You are on page 1of 11


The plan passes the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act, which is
intended to do the following:
To establish a regulatory system for sustainable offshore aquaculture in the United States
exclusive economic zone.
To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to determine appropriate locations for, permit, regulate,
monitor, and enforce offshore aquaculture in the exclusive economic zone.
To require the Secretary of Commerce to issue regulations for permitting of offshore aquaculture
in the exclusive economic zone that prevent impacts on the marine ecosystem and fisheries or
minimize such impacts to the extent they cannot be avoided.
To establish a research program to guide the precautionary development of offshore aquaculture
in the exclusive economic zone that ensures ecological sustainability and compatibility with
healthy, functional ecosystems.

Off-shore aquaculture is inevitable- having the proper
regulatory regime is the only way to ensure it is sustainable
and economic
Johns 2013 (Kristen L. [USC School of Law; B.S. Environmental Systems: Ecology,
Behavior and Evolution, University of California San Diego]; Farm fishing holes: Gaps
in federal regulation offshore aquaculture; 86 S. Cal. L. Rev. 681; kdf)
the U.S. government has long promoted the health benefits of products from the sea - even urging
Americans to double their seafood intake n2 - it has fallen far behind in developing a
domestic source for this seafood. Currently, the United States relies on an almost primitive
method for domestic seafood production: taking animals found naturally in the wild. However, this approach
is no longer sustainable: most federally managed capture fisheries are
either stable or declining, with forty-eight currently overfished, and forty subject to overfishing in
2010. n3 What seafood the United States does not take from its own fisheries it imports; in [*683] 2011 the

United States imported as much as 91 percent of its seafood supply. n4 Fortunately,

there is a way for the United States not only to ease the pressure on traditional
fisheries - allowing them to recover - but also to provide a significant domestic
source of seafood products: through the development and promotion of its
domestic offshore aquaculture industry. However, this industry should not be allowed to expand
free from regulation, as offshore aquaculture may have serious consequences for both marine and human

This Note recommends that a comprehensive regulatory

framework be put in place now, in advance of the offshore industry's
development, to ensure not only that the industry grows, but also that it
does so in an environmentally conscious and sustainable way..

No framework now
Ocean Conservancy, RIGHT FROM THE START March 2011
At present, however, there is no comprehensive regulatory framework or consistent
set of rigorous environmental standards to guide aquaculture development in the
US. This regulatory environment satisfies no one: It is an enormous challenge for
aquaculture entrepreneurs, and it provides little comfort to a public concerned
about the health of marine ecosystems. The worst possible scenario is a
continuation of the current approach, with inadequate environmental standards and
piecemeal oversight.

Plan: The United States federal government should pass the
National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act, ensuring
sustainability and framework by regulating it through the

The NOAA can ensure sustainable fisheries
Johns 2013 (Kristen L. [USC School of Law; B.S. Environmental Systems: Ecology,
Behavior and Evolution, University of California San Diego]; Farm fishing holes: Gaps
in federal regulation offshore aquaculture; 86 S. Cal. L. Rev. 681; kdf)
Because of the concerns expressed above, existing statutes are not adequate bases of authority for implementing a

Congress should enact new

legislation that explicitly creates a national regulatory framework . Below, I will discuss what
a proper framework should include and describe previous attempts to implement a marine aquaculture policy. I
will conclude by endorsing the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act of
2011 as the ideal piece of legislation to create such a framework. B. What Does an
federal regulatory [*715] framework for offshore aquaculture. Instead,

Effective Regulatory Framework Look Like? In 2003, the Pew Oceans Commission, a bipartisan, independent group

of American leaders in science, fishing, conservation, government, education and business, recommended that
Congress implement a "new national marine aquaculture policy based on sound conservation principles and
standards." n180 Five years later, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources
commissioned the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") to research and report to it how to go about
developing such a framework. After meeting with a wide variety of important aquaculture stakeholders and
analyzing laws, regulations, and studies, the GAO identified the key issues that should be addressed in the
development of effective regulation. First, the GAO noted that identifying a lead federal agency, as well as clarifying
the roles and responsibilities of other relevant federal agencies, was central to the administration of an offshore
aquaculture program. n181Specifically, most stakeholders identified NOAA as the appropriate lead federal agency
because of its expertise in fisheries and oceans management. n182 Indeed, most scholars and scientists agree that

NOAA is best suited for assuming the role of lead federal agency due to its long
history of managing ocean resources and its unique positioning through the
Regional Fishery Councils to address the user-conflict problems associated with any
resource proposal.

Advantage 1: Economy
The internal link is economic growth Aquaculture industry
feasible and ready to boom but requires federal action That
sector is vital for all aspects of the marine economy
Rubin et al. 14
{Philip, Principal Assistant Director for Science at the Office of Science and
Technology Policy for the White House, Assistant Director for Social, Behavioral and
Economic Sciences, former Chief Executive Officer and a Senior Scientist at Haskins
Laboratories, National Strategic Plan for Federal Aquaculture Research (20142019), National Science and Technology Council Committee on Science Interagency
Working Group on Aquaculture, June,

Globally, aquaculture has evolved dramatically since Federal legislation was first enacted in 1980 and 198521. While wild fish harvests have stabilized,

aquaculture has driven growth of the seafood sector, influenced product

diversity, and addressed both economic development and environmental conservation goals in aquatic
ecosystems. The sector is driven by knowledge and technology and continues to innovate and
adapt to societal needs for nutritious food, jobs, species enhancement, and species and habitat restoration. Several factors
and new trends may drive an increase in U.S. commercial aquaculture production. The
U.S. has bountiful freshwater and marine natural resources, plentiful feed grains, world class
aquaculture research infrastructures, and scientists, pioneers, and entrepreneurs to drive
innovation. The seafood supply chain ranges from farmers and fishermen to upstream and downstream industries (feed and equipment
manufacturing, harvesting processing, distribution, and retail outlets) to consumers. The United States is now among the
three largest seafood markets in the world. Aquaculture is becoming an
increasingly integral source of safe, sustainable seafood for consumers worldwide as supplies from wildcapture fisheries remain flat. In 2011, U.S. consumer seafood expenditures were $57 billion in food service and $27.6 billion in retail sales for home
consumption.22 The top 10 species presently consumed domestically represent about 90 percent of the total U.S. seafood consumption; six of these
species come from farmed or a mix of farmed and wild sources, including shrimp, salmon, and tilapia. The United States and other countries are currently
working to rebuild wild stocks of seafood. But, even if habitats are restored and well-managed wild stocks contribute more to the world supply of seafood,

experts note that most of the future increase in seafood production will come from

aquaculture.23 Increases in demand for aquaculture products, food security

considerations, and job creation highlight the need for increased

domestic development . Demand for seafood in the United States may grow as a result of a growing
population and increased consumer awareness of seafoods health benefits (as long as demand is not dampened by
higher seafood prices). The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 24 published by the Departments of Agriculture
and Health and Human Services, recommends that Americans double their current consumption of seafood from a
wide range of species as a healthy food choice. Future supplies of seafood for U.S. consumers will largely come
from a combination of increased domestic aquaculture production and imported aquaculture products. As the
growing middle class in many emerging economies consumes more seafood, competition for quality seafood
products will increase and these products may cost more, impacting seafood-dependent businesses and
consumers. The growing global demand for seafood also presents an export opportunity for U.S. producers.25
Although current U.S. aquaculture production largely comprises fish and shellfish, the cultivation of marine algae is
showing promise as a source of food, animal feed, cosmetics, health, biofuels, and other industrial products.
Commercial aquaculture also produces baitfish and hatchery stock for recreational and commercial fishing,
ornamental fish and other products for the aquarium trade, alligator and other species for leather goods, and
various products and co-products for pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and industrial uses. Despite these global and
national trends that may drive an increase in U.S. aquaculture production, the United States today is a minor
producer, supplying only about 5 percent of the seafood consumed domestically.26 The Nation is increasingly
dependent on imports to meet seafood demand. In fact, 80 to 90 percent (by value) of the seafood that Americans
eat is imported, creating a seafood trade deficit nearing $11 billion in 2012. Approximately 50 percent of this
seafood is from aquaculture and 50 percent from capture fisheries. 26 Compared with U.S. manufacturing,
agriculture, and fisheries, commercial aquaculture is relatively small and at an early stage of development.
The annual farm gate sales of private domestic aquaculture production approached $1.3 billion in 2010.27
Aquaculture also supports commercial and recreational fisheries and fisheries restoration. Private and public salmon
hatcheries release juvenile fish that are later caught in capture fisheries and supply about 40 percent of the
commercial catch of salmon around Alaska and more than 80 percent of catches off the Washington, Oregon, and
California coasts. These hatcheries use fish culture during the critical early life rearing stage before releasing
juvenile fish into the natural environment for stock enhancement and restoration programs . In

2006, more
than 40 million licensed anglers generated over $46 billion in retail sales with a $115 billion impact
on the Nations economy, creating employment for more than 828,000

people and stimulating local businesses .28 Many of these anglers, and the
resultant economic benefits, depend on aquaculture for these hatchery reared and released
. A recent economic study29 estimated that the economic contribution of the
private, recreation-based aquaculture industry in the western region of the United States is $1.9 billion
annually, and supports 26,229 full-time jobs.

The marine and aquaculture sector is key to the entire U.S.

economy spillover guarantees economic stimulation
JOCI 11 [The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative publishes the work of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission, its leadership
council is composed of experienced individuals from a variety of sectors, including
industry, government, academia, and security at the national, state, local, and
regional levels, Americas Ocean Future: Ensuring Healthy Oceans to Support a
Vibrant Economy,]

Our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes provide this nation with food, energy, desirable places to live, recreation,
and tourism activities, and are the major avenue for U.S. international trade activities.
Continued provision of many of these goods and services is highly dependent on the
health of ocean and coastal ecosystems. Among the many benefits of properly functioning ocean
and coastal ecosystems are seafood, climate regulation, disease and pest regulation, coastal protection,
detoxification, fuel wood, wildlife habitat, sediment trapping, and numerous aesthetic, spiritual, educational, and

recreational benefits. The oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes produce goods and services that support the
livelihoods of many Americans every year.

In 2007, coastal counties contributed almost $8

trillion to U.S. gross domestic

product and 69 million jobs. Many of these jobs are provided by ocean
dependent sectors, including commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, shipping, offshore energy exploration
and production, boating, wildlife watching, beach going, military and national security activities, and scientific and

these are good jobs that depend on close proximity to

Americas coasts and therefore cannot be shipped abroad. As illustrated below, our oceans
and coasts make a substantial contribution to the U.S. economy : From 2007 to
2009, the average annual value of U.S. marine fisheries landings was $4 billion. In 2010, 1.5
million jobs were associated with the U.S. commercial fishing industry yielding over $45 billion in
income. In 2006, saltwater anglers spent more than $30 billion, representing more than $80 billion in total
academic endeavors. Many of

economic impact and supporting 500,000 jobs. In the Great Lakes, recreational fishing generated more than $7

In 2010, the value

of imports through U.S. ports was almost $2 trillion, and in 2008, commercial ports supported 13
million U.S. jobs. Ports that accommodate oceangoing vessels move 99.5 percent of U.S. overseas trade by
billion in total economic output, $2 billion in income, and supported more than 58,000 jobs.

volume and 64 percent by value. Compared to 2001, total freight moving through U.S. ports will increase by more
than 50 percent by 2020. In 2007, the leisure and hospitality industry in U.S. coastal states supported almost 11
million jobs and more than $214 billion in wages. The cruise ship industry and its passengers contribute another
$12 billion in spending every year. The oceans contain approximately $8 trillion in oil and gas reserves. Of the
368,000 jobs tied to Gulf of Mexico offshore operations in 2011, coastal states account for about 270,000, with
nearly 98,000 jobs in non-coastal states. It is projected that total U.S. Gulf of Mexico spen nding by the offshore
energy industry will be approximately $41 billion in 2013, 73 percent of which will be in Alabama, Louisiana, and

Our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes hold significant untapped potential for new and
emerging ventures. Development of offshore renewable energy from wave, wind, tidal, and geothermal sources
is a promising area that is expected to see significant growth in the future. Emerging fields such as offshore
aquaculture, marine-based research and drug discovery, short sea shipping, and deep seabed mining
hold the promise of new jobs and sources of revenue. These fields will
impact entire supply chains, including technology developers, engineers,
manufacturers, installers, managers, and consumers of energy, seafood,
and other goods.

US key to global economy collapse causes global stagnation

Caploe 9 (David-, CEO American Centre for Applied Liberal Arts and Humanities
in Asia, April 7, Straits Times, Focus still on America to lead global recovery)
IN THE aftermath of the G-20 summit, most observers seem to have missed perhaps the most crucial statement of the entire event, made by United

'The world has become

accustomed to the US being a voracious consumer market, the engine that drives a
lot of economic growth worldwide,' he said. 'If there is going to be renewed growth, it just can't be the US as the engine.' While
superficially sensible, this view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it ignores the fact that the global economy has in fact
been 'America-centred' for more than 60 years. Countries - China, Japan, Canada,
Brazil, Korea, Mexico and so on - either sell to the US or they sell to countries that
sell to the US. This system has generally been advantageous for all concerned. America gained certain historically unprecedented benefits, but
the system also enabled participating countries - first in Western Europe and Japan,
and later, many in the Third World - to achieve undreamt-of prosperity. At the same
time, this deep inter-connection between the US and the rest of the world also
explains how the collapse of a relatively small sector of the US economy - 'sub-prime' housing,
logarithmically exponentialised by Wall Street's ingenious chicanery - has cascaded into the worst global economic
crisis since the Great Depression. To put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't seem to understand that there is no other
engine for the world economy - and hasn't been for the last six decades. If the US
does not drive global economic growth, growth is not going to happen. Thus, US
States President Barack Obama at his pre-conference meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown:

policies to deal with the current crisis are critical not just domestically, but also to
the entire world. Consequently, it is a matter of global concern that the Obama administration
seems to be following Japan's 'model' from the 1990s: allowing major banks to avoid declaring massive losses openly and
transparently, and so perpetuating 'zombie' banks - technically alive but in reality dead. As analysts like Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman
have pointed out, the administration's unwillingness to confront US banks is the main reason why they are continuing their increasingly inexplicable credit
freeze, thus ravaging the American and global economies. Team Obama seems reluctant to acknowledge the extent to which its policies at home are

If the US can't or won't or doesn't want to

be the global economic engine, which country will? The obvious answer is China. But that is
unrealistic for three reasons. First, China's economic health is more tied to America's than
practically any other country in the world. Indeed, the reason China has so many dollars to invest everywhere - whether
failing not just there but around the world as well. Which raises the question:

in US Treasury bonds or in Africa - is precisely that it has structured its own economy to complement America's. The only way China can serve as the
engine of the global economy is if the US starts pulling it first. Second, the US-centred system began at a time when its domestic demand far outstripped
that of the rest of the world. The fundamental source of its economic power is its ability to act as the global consumer of last resort. China, however, is a
poor country, with low per capita income, even though it will soon pass Japan as the world's second largest economy. There are real possibilities for growth
in China's domestic demand. But given its structure as an export-oriented economy, it is doubtful if even a successful Chinese stimulus plan can pull the
rest of the world along unless and until China can start selling again to the US on a massive scale. Finally, the key 'system' issue for China - or for the
European Union - in thinking about becoming the engine of the world economy - is monetary: What are the implications of having your domestic currency
become the global reserve currency? This is an extremely complex issue that the US has struggled with, not always successfully, from 1959 to the present.
Without going into detail, it can safely be said that though having the US dollar as the world's medium of exchange has given the US some tremendous
advantages, it has also created huge problems, both for America and the global economic system. The Chinese leadership is certainly familiar with this
history. It will try to avoid the yuan becoming an international medium of exchange until it feels much more confident in its ability to handle the manifold

the US will remain the engine of global

economic recovery for the foreseeable future , even though other countries must certainly help. This crisis
began in the US - and it is going to have to be solved there too.
currency problems that the US has grappled with for decades. Given all this,

Economic decline causes global war

Royal 10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction U.S. Department
of Defense, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of
Economic Crises, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political
Perspectives, Ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215)

Less intuitive is how periods of

economic decline may increase the likelihood of external

conflict . Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and
defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable
contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that

rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent
power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As
such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power
(see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances,
(Feaver, 1995). Alternatively,

increasing the risk of miscalculation

even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a

permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner.
1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among
major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions

future expectation of
trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and
security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they
have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for
difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases , as states
will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources . Crises could potentially be the
trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent
states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external
armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a s trong
remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that '

correlat ion between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during
periods of economic downturn . They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and
presence of a
recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external
conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been
linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004),
mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the

which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government.

"Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic
decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external
military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg,
Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller
(1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that

the tendency towards diversionary tactics are

greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to
being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak
economic performance in the U nited S tates, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically

linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic
integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links
economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national
levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and
deserves more attention.

Advantage 2: Food Security

Food crises are coming- offshore aquaculture expansion is key
to food stability
Tiller et al 13 [Rachel Tiller, PhD, Post Doctoral Fellow with a focus on marine
research at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Fulbright Scholar,
Russell Richards, PhD with research expertise in coastal and ocean management,
Griffith University, Rebecca Gentry, former Policy Analyst at the Ministry of Fisheries,
New Zealand, PhD student at the Bren School of Environmental Science and
Management, Stakeholder driven future scenarios as an element of
interdisciplinary management tools; the case of future offshore aquaculture
development and the potential effects on fishermen in Santa Barbara, California,
Ocean & Coastal Management Volume 73, March 2013, Pages 127135,
ScienceDirect, online]

In light of this, the following paper discusses these challenges looking at the case of future offshore aquaculture development in the
US. The perceived effects of this industry are explored from the vantage point of the stakeholders affected. This is important given
that some research suggests that 2436% of wild fish stocks have collapsed worldwide and that 6872% of global fish stocks are
overexploited or collapsed (Worm et al., 2006; Pauly, 2007, 2008; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2010). This global
concern has provided researchers and resource managers with a common understanding that capture fisheries have a strong impact

If business as usual is continued, serious threats

to global food security could be imminent given the downward trend of the
capture fishing industry's access to wild fish coupled with an increased global
reliance on seafood for protein, largely driven by big emerging economies like India
and China (Antunes Zappes et al.). Global fisheries policies have for decades mitigated
on the ecosystem in which they operate.

commercial fishing efforts in an attempt to reduce the rate of fishing pressure on

wild stocks. Several solutions have been suggested to stop this downward trend of fish supply, including no-take Marine
Protected Areas (MPAs) and moving from single species fisheries management to that of EBFM (Ray, 2011). There has been,
however, increased attention on more direct adaptation possibilities for ameliorating the juxtaposition between the
increased demand for seafood and declining wild supply, and the necessity to find more efficient means of
food production to feed a growing population. The primary method has been by
aquaculture expansion during the last few decades in the US and beyond (Abdallah and Sumaila, 2007; Olin et al.,
2012). Aquaculture already accounted for 46 percent of total global food fish supply in 2008 and is the fastest-growing
animal-food-producing sector globally, even outpacing human population growth (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2010).
The per capita supply of animal protein from aquaculture has also increased, from 0.7 kg in 1970 to 7.8 kg in 2008, reflecting an
average annual growth rate of 6.6 percent although this growth rate is beginning to slow. This adaptation process,
thus, has now taken a step further by moving out beyond the sheltered coves, fjords, ponds and lakes where aquaculture has

industry is looking further offshore for future development,

which is reflected in the explicit consideration of policy makers to opening up US
federal waters to offshore aquaculture in recent years (Varmer et al., 2005; Welp et al., 2006; Abreu
historically occurred. Currently,

et al., 2011; Impson, 2011; Oosterveer and Spaargaren, 2011; Boyd, 2012). This mitigation path by policy makers could be
considered a de facto realization that the attempts to mitigate capture fishing efforts to reduce pressure on wild stocks is failing

the need to rethink the opportunities for increased global seafood

production while still accounting for fisheries management has been realized. The
(Kalikoski et al., 2010). Given this,

possible interplay that will take place between stakeholder interests when an offshore aquaculture industry goes commercial,
however, is imminent and requires addressing. The paper thus first introduces the development of US offshore aquaculture. This is
followed by a description of the current state of scenario building in the literature, in both the natural and the social sciences and
the differences between these. For the latter, the case of offshore aquaculture development where both Systems Thinking and
Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) are used together in a workshop setting is proposed as a method for eliciting stakeholder driven
scenarios that are quantitative in output. This method was tested on a core group of stakeholders identified as being likely impacted
if offshore aquaculture were to be developed in Santa Barbara, namely commercial fishermen. This research sought to document
how fishermen perceive offshore aquaculture will affect them. While stakeholder perceptions of impact are not necessarily accurate
in terms of likely actual impacts, it is perception that often gives rise to conflict, and therefore understanding and addressing these
perceptions is essential for any successful policy process (Adams et al., 2003). The paper then proposes moving from an ecosystemic to a socio-ecological system of managing the marine environment by including expert data elicited from the stakeholder
workshops into existing biological prediction models, or by specifically creating new models. The scenarios extracted from the
stakeholder participatory workshop and the follow up interviews describe the possible impact of a future offshore aquaculture
development off the coast of California from the vantage point of a potentially affected stakeholder group. We suggest that in a
more comprehensive interdisciplinary model, an early warning system for managers can be developed as a policy recommendation
tool, delimiting the variable paths toward each stakeholder driven scenario. We also suggest that this type of stakeholder driven
information would be critical for policy makers to understand where potential future conflicts are likely to occur, in order that
identified or perceived conflicts can be investigated, addressed, and resolved or mitigated in the planning stages for offshore
aquaculture. 2. US offshore aquaculture developments The United States is a major consumer of seafood, including aquaculture
products. In 2010, however, 86% of seafood consumed in the US was imported with half of this produced through aquaculture. This
import of 5.5 billion pounds per year was valued at $14.8 billion in 2009 (Abdallah and Sumaila, 2007). The necessity for import
stems from the US aquaculture production, both fresh and marine, accounting for only 5% of US seafood supply, with marine-based
aquaculture supplying less than 1.5%. Furthermore, US aquaculture production is ranked 13th globally after countries such as China,
Canada, Norway and Chile. Indeed, the US imports about 300 million pounds of farmed salmon every year, primarily from Canada,
Norway, and Chile. This dependency on imported seafood leads to an annual seafood trade deficit of over $9 billion (Antunes Zappes

Until recently, there has been

no universal method of obtaining permits for aquaculture in US federal waters beyond
the 3-mile state waters to the limits of the US Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Access to sites in coastal
areas under state jurisdiction face challenges of their own with competing claims to
coastal usage as well as a plethora of local, state and federal permits under the
existing US laws and regulations ( Welp et al., 2006). The US EEZ is large however, and setting aside 500
km2, which accounts for 0.01% of the entire area under federal marine jurisdiction, would allow for an additional
600,000 metric tons of additional seafood to be produced annually ( Carr and Heyman, 2012).
et al.; U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004; Santa Barbara Mariculture, 2011).

The lack of a regulatory framework in US federal waters has thus effectively prohibited aquaculture ventures and the expansion of
the industry for domestic seafood needs to be met with national products ( Edelman, 2012). In 2004, however, it was recommended
by the US Commission on Ocean Policy that there be established a regulatory framework for aquaculture licensing in federal waters.
A National Offshore Aquaculture Act would clarify federal regulatory requirements, allowing businesses and individuals to obtain a
permit to operate in federal waters ( Welp et al., 2006). In lieu of this, however, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), the primary federal agency, under the Department of Commerce, charged with overseeing and permitting aquaculture production in the US
( Santa Barbara Mariculture, 2011) has taken charge. In working toward lessening the trade deficit in seafood commerce, the Department of Commerce
and NOAA released national sustainable marine aquaculture policies during the summer of 2011. One of the implementations toward this goal is the Gulf
of Mexico Fishery Management Plan for Aquaculture, which includes the required regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture production in the Gulf

Starting up offshore aquaculture could potentially not only increase

domestic seafood production dramatically, but also provide job opportunities among others to U.S.
( Abreu et al., 2011).

fishermen, in for instance jobs that involve vessel maintenance and maintenance of offshore operations ( FAO, 20052012).

US is key to food stability- shifting away from current sources

is key to prevent destabilizing food crises
Coleman 12 [Isobel Coleman, Senior Fellow and Director of the Civil Society,
Markets, and Democracy Initiative; Director of the Women and Foreign Policy
Program, U.S. Drought and Rising Global Food Prices, August 2,]

ongoing drought in the Midwest has affected approximately 80 percent of the U.S. corn crop
and more than 11 percent of the soybean crop, triggering a rise in global food prices
(RFE/RL) that CFR's Isobel Coleman says may fuel political instability in developing countries. The United States

produces approximately 35 percent of the world's corn and soybean supply, commodities that are "crucial in the food chain, because

Growing demand for meat and protein from emergent middle

has made many countries dependent on "relatively inexpensive food stocks"
from the United States, she explains. "When you see a crop failure of the magnitude you have seen this
summer, it flows through the whole food chain ," says Coleman, who recommends reconsidering the U.S.
they are used for feed stock for animals," Coleman says.
classes internationally

ethanol mandate and building "more resilience into the global food system." How is the U.S. drought affecting commodity crops,
food production, and prices? As recently as May, experts were predicting a record crop in the United States--and of course, what the

with severe
drought in the Midwest, you've already seen a failure in the soybean and corn crop in the
United States. That increased world commodity prices, and it is going to trickle through the whole food
chain. This is the hottest summer on record in the United States since 1895, and people are beginning to wonder whether this
type of drought that we're experiencing could become a new normal. The United States is a pivotal player in
world food production and has the most sophisticated ag ricultural sector in terms of
seeds, technology, irrigation, deep commodity markets, and future markets. If the United States crop
United States does is so important, because the Midwest is the bread basket for the rest of the world. But

is so devastated by drought, what is going to happen to the rest of the world? How do rising U.S. food prices affect global food prices
down the world's food supply chain? Which areas of the globe are most at risk? There are many large food producers in the world.
China is the largest wheat producer, but it is also the largest wheat consumer. What makes the United States unique is that we are
the largest exporter, so we produce about 35 percent of the world's corn and soybean supply. Those two commodities are crucial in
the food chain, because they are used for feed stock for animals. Around the world you have rising middle classes, a growing
demand for meat and protein in the diet, and countries around the world are becoming increasingly dependent on relatively
inexpensive food stocks from the United States. When you see a crop failure of the magnitude you have seen this summer, it flows

you have American livestock producers taking their pigs

and cattle to the slaughter house because they simply don't have the food to be feeding
them. So you're going to see meat prices in the short term in the United States go down, but over the longer term you're
going to see rising meat prices; [experts] are predicting already 4 to 5 percent price
increases in meat for the next year. That flows through the whole food chain , [to] bigpopulation countries that import a lot of food, such as the Philippines, Afghanistan, Egypt. And when you see rapidly rising
food prices, of course it leads to instability. We've seen [this] in the last five years across many of those countries,
through the whole food chain. Right now

and you see rising food prices translate almost directly into street protests. You're going to see the continuation of [political]
instability driven in part by rapidly rising food prices. In 2008, we had food protests across much of the Middle East, so

governments are going to be

very much on the alert for unrest and very sensitive to it. Egypt is already
spending about one-third of its subsidies on food, and it is draining the Egyptian foreign exchange reserve to continue those
subsidies. This combination of an already mobilized population out on the streets demanding lots of different changes [in Egypt],
and rising food prices is going to create a very unstable atmosphere. What are some policy responses for alleviating the pressures
being felt in the United States and other countries because of rising food prices? In the United States, we have to look at our own
policies that are part of the problem, [including] our mandated use of ethanol in gasoline. This is something that is a mandated [10]
percent that is not flexible, and when you have rising food prices and a problem with the failing crop, you would think that maybe
we could lighten up on the ethanol mandate. Because right now so much of our food production is going into ethanol. So you've

already seen governors across the United States in some of the hard-hit states saying, "Shouldn't we review our ethanol policies?"
That's not a short-term fix, but it is potentially longer-term and something we should be looking at carefully. In terms of policy, we

We have more mouths to feed every year, and food security for
the world is a critical issue. We should be looking at how to build in more resilience into the
global food system. Africa, which has the highest population growth rates of any continent in the world, used to feed itself
have a rising global population.

and used to export food, but [its] agriculture has suffered tremendously over the last half century. Only 4 percent of the land in
Africa is even irrigated, and you've seen a green revolution occur in many parts of the world that has really passed Africa by. And so
building in greater resilience and improving the agricultural capacity of Africa is a critical part of this equation, so that Africa has
more of an ability to feed itself and become more a part of the global supply chain and not be so dependent on it. Unfortunately,
governments have not made the investments in the agricultural sector that they needed to over the past half century, which is why
you have this situation in Africa today.

Food wars go nuclear

FDI 12 [Future Directions International, an Australian-based independent, not-forprofit research institute, International Conflict Triggers and Potential Conflict Points
Resulting from Food and Water Insecurity,]

There is little dispute that conflict can lead to food and water crises. This paper will consider
however, where

parts of the world,

food and water insecurity can be the cause of conflict and, at worst,

war. While dealing predominately with food and water issues, the paper also recognises the nexus that
There is a growing appreciation that the
conflicts in the next century will most likely be fought over a lack of resources . Yet, in a
sense, this is not new. Researchers point to the French and Russian revolutions as conflicts
induced by a lack of food. More recently, Germanys World War Two efforts are said to
have been inspired, at least in part, by its perceived need to gain access to more food . Yet
the general sense among those that attended FDIs recent workshops, was that the scale of the problem
in the future could be significantly greater as a result of population pressures,
changing weather, urbanisation, migration, loss of arable land and other farm
inputs, and increased affluence in the developing world. In his book, Small Farmers Secure
result in

exists between food and water and energy security.

Food, Lindsay Falvey, a participant in FDIs March 2012 workshop on the issue of food and conflict, clearly
expresses the problem and why countries across the globe are starting to take note. . He writes (p.36), if
people are hungry, especially in cities, the state is not stable riots, violence, breakdown of law and order and
migration result. Hunger feeds anarchy. This view is also shared by Julian Cribb, who in his book, The Coming
Famine, writes that

if large regions of the world run short of food , land or water in the decades

that lie ahead, then wholesale, bloody wars are liable to follow . He continues: An increasingly
credible scenario for World War 3 is not so much a confrontation of super powers and their allies, as a festering,
resource conflicts. He also says: The wars of the 21st Century are less
likely to be global conflicts with sharply defined sides and huge armies, than a
scrappy mass of failed states, rebellions, civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and
genocides, sparked by bloody competition over dwindling resources . As another

self-perpetuating chain of

workshop participant put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to war over resources, either to protect or to
gain the resources for themselves. Another observed that hunger results in passivity not conflict. Conflict is over
A study by the I nternational Peace Research
Institute indicates that where food security is an issue, it is more likely to result in
some form of conflict. Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such
wars. Governments, especially in developed countries, are increasingly aware of this
phenomenon. The UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, the US Center for Strategic and International

resources, not because people are going hungry.

and the Oslo Peace Research Institute, all identify famine as a potential trigger for
conflicts and possibly even nuclear war.