from
these enterprises.) Thus, to take some favorite examples, Francis Bacon and Descartes ushered in the development of modern science by
promising, respectively, that it would lead to "enlarging the bounds of Human Empire" and that it would render
humanity the "masters and possessors of nature."10 Approximately three and a half centuries later, Nell Armstrong's moon
walk-the culmination of a massive, politically directed, scientific and technological development effort-epitomized both the literal acting
out of this vision of "enlarging the bounds of Human Empire" and the literal expression of its anthropocentric spirit: Armstrong's moon
walk was, in his own words at the time, a "small step" for him, but a giant leap for mankind." Here on Earth, not only do
examples abound of environmental exploitation being undertaken in the name of humanity, but this also
constitutes the fundamental kind of legitimation that is still most often employed for environmental
conservation and preservation-it is implicit in every argument for the conservation or preservation of the
nonhuman world on account of its use value to humans (.e.g, its scientific, recreational, or aesthetic value)
rather than for its own sake or its use value to nonhuman beings. The cultural pervasiveness of
anthropocentrism in general and anthropocentric legitimations in particular are further illustrated when one
turns to consi 'der those social movements that have opposed the dominant classes of social actors to which I have
been referring. With respect to the pervasiveness of anthropocentrism in general, it can be seen that those countermovements that have
been most concerned with exposing discriminatory assumptions and undoing their effects have typically confined their interests to the
human realm (i.e., to such issues as imperalism, race, socioeconomic class, and gender). With respect to the pervasiveness of
anthropocentric legitimations in particular, it can equally be seen that these countermovements have not sought to legitimate their own
claims on the basis that they are, for example, women, workers, black, or non-Western per se, but rather on the grounds that they too
have exemplified-at least equally with those to whom they have been opposedeither whatever it is that has been taken to constitute the
essence of humanness or else some redefined essence of humanness. While it would, in any case, be contrary to the (human-centered)
egalitarian concerns of these countermovements to seek to legitimate their own claims by the former kind of approach (i.e., on the basis
that they are, for example, women, workers, black, or nonWestern per se), the pity is (from a deep ecological perspective) that these
countermovements have not been egalitarian enough. Rather than attempting to replace the ideology of anthropocentrism with some
broader, ecocentrically inclined perspective, these countermovements have only served to reinforce it. It should be clear from this brief
survey that the history of anthropocentrism takes in not only the assumption of the centrality and superiority of humans i.n general, but
also the various claims and counterclaims that various classes of humans have made with regard to the exemplification of whatever
attributes have been considered to be quintessentially human. Deep ecologists recognize that the actual historical reasons for the
domination of one class by another (and here I also refer to the domination that humans as a class now exert over the nonhuman world)
cannot be identified in any simplistic manner; they can be as complex as any ecological web or the evolutionary path of any organism.
However, deep ecologists also recognize that claims to some form of human exclusiveness have tyically been
employed to legitimate the bringing about and perpetuation of historical and evolutionary outcomes
involving unwarranted domination. In consequence, deep ecologists have been attempting to get people to
see that historical and evolutionary outcomes simply represent "the way things happen to have turned
out"-nothing more-and that self-serving anthropocentric legitimations for these outcomes are just that.
A2: ITQ CP – = Overfishing (1/2)

ITQs lead to destruction of fish stocks – Canada proves.
Greenpeace 96 [Greenpeace Slams Plans For B.C. Trawl Fleet http://archive.greenpeace.org/majordomo/index-

press-releases/1996/msg00310.html Wed, 9 OCT 96]
Victoria, B.C., October 6, 1996 (GP): Greenpeace slammed the Federal government today for their plans to privatize groundfish stocks
in British Columbia's waters, handing over ownership of a resource now owned by all Canadians to a small number of companies. At a
press conference aboard the MV Greenpeace, which has just returned from the trawlers' fishing grounds in northern B.C. waters,
Fisheries Campaigner Catherine Stewart said privatization would worsen destructive fishing practices. Federal
government figures released last week by Greenpeace show that this season the bottom dragging trawlers have already thrown 13
million pounds of unwanted ocean species overboard. The discarded species, often dead or dying include: 4,143,721 of turbot, 2,390,100
of dogfish; almost a million pounds of high-value halibut, and 41 non-fish species including harbour seals, California seal lions and
starfish. "Giving the stocks away to companies who show this type of complete disregard for ocean ecosystems is a recipe for disaster,"
said Stewart. "The U.S. Congress rejected a similar plan. The Canadian government must do the same - Fisheries Minister Mifflin must
not be allowed to get away with this 'tenure for turbot' scheme." The controversial programmes being contemplated
include "ITQs" -Individual Transferable Quotas, whereby fishermen assume ownership over their
quota of fish, based on recent catch history, and "EA"s - Enterprise Allocation in which a portion of the
catch is given to processing companies. ITQs have been attempted in several jurisdictions, often with
disastrous results for conservation, small-scale fishermen and coastal communities. Enterprise
Allocations were attempted on Canada's east coast in the cod fishery. The scheme was based on the
assumption that, given security of access to cod stocks, companies would assume a sustainable approach to
harvesting. The destruction of the east coast cod fishery was the eventual outcome. A DFO consultation
process on the future of the groundfish stocks is currently underway. Despite the transparency clause in the United Nations Fisheries
Treaty, DFO's closed-door committee consists of 5 trawl fishermen, 3 processing companies, a fisheries union representative and one
"community" member. "Turning the ability to fish into a tradable commodity is no solution to the
clearcutting of our oceans," said Stewart. "The Department of Fisheries must not be allowed to either give away the future of
our fish stocks or tolerate their ongoing destruction. It's time to hold DFO decisions up to intense scrutiny." Greenpeace is demanding a
phase out of the bottom draggers which pull large nets along the ocean floor. Many of the species caught by the draggers could be fished
more selectively using traps, pots or hooks and lines.
ITQs can’t solve – unforceable and encourages fish dumping.
Icsf 99 [International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, SAMUDRA Report No. 23, September 1999,
http://www.icsf.net/icsf2006/uploads/publications/dossier/pdf/english/issue_82/chapter668.pdf]
In ITQ fisheries, the total allowable catch (TAC) needs to be set firmly at the beginning of a season or fishing period, as participants
need to know in advance what their quota (share of the TAC) is. The credibility of the system depends on honouring the set quotas, but
sound management requires constant monitoring of stocks, with in-season changes in TACs and fishery closures, according to observed
stock conditions. The inflexible TACs of ITQ systems lead to harmful overfishing if they are set too high, or wasteful underfishing if
they are set too low. ITQ systems are notorious for cheating (‘quota busting’), with participants taking, but
failing to report, catches in excess of quota. Enforcement of quotas is difficult, expensive and, in many
fisheries, impossible to achieve. Where enforcement of quotas is reasonably successful, a different problem
arises, that of `high-grading’. In order to maximize income from their (quantitative) quotas, fishers are
induced to throw away fish that have a lower value per pound, which often means a significant part of
their otherwise saleable catch will be discarded and go to waste. Even worse is the practice of ‘price
dumping’ in some ITQ fisheries, where the entire catch of a trip is discarded if, on the way back to
port, it is found that the day’s market price is low.
A2: ITQ CP – = Overfishing (2/2)

ITQs allow major corporations to dominate the industry by blocking out new competitors
Album 95 [http://www.icsf.net/icsf2006/uploads/publications/samudra/pdf/english/issue_12/art06.pdf Gunncar

Album, Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature, Leines, Norway]
Environmentalists and the small-scale fleet reacted in the opposite fashion. “Privatization of fishing rights
will only allocate them to the capital intensive fleet,” said Bente Aasjerd, spokesperson for the Norwegian Society for
the Conservation of Nature. The organization also warned that a quota which is sold is legally protected by the constitution. If, at a later
stage, the government wishes to cut quotas, it might have to buy them back from boatowners in order to execute the necessary
regulations. Einar Hepsoe, the leader of the fishermen’s union, called the proposed set-up a “tragedy for the coast”. The coastal people
can not accept the idea that someone should own the fish in the ocean. Fish was a common resource and the fishermen fished on behalf
of the community as a whole, and not as owners of the resource. This fact has been an important part of Norwegian culture. The debate
spotlit certain events in Norway’s history, like the ‘Trollfjord battle’ of 1989, when a steamboat had set up a net, closing the mouth to the
narrow Trolljford in Lofoten. This infuriated the hundreds of fishermen outside the area of the net. They attacked the steamer whose
crew retaliated with jets of steam from the boat’s engine. But the fishermen managed to break through. That incident led to the banning
of purse-seining in Norwegian cod fisheries. The Trollfjord battle became a symbol of the common rights to fish resources. Idea
abandoned The pressure on the Labour Party government against ITQs grew and during the election campaign in the fall of 1991, the
idea was abandoned. The experiences of other countries suggest that this may have been a wise step. Iceland, which was the Norwegian
government’s prime example, has seen a drastic rise in its trawler fleet and a drop in fish resources. The ITQ
system makes it more tempting to fish in the high seas, where the quotas are ‘free’. The Icelandic trawler
fleet is now fishing Norwegian Arctic cod beyond Norway’s 200-mile EEZ. This has been strongly opposed
by the Icelandic coastal fishermen too, not only for moral reasons but also because money made from high-
seas fishing is used to buy up quotas from a coastal fleet in economic difficulty. ITQs thus favour the big,
mobile fleet and forms yet another threat to the small-scale fleet. When the ITQs were stopped, the
Norwegian government settled for a system of boat-quotas. Depending on its size, each boat gets a certain
quota. This closure of the commons has led to severe problems in recruiting for the coastal fleet. People
used to enter fishing by starting out with a small boat, fishing in the evenings or on weekends and
holidays, to first get a feel of the skill. But now that fishing rights are given only to registered vessels,
this option is unavailable. Very few youngsters can afford to buy a vessel with fishing rights, which is
much more expensive than one without a quota.
ITQs do not solve for the tragedy of the commons
Icsf 99 [International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, SAMUDRA Report No. 23, September 1999,
http://www.icsf.net/icsf2006/uploads/publications/dossier/pdf/english/issue_82/chapter668.pdf]
ITQs are frequently promoted as a device to ‘privatize’ the fishery. It is asserted that they would abolish the common-property nature of fish stocks, and
The notion that
bring about private ownership of the fishery, with the efficiency advantages that attach to such ownership. This vision is wrong.
ITQs will remove the common-property nature of fish stocks and make the fishery ‘just like’ other
industries is utterly unrealistic. It needs to be realized that fish in the ocean are fugitive and can not be
segregated, identified and assigned to different owners. The ecology that nurtures them is the seamless
multi-use ocean environment that is common for fishing, recreation, transportation and many other purposes.
Fish stocks and the ocean environment that produces them, by their very nature, are common-use and
common-property resources. They can not be divided into self-contained and separately managed units
to which comprehensively specified private property rights may be attached. For privatization of the fishery to be
substantially complete and to meet the test of economic efficiency, it would be required to give every fishing enterprise exclusive property rights to, and
exclusive control over, a particular identified set of fish, along with a particular ecology that produces those fish, in the same way that a farmer owns and
controls specific animals and all the productive facilities of the farm necessary to raise and bring those animals to market. It is patently impossible to operate
in such a fashion in the marine fisheries, because of the physically determined common-use nature of the resource. ITQs do not give property
rights to the fish stocks, but only privileged access rights to a pool of fish that quota holders continue to
exploit in common. It has been demonstrated that ITQs will often help to rationalize fishing capacity. On the other hand, as shown above, they will
also frequently result in distributional inequities. Of further concern is the fact that, in many cases, they are demonstrated to be
damaging to fisheries conservation.
A2: ITQ CP – Turn: Bycatch

ITQ’s encourage bycatch – Individuals only keep valuable fish
WWF 8 (2-29, World Wildlife Fund, http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/problems/bycatch/issue/index.cfm)

Indeed, some policies actually create an incentive to discard! For example, the phenomena known as ‘High
Grading’ is a consequence of the quota management system (a fish quota refers to the amount of fish one is
legally allowed to catch) where there is an incentive for fishers to only land the most valuable of those
species for which they have a quota and so the smaller, less valuable fish are dumped overboard!
As another example, different commercial fish species often live together and are therefore caught together.
So the directed catch of one species may well result in non-allowable catches of another! This is a particular
problem in the Grand Banks off Canada, for example, where, despite a ban on cod fishing now lasting well
over a decade, cod recovery is prevented as its juveniles are caught as other fish are sought.
Bycatch leads to species loss
WWF 8 (http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/problems/bycatch/issue/critical_fisheries/index.cfm)
Used to catch the vast majority of tropical shrimp, trawl nets entrap 5-20kgs of bycatch for each kilogram of
shrimp. Species caught include marine turtles, juvenile fish, cetaceans, dugongs, sharks, seahorses, seabirds,
sea snakes, and corals and other invertebrates such as crabs and starfish. In the Gulf of Mexico, for example,
shrimp trawlers catch as many as 35 million juvenile red snappers each year, enough to have an impact on the
population. As a further example, in the Gulf of California, entanglement in shrimp trawler nets threatens the
world's smallest and most endangered small marine cetacean - the vaquita - with potential extinction.
A2: ITQ CP – A2: Solves Subsidies Harms

Their evidence assumes perfect management enforcement, which is impossible

Second, there are a number of strong assumptions underlying the analytical framework that may
not adequately reflect the real world. The key assumptions are that the total allowable catches are set
optimally and that the regimes are perfectly and effectively monitored and enforced. It is also assumed that
the fisheries start from a position where there is no over-capacity or over-fishing prior to the application of
subsidies. While they have facilitated the analysis undertaken to date, relaxation of some or all of these
assumptions will assist in better explaining real world behaviour, even though the complexity of analysis
may increase. For example, weak enforcement of fisheries regulations in a particular fishery could lead to
significantly different effects on trade and sustainability than might be expected in principle.
A2: ITQ CP – A2: Industry Net Ben

Combination of management and subsidy cuts maximizes productivity and sustainability

While trade and resource effects of government financial transfers are important to consider in
the context of trade negotiations, there may be other effects equally worthy of policy attention. In most
fisheries, transfers will attract more resources than necessary to the fishery in the form of capital (vessels
and equipment) and labour, i.e. excess capacity, unless there are effective restrictions on input use in place.
As a result, profitability and average incomes in the fisheries sector are likely to be lower than otherwise
would be the case as the same amount of fish is exploited at higher costs. A a result, it is clear that a
reduction in transfers may generate economic gains without comprising sustainability, if there are
appropriate fisheries management systems in place.
A2: ITQ CP – Turn: Small Fishers

ITQs concentrate the industry, hurting small fishers
Hilborn 06 (Ray, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences University of Washington, “Defining success in fisheries
and conflicts in objectives” 21 May 2006
However, ITQ programs have been widely opposed by a range of stakeholders and commentators, primarily because
of the impact on employment and distribution of wealth [25]. In most ITQ fisheries the number of vessels and jobs
drops significantly, and the holders of the ITQs acquire valuable assets. The ITQ controversy can be seen as a
conflict in objectives between economic rationalization of fleet size and generation of profits, and those advocates of
employment and societal equity [26].
ITQs kill small fishing businesses

Bate 00 (Roger, “The Common Fisheries Policy: A Sinking Ship”, Wall Street Journal, June,
http://www.environmentprobe.org/enviroprobe/evpress/0700_wsj.html )
But it is Mr. Collet's objections that are likely to be the hardest to overcome. The idea that the ITQ system leads to a
concentration of major players and the demise of local villages weighs heavily on the minds of EU politicians.
Evidence from New Zealand and Iceland demonstrates that fewer fishermen are needed with an ITQ system and the
more efficient fishermen have become rich in the bargain. Mr. Collet portrays the result as that of winners (those
who buy more quotas) and losers (those who sell, or in his terms, "those who are forced out of fishing").
A2: ITQs – Subsidies Key

Only ITQs AND subsidies together can solve for profit losses in the fishing industry
Arnason 8 (Ragnar, Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Iceland, “Iceland’s ITQ System
Creates New Wealth” The Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development
http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00003223/01/arnason.pdf )
One result is that, with a few exceptions, the world’s fisheries are not making a profit. If anything, they
are losing a great deal of money and can only continue to exist through public subsidies (Garcia and
Newton 1997). The economic waste in global fisheries, in the form of lost profits, probably amounts to
about US$50 billion annually (Arnason 2006). This unnecessary waste is just under the total amount given
in development aid world-wide (Addison et al. 2005).It should be emphasized that the problem is man-
made. It stems from a particular social arrangement stipulating that everyone, at least everyone
belonging to a defined group, can harvest from the fish stocks. The obvious remedy, therefore, is to
replace this social arrangement with one stipulating that only those with well-defined harvesting rights
can fish. These rights, obviously, amount to private property rights which have been well-established
as being efficient in other areas of economic production (Smith 1776, Demsetz 1967, Arnason 2000).
There are several possible types of private property rights in fisheries, of which individual transferable
quotas (ITQs) are the most common.
US Key (1/3)
US key to over fishing.
Burns 3 (Scott, Economic Perspectives, Scott Burns is a member and writer for the WWF, Jan.
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0103/ijee/burns.htm)
The United States should play a stronger role in encouraging the development of measures to address the
problem of fishing fleet overcapacity. Overcapacity is a root cause of the collapse of New England's cod
population and is at the heart of the crises in the Pacific rockfish and Alaska crab fisheries. It also poses a
major threat to the health of international fisheries that are of critical importance to U.S. fishermen and
markets.
Where overcapacity exists, fishermen must fish harder and spend more to catch fewer fish but earn less.
Overcapacity also increases habitat destruction and the bycatch of marine life. While reducing the size of
fleets is perhaps the single most important step that can be taken to improve the long-term viability of
fisheries and protect biological diversity and the economic interests of fishermen, international efforts to
better manage fleet size have made little progress. The FAO Plan of Action for managing fishing capacity is
largely a paper exercise. In those few cases where steps are being taken to control fleet growth, they are "too
little, too late."
Unilateral subsidy cuts by the U.S. will demonstrate economic leadership and cause an
international spillover effect
Armour-Garb 95 – Allison Rees, editor of the New York University Environmental Law Journal
[MINIMIZING HUMAN IMPACTS ON THE GLOBAL NITROGEN CYCLE: NITROGEN FERTILIZER AND
POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES,
http://www.law.nyu.edu/JOURNALS/ENVTLLAW/issues/vol4/2/4nyuelj339.html]
Because the United States plays a role in world leadership, unilateral liberalization of U.S. agricultural policies may
pave the way for other countries to follow our example. Under this scenario, U.S. agribusiness might push for international
liberalization of agriculture in order to create a 'level playing field.' Such a scenario could create positive
international spillover effects. 122 Many politicians have cautioned against unilateral cuts of agricultural
subsidies, however. Once again, military metaphors dominate this dialogue. Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) commented:
Our chief competitor is Europe. They clearly have a plan and a strategy for dominating future agricultural trade. . . . They think we're going to back down
and that they can take control of world agriculture markets. . . . For those who say we ought to eliminate export subsidy, that strikes me as unilateral
disarmament. I don't think anyone would recommend it in the face of a military conflict. I don't think we should be pursuing that policy with respect to a
trade conflict. 123 To support his statements, Senator Conrad noted that while U.S. agricultural support totaled $8.4 billion in fiscal year 1994, Europe's
totaled over $30 billion. In the area of export subsidies, the disparity was even greater: between 1990 and 1994, the United States spent $1.7 billion per year,
versus Europe's nearly $11 billion per year. Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the gap has been projected to widen further. 124
Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.) echoed Senator Conrad's remarks, stating that 'a unilateral cut of any significant size . . . would hurt American farmers very
significantly.' 125 Likewise, *363 Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman has voiced his agreement with Senator Conrad's position and his opposition to the
idea of 'unilateral disarmament' in the area of agricultural trade. 126 While the foregoing 'dilemmas' need to be considered, removal
of market
distortions, on balance, would be likely to yield environmental benefits by helping to reverse the negative
incentives discussed above. Liberalization of the agricultural sector should be accompanied by a strengthening of environmental policies
targeting nitrogen pollution from agricultural sources. In Part IV, this Student Article explores the role that U.S. environmental policies play in controlling
the environmental costs of nitrogen fertilizer use.
US Key (2/3)
International efforts can't solve.
Corcoran 95 (Terence, The Globe and the Mail Corcoran is a writer for the Canadian news source 3-15
http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezp.lib.rochester.edu/us/lnacademic/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T4279633263)
Predictably, Greenpeace's solution to the ocean fishery mess is to reinforce the collectivist view of the oceans
as a great "common property resource" that can only be managed by negotiated international treaties
that give everybody equal access. Putting one's faith in multilateral action to solve ocean fishing crises is
a little like turning to the International Communist League to devise a new model for the Russian economy.
We've been there already, and it doesn't work. Most of the world's current international fisheries
organizations are direct descendants of scores of ineffective agencies that have come into existence over
the past 50 years. Their names are heavy with purpose, such as the 1958 Convention on Fishing and
Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas, but their achievement is failure. Despite their
weighty declarations over the decades, the oceans have indeed been plundered, as Greenpeace suggests,
but by the very nations who periodically gather - as they will again in New York later this month - to
solemnly declare their commitment to save the oceans.
Unilateral action against fisheries subsidies is preferable to multilateral corroboration
WTO 00 (Committee on Trade and Environment, 2/23/00, WT/CTE/W/134, p.4) RKB

A number of international organizations are pursuing activities on fisheries subsidies, and this work can
usefully complement the ongoing discussions in the WTO on the issue. In New Zealand’s view, the WTO
has an essential role to play on this issue, given that in the absence of concerted unilateral action by
members to reduce and eliminate fisheries subsidies that adversely impact on trade and sustainable
development, additional WTO rules in this area will need to be considered. Equally, it is important that the
WTO keep abreast of work in other relevant for a given the contribution that this work can make to the
work that we hope to see advanced within the WTO.
U.S. action domestically is crucial for international modeling
Turner 2 (John, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and
Scientific Affairs,
http://www.oceancommission.gov/meetings/oct30_02/turner_testimony.pdf)
I think we would all agree that U.S. leadership is essential and should take several forms. First, we
obviously need to be a model ourselves. We must practice at home what we want others to practice
abroad. The Commission’s recommendations are critically important in putting us in a position to be leaders
in the future in this respect. For example, the plan of action from the World Summit calls for
implementation of an ecosystem approach to oceans. Yet, I think we would admit that the U.S. and many
other nations are only beginning to understand what that means in terms of management. We need to be
forward looking domestically in developing such approaches so that we can join with others
internationally in applying these principles.
US Key (3/3)
Fisheries are in serious decline – the U.S. needs to take unilateral action to spur
international action
Pegg 3 (J.R., FL Museum of Natural History,

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/InNews/overfish2003.htm)
"While there have been very promising signs of rebuilding in place, the overall picture remains
troublesome," said Lisa Speer, senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Speer
noted that the NMFS survey found that of the 932 federally managed stocks, the agency only knows the
status of 237 - and of these, 88 are overfished, being fished unsustainably, or both. "The United States needs
to lead by example," Speer said. "If we are to assert leadership internationally, we need to make sure
our own house is in order." The Senate Commerce Committee held the hearing the wake of several studies
and reports that have highlighted increasing scientific evidence that the world's oceans are being fished in an
unsustainable manner. Beyond the debate over the condition of U.S. fisheries, the hearing illustrated the
immense challenge of reversing global fishing trends that plague the world's oceans. Committee Chairman
John McCain, an Arizona Republican, outlined a list of daunting statistics at the start of the hearing. The
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) says that some 47 percent of the world's major
marine fish stocks are fully exploited, with another 18 percent overexploited and some 10 percent depleted or
recovering from depletion. McCain noted that the FAO predicts worldwide demand for fisheries products
will increase from some 35.2 pounds (16 kilograms) today to some 41.8 to 46.2 pounds (19 to 21 kilograms)
by 2030. "The United States needs to think about where we are going to get the fish necessary to meet
this growing demand," McCain said. He outlined the challenges of forging effective international
agreements to limit fishing in order to rebuild depleted species, along with the need for strong, enforceable
measures to address destructive fishing practices that harm the ocean ecology and result in massive bycatch.
The FAO estimates that some 25 percent of the global catch is discarded bycatch, including sensitive species
such as sea turtles, sharks and cetaceans. Despite a slew of international agreements designed to address
overfishing, bycatch and illegal fishing, "the international community must do more than pay lip service
to applying a greater conservation ethic to the regulation of ocean fisheries," said John Turner, assistant
secretary for the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific
Affairs.
The U.S. needs to play an international leadership role and cut subsidies to act as a model
for other nations
Reilly 2 (William, former administrator of the EPA,

http://www.oceancommission.gov/meetings/jul23_24_02/answers/reilly_answer.pdf)
The U.S. is already playing an important leadership role in the conservation of high seas fisheries.
More than any other major fishing nation, the United States has actively promoted the incorporation
of the ideals of the United Nations Agreement on Highly Migratory and Straddling Fish Stocks into
regional fisheries accords. We have played a key role in the World Trade Organization in the effort
to develop new rules to reduce government subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing.
We have set high standards for our fleets that fish in distant waters, compared to the current practices of
vessels from most other nations. We must stay the course. We need to systematically evaluate the
international accords that govern key high seas fisheries to make sure that they will assure the sustainability –
and where necessary the recovery – of migratory fish stocks. We need to step up the level of diplomatic
pressure in cases where these accords need to be strengthened, and in instances where nations are
undermining their effectiveness. We need to do a better job of making sure that important international
fisheries agreements that have been adopted in recent years – such as the FAO Plan of Action on fishing
fleet overcapacity – are effectively implemented and not merely paper exercises. And we need to continue
to improve the way in which we manage the fish stocks within our own exclusive economic
zone, so that we can serve as a model for other fishing nations.
A2: WTO CP – No Solvency – Technical Issues (1/2)

The WTO lacks expertise and developing country issues will prevent agreement
Agritrade 8 (ICTSD BRIDGES, Vol. 12, No. 18, 5/210/08, http://www.ictsd.org:80/weekly/08-05-21/story3.htm) RKB
During the May 2008 session of the WTO negotiating group on rules, China, India and Indonesia proposed
exemptions on fishing subsidies, whereby developing countries would be able to subsidise small-scale
fishing vessels up to 24 metres in length instead of up to 10 meters as proposed in the current negotiating
draft.
Most members are sympathetic to granting flexibility to artisanal fishing, but fear that an unduly lax
definition could encourage overfishing. The proposal to allow developing nations to subsidise high-seas
fishing also proved sensitive.
The sponsors of the proposal argued that it was appropriate for developing countries to subsidise fishing
activity on the high seas because of the benefits that developed nations have historically enjoyed from
subsidised high-seas fishing. The environmental NGO Oceana claim that this gives a ‘blank cheque’ to
developing countries, some of whom are already big producers of fish, to subsidise commercial operations
on the high seas far from home
Whilst there is a general consensus on the value of technical assistance to fisheries in developing countries,
the exact aid required by developing countries needs to be made clear. The Chair clarified that his draft
would exempt LDCs from any prohibitions of fisheries subsidies without any attached conditions. He also
highlighted the fact that the WTO did not have the expertise to address technical fisheries matters; any
assessment for technical assistance would thus have to be addressed by outside organisations, such as the
FAO or the UNDP.
Countries wont disclose subsidies making explicit agreements fail
Benitah 4 [Marc, Professor Of International Law At The University Of Quebec, “Ongoing Wto Negotiations On
Fisheries Subsidies,” 2004, http://Www.Asil.Org/Insights/Insigh136.Htm#_Edn4]
The "no need" approach does not address some fundamental issues. First, why is the present SCM*
Agreement not employed as a means for dealing with WTO Members that are granting prohibited
fisheries subsidies or fisheries subsidies causing adverse trade effects? [4] Part of the answer is that there is
very poor disclosure and notification of fisheries subsidies. Moreover, it is difficult to find countries that
could not be accused of granting fisheries subsidies, so no government desires to expose itself to
countercharges by accusing another government. However, another part of the answer is linked to a
diffuse feeling that the current SCM* Agreement is not adapted to the special context of the fisheries
sector and that lodging a complaint in this context amounts to skating on thin ice. Legal and extra-legal
costs of such a complaint are easily identifiable, but the possible benefits are dubious.
*the current WTO Subsidies Agreement (SCM)
Subsidy cuts through the WTO fail – they target the wrong subsidies and countries
underreport
Toepfer & Leape 5 – Klaus, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment
Programme, and James, Director General of WWF International [Dec.,
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=459&ArticleID=5
086&l=en]
However, WTO rules only disallow fishing subsidies that interfere with efforts to export, and in most
cases governments must mount elaborate proofs of sales distortions in specific markets. Subsidies that
support unsustainable production are not currently subject to effective discipline. For fishermen —
who must catch fish before they can sell them — such rules do little to prevent subsidies that lead to
depleted stocks. Moreover, existing WTO rules requiring disclosure of subsidy programmes have been
ineffective. Repeated studies have concluded that governments underreport their fishing subsidies by
nearly 90% — and the little information they provide is often too vague to be of use.
A2: WTO CP – No Solvency – Technical Issues (2/2)

It’s impossible to know how much we subsidize fisheries – old data, inconsistent reporting,
and different definitions of subsidy prove
Mwikya 6 – Stephen Mbithi, Kenya Fish Processors and Exporters Association

[Fisheries Access Agreements: Trade and Development Issues, http://ictsd.net/downloads/2008/04/mbithi_2006.pdf]
Despite the general agreement that certain aspects of fisheries subsidies programs need to be reformed and
clarified, there is very little data available on fisheries subsidy programs (WTO, 2006b). Developed
country subsidy programs are complex and often linked to general subsidy programs; reporting has
been vague and incomplete. Available data on fisheries subsidies in OECD and APEC countries give a
general notion of how much support different fleets receive from their governments and which categories of
current subsidies might be considered harmful or beneficial in trade, environmental and socioeconomic
terms. There are, however, several shortcomings with these data. First, they are nearly ten years old
and it is difficult to know how much the subsidy quantities or types have changed during this time
period. Second, although data have been disaggregated by country, they are not disaggregated by fleet or
by fishing region so it is difficult to know which fisheries and fishers are most affected by the
subsidies. Finally, discrepancies among subsidy programs reported to the OECD, APEC and the
WTO indicate that there are severe gaps in reporting. Further compounding data analysis difficulties,
the various organisations compiling subsidies data for the fisheries sector rely on different definitions of
subsidies. Nonetheless, the OECD, APEC and the WTO have compiled comparative data. Table 6.2 provides
a sense of the extent to which key fishing nations support their industries.
Information on fish levels and marine health is manipulated by the state
Jacques 6 Peter Jacques Ph.D. Department of Political Science, University of Central Florida “globalization and
the world ocean” 2006 Google Books Page 36
In addition, it is worth noting that information is almost universally organized through, and monitored,
controlled, and manipulated by the State. One clear example of this is the manipulation of marine fish catch
numbers by the Chinese government: these numbers are understood to be grossly, overestimated. A more
subtle form of control is the lack of information on social conditions like poverty in the South Pacific, though
this may be more of a symptom of a lack of capacity of or interest by the World Bank. Thus, most of the
information used in this book is in some way compromised by this limit, which is part of a nationalist
ideology.
WTO market mechanisms are inadequate for measure fisheries impacts
Kemi 5 (Lewis, CEPMLP Kemi is a graduate student at the CEPMLP at University of Dundee 2005
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/car/html/car7_article6.pdf)
Currently, there exists no specific WTO provision on this contentious issue of fisheries subsidies. The SCM
Agreement, under which at present the issue of fisheries subsidies fall, cannot deal with it as
comprehensively as a specific agreement could.
For instance, the rules within the SCM agreement do not address environmental and development impacts of
subsidies, which are the main adverse effects of fisheries subsidies. The SCM deals with market distortions,
which it is just a fraction of the harmful effects of subsidizing the fishing sector. However, the heterogeneous
nature of fisheries has been identified as the difficulty behind identifying the sort of market distortions at
which SCM provisions are directed.
A2: WTO CP – No International Agreement

Major nations will say no
IHT 7 (5-1)
The United States called Tuesday for global trade talks to include a ban on billions of dollars worth of
ecology-damaging subsidies linked to excess capacity of fleets, overfishing and depletion of fish stocks.
"The stakes are high for the world's oceans and for the fishing communities that depend on them," said Peter
Allgeier, the U.S. ambassador to the World Trade Organization. "High subsidy levels are part of the reason
the global fishing capacity is significantly greater than needed to catch what the oceans can produce sustain
ably," Allgeier told officials from 150 countries taking part in the WTO-sponsored of talks in Doha, Qatar.
The proposal, by Washington, rallied support from many countries including Chile, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, China, Mexico, Ecuador, and Brazil.
But it also drew objections from the European Union and other countries with influential industry lobbies
including Norway, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.
The Korean delegation, for example, said that it did not accept that subsidies in general should be prohibited.
Japan argued that aid for infrastructure such as fishing ports should be exempted.
The opponents are key
IHT 7 (5-1)
Japan was the biggest fisheries subsidizer, providing about $5.3 billion a year, followed by the EU and China
with $3.1 billion each; India, $2.4 billion; Russia, $1.9 billion; Brazil, $1.3 billion, and the United States,
$1.2 billion, according to an economic study cited by Oceana.
A2: WTO CP – No Solvency: DOHA

Doha collapse signals world failure to reduce trade barriers
Franklin 8 (Matthew, The Australian News Franklin is a staff writer for the Australian News 7-31
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24104904-601,00.html)
The long-running Doha Round required co-operation between developed and developing nations, with the
US and Europe under pressure to bring down trade barriers to give poor nations greater access to their huge
consumer markets.
But despite expectations earlier in the week of a breakthrough, the Doha talks were abandoned early
yesterday, Australian time, after the US and India failed to compromise to solve a dispute over tariffs on farm
products. The collapse sparked an angry response from Australian exporters, as well as accusations from
senior Australian trade officials that US trade negotiator Susan Schwab lost her political nerve and
deliberately scuttled the negotiations.
Doha was the only chance at reducing fisheries subsidies.
Business Wire 8 (Oceana.org 7-29 http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/fish-lose-doha-

round/story.aspx?guid=%7B13F6C457-6680-45BB-9F6F-BA49FB3B12BE%7D&dist=hppr)
Oceana issued the following statement from senior campaign director Courtney Sakai today in response to
the collapse of World Trade Organization (WTO) trade talks on agriculture and industrial goods (NAMA).
Oceana is extremely disappointed by the failure of the WTO to reach agreement on the key areas in the Doha
round. Other important negotiating areas, such as fisheries subsidies, have unfortunately fallen victim to the
collapse of larger issues within the round. The WTO fisheries subsidies negotiations are one of the most
important international efforts to stop global overfishing. The fisheries subsidies negotiations represent the
first time that the WTO has agreed to directly address a key environmental issue. The Doha round provided
the best opportunity to address fisheries subsidies on a global scale.WTO members continue to agree that
rules on subsidies are needed to help ensure the sustainability of the world's fishery resources. The work done
on fisheries subsidies to date suggests
an agreement is achievable. It would be a tremendous waste if the progress on fisheries subsidies is not
realized. We must use the momentum achieved so far to find a way forward.
Subsidies promote overfishing, pushing fleets to fish longer, harder and farther away than would otherwise
be possible. Global fisheries subsidies are estimated to be at least $20 billion annually, an amount equivalent
to approximately 25 percent of the value of the world catch. According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), more than 75 percent of the world's fisheries are currently overexploited, fully
exploited, significantly depleted or recovering from overexploitation.
Doha proves multilateral fisheries solutions are unworkable
Geneva Business Wire 8 (“Fish lose in Doha round”, 7/29/08 http://www.direktbroker.de/news-kurse/details/

International-News/Fish+Lose+in+Doha+Round/18610041) RKB
The WTO fisheries subsidies negotiations are one of the most important international efforts to stop global
overfishing. The fisheries subsidies negotiations represent the first time that the WTO has agreed to directly
address a key environmental issue. The Doha round provided the best opportunity to address fisheries
subsidies on a global scale.
WTO members continue to agree that rules on subsidies are needed to help ensure the sustainability of the
world's fishery resources. The work done on fisheries subsidies to date suggests an agreement is achievable.
It would be a tremendous waste if the progress on fisheries subsidies is not realized. We must use the
momentum achieved so far to find a way forward.
A2: WTO CP – Relations
Japan, Korea, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and China all oppose blanket fishery cuts- a US
push would hurt relations
ICTSD 5 (1/21/05, Bridges Trade BioRes, Volume 5 number 1
http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/9250/)
Japan opposed the proposal for a general prohibition on fisheries subsidies, and once again argued for a ‘bottom up’
approach that would require Members to evaluate each type of subsidy and slate it for preservation or elimination
depending on its effect. The American submission countered that the Japanese approach would "contemplate a very
small number of prohibited subsidies and a large number of permitted subsidies", and that it "could potentially lead
to a set of disciplines weaker than the current rules". Korea, which supports the Japanese approach, said that the
fisheries subsidies talks were proceeding far too quickly given that the issue was only put on the WTO agenda at the
November 2001 Doha Ministerial Conference. On the other hand, the EC said that the simple fact that Members
generally agree that harmful subsidies must stop already represented significant progress. It also urged participants
not to take hard-line positions in favour of the top-down approach on the grounds that the alternative approach might
also yield results. India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and China emphasised developing countries’ need for special and
differential treatment.
Japan hates the plan- it’s the world’s largest fish subsidizer
ABC 7 (11/8/07
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/08/2085265.htm?site=water)
The United States called in March for a total WTO ban on fishing subsidies - a move opposed by Japan and South
Korea.
Japan is the world's largest fishing subsidiser with annual payments amounting to $5.7 billion a year, figures
provided by Oceana say. "Many of these subsidies drive increases in capacity, which in turn results in overfishing
and promotes other destructive fishing practices," Oceana said.
A2: WTO CP – Japan/EU Relations

Banning fisheries subsidies will decrease relations with Japan and the EU
Financial Times 7 (World News p.9, 5/2/07, l/n)

A US proposal for a ban on billions of dollars in subsidies that drive overfishing has won widespread support
from World Trade Organisation members and raised hopes for an international pact later this year.
Environmental groups such as WWF hailed the plan, discussed by the WTO yesterday, as a ground-breaking
step to-wards an ambitious accord that would have a big impact on marine conservation.
"The WTO has the ability to reverse one of the most critical environmental challenges in our lifetime by
eliminating market-distorting and ecologically destructive fisheries subsidies," said Courtney Sakai,
campaign director at Oceana, a conservation group that advised the US government.
Noting that more than 2.6bn people depended on fish for food, Peter Allgeier, US WTO ambassador, said
strong action would help control the "race to fish".
The US plan would impose a broad prohibition on subsidies for deep-sea fishing while making an exception
for programmes that did not raise fishing capacity such as vessel decommissioning, conservation and
infrastructure. Special rules would apply to poor countries.
The proposal has been opposed by some of the biggest subsidisers, notably Japan and the European Union,
which fear the effects on their fishing communities. According to a study by the University of British
Columbia, global subsidies total Dollars 30bn-Dollars 34bn annually, with at least Dollars 20bn (Pounds
10bn, Euros 15bn) being "harmful" subsidies promoting over-capacity and overfishing.
A2: WTO CP – Japan Relations

US push for subsidies puts Japan on edge
FAO 2 (Food and Aquaculture Organization, 8-1,http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y4647E/y4647e07.htm)

At that meeting, Japan questioned why the United States, in its presentation to the Committee, stressed fisheries
subsidies when these subsidies were covered by the umbrella Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Japan
argued that the technical analysis of fishery subsidies and their impact on fishery resources was the
role of FAO; that the WTO should not be expected to do such work. New Zealand took the position that the WTO,
given its expertise, had a key role to play with regard to subsidies. At the June 2001 CTE meeting, Iceland, referring to FAO’s Expert
Consultation of November/December 2000, stressed that subsidies affected trade whenever they had an impact on the volume of
products traded internationally. Australia suggested that the WTO itself was the appropriate body to examine the question of how the
WTO could contribute to the reduction of subsidies which promote overfishing. Also at this meeting, Japan emphasized that
there were many factors that had deleterious effects on fish stocks, subsidies being only one of them,
and that the quality of fisheries management had a major role in mitigating the negative effects of such
factors as subsidies. Japan concluded that it was wrong to focus only on subsidies while neglecting
other factors and therefore that Japan could not support the continuation of the sustainability discussions at the WTO. Chile
complained that fisheries subsidies as an issue were never considered directly; yet concrete action was needed. The WTO, in the opinion
of Chile, had exclusive competence for subsidies. Although the United States agreed that there was a need to consider the role of
effective fisheries management, it felt that the need for the analysis of fisheries management should not be a reason for delaying the
consideration of fisheries subsidies by the WTO. The representative of FAO noted that FAO’s Committee on Fisheries felt that "the
study of the trade aspect of fisheries subsidies should be technical and be coordinated with the WTO, as the competent body." But the
lead role in the "promotion of cooperation on fisheries subsidies and the relationship with responsible fisheries" should be taken by
FAO.
Japan opposes US proposal to stop government subsidies
AFX News Limited 7 (5-2, http://www.seaaroundus.org/OtherWebsites/2007/Forbes_SomeProgressInWTOfishTalks.pdf)

GENEVA (Thomson Financial) - World Trade Organisation members are making progress in talks on cutting
fishing subsidies but significant differences remain, not least between the United States and Japan, trade
sources said on Wednesday. US ambassador to the WTO, Peter Allgeier on Tuesday presented Washington's
proposals for a total ban on fishing subsidies to the 150-member global trade body's Rules Negotiating Group, which is
meeting for two days here. He said urgent action was needed as over 75 pct of the world's most important fish stocks were already
exploited at or above sustainable levels. Japan is the world's largest fishing subsidiser, with payments amounting to 5.3 bln usd per year,
according to Washington-based environmental group Oceana. Tokyo's representative to the WTO talks hailed the US
proposal as timely, but still wanted government subsidies to fishing port infrastructure to remain
exempt, sources said. 'Progress is being made in the group,' the sources said, though they stressed that the issue is of less significance
to the fate of the overall stalled Doha round of trade negotiations than the field of agriculture. The US fishing proposals, which were
originally unveiled in March, would outlaw government subsidies for companies that capture ocean fish commercially. It provides for
periodic reviews of the agreement's implementation, and would allow the WTO to call in fisheries experts in case of conflict among its
members. Exemptions to the ban would be allowed for fishing programmes that do not contribute to overfishing, through practices like
decommissioning trawlers and developing marine biology. Allgeier acknowledged that differences still remained with Japan, but
that Washington had sought to take Japan's concerns into account when drafting the proposals. 'Japan still does have different
positions ... and we have tried to listen carefully to some of their concerns,' he told journalists. Nevertheless,
Japan indicated during Tuesday's meeting that it could accept the proposals on wild capture fisheries and vessel decommissioning, trade
sources said. It does still support South Korea's call for government subsidies to fisheries ports to be exempt from any ban. Seoul, whose
fishing subsidies are estimated at 691,000 dollars, reiterated its opposition to a general subsidies ban, as did Taiwan, the sources added.

Fish Aff (ADI)

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Fish Aff (ADI)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 1

Russell’s Lab Fish Aff

PEW 8 (Marine Fish Conservation Network, http://www.oceanlegacy.org/pdfs/ocean-conservation-2008.pdf)

Subsidies are the sole cause of overfishing

Cox 3 [Anthony, Senior Analyst at OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/27/24320313.PDF]

Capacity reduction subsidies hurt the smallest fishers, exacerbating poverty

Cox & Schmidt 7 (6-4, Andrew & Carl, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/40/2507604.pdf)

Cox 3 [Anthony, Senior Analyst at OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/27/24320313.PDF]

Starvation kills billions –We have a moral obligation to act

Poverty is worse than global thermonuclear war and genocide.

Coral reefs are critical to human survival.

McMichael 3 (Anthony J, National Centre of Epidemiology and Population Health Director,

Only subsidies allow trawling to persist

Oceana 7 (Oceana press release, 5-4

main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than

Cutting subsidies is key – nothing will be effective without this.

Oceana 7 (Feb 20, http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/dirty_fishing/

Pew Oceans Commission 3 [State of the Oceans, June 4 2003]

US fishing policy is critical to our overall leadership on global issues

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 4 (9-20,

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 4 (9-20,

Topicality – Subsidies Don’t Include Vessel Decommissioning

Topicality – Fisheries Includes Aquaculture

FAO 5 (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4446e/y4446e0k.htm.)

Aquaculture is a part of fisheries – industry production proves

Colombia Encyclopedia accessed 8 [Results for aquaculture,

Aquaculture is included in fisheries – trade legislation proves

Subsidies for fisheries include aquaculture – WTO proves

Fisheries includes cultivating fish.

Justia No Date [http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title46/46-2.0.1.3.23.1.1.2.html]

Topicality – Subsidies Exclude “Normal Benefits”

FAO 5 (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4446e/y4446e0k.htm.)

Normal value standards are workable

FAO 5 (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4446e/y4446e0k.htm.)

Topicality – Subsidies are Confusing – Reasonability

Topicality – Subsidies are Limited

FAO 5 (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4446e/y4446e0k.htm.)

More evidence that the strict WTO definition is best

Cox & Schmidt 7 (6-4, Andrew & Carl, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/40/2507604.pdf)

The WTO is the most precise, conclusive, legal definition of subsidies

Topicality – Subsidies – A2: FAO Definition

Cox & Schmidt 7 (6-4, Andrew & Carl, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/40/2507604.pdf)

Subsidies Bad – Overfishing (1/9)

Subsidies Bad – Overfishing (2/9)

Subsidies aggravate competition and overfishing.

Subsidies create an endless cycle of overcapitalization.

Only eliminating subsidies solve.

OECD 5 (OECD policy brief, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/26/35819133.pdf Dec.)

Subsidies Bad – Overfishing (3/9)

Subsidies cause depletion of fish stocks

Geneva Business Wire 8

Porter 2k – Gareth, UN Environment Programme

Subsidies Bad – Overfishing (4/9)

Porter 2k – Gareth, UN Environment Programme

Fishing subsidies cause massive overfishing

Topfer 4 – Klaus, Executive Director of UNEP

Subsidies are critical to overcapacity problems

Subsidies Bad – Overfishing (5/9)

Subsidies cause overfishing

Anderlini 5 (Jamil, South China Morning Post, 12-15)

Subsidies Bad – Overfishing (6/9)

Williams 99 (Frances, National Post (Canada), 8-02)

Reducing subsidies necessary to control depleting fish stock.

Subsidies Bad – Overfishing (7/9)